Resisting Magic

[Space Coyote]

I'm trying to understand how the updated magic rules work.

1) The caster declares which spell he'll cast and if (and how much) he will overcharge it.

2) The target declares how many MPs he will use to resist. Since dodging requires a reaction, I guess this has to be declared before knowing if the caster actually manages to cast the spell.

3) Both roll their modified skills. Or perhaps first the caster has to make a simple roll to cast the spell, and then he makes another roll vs. the target resistance? I assume the former, but I'm not really sure.

OK, now what happens?

If only the caster succeeds while the target fails, fine. This is the easy case. The spell works at full strength.

If both fails, according to the general rule on opposed rolls, whoever rolled lower wins, but I guess this rule doesn't apply in this case. Actually, on rereading the update, it seems to me that this rule has been informally dropped.

If both succeeds, but the target obtains the higher roll, the spell fails. Even if the target dove for cover, which usually only halves the damage?

If both succeeds, but the caster obtains the higher roll, the spell works. However, the spell takes effect only at its base value; the additional
Magnitude of the spell is successfully resisted. Of course, overcharging has no effect on the magnitude of a spell. I guess this refers to the other two effects of overcharging, that is besides the penalty to the resistance roll which has already taken effect.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Cheers, Alex.

 

[Rurik]

I'd interpret it like this:

1) Caster declares spell and how much he is overcharging

2) Target declares how many points he intends to overcharge if casting check succeeds

3) Caster rolls. Success or fail he spends MP.

4) Only if the caster succeeds does the target roll and spend MP. He tries to beat the casters roll (and his own skill of course).

If the caster wins the opposed roll but the target succeeds any additional benefit from overcharging is lost (duration and increased magnitude vs. dispelling).

 

[RosenMcStern]

Pete Nash suggested that the Resistance-lowering effect of Overcharging should be dropped altogether, as Rurik suggested in his description. However, I think also the defender should no longer be able to increase his resist roll by spending MP, or else the target could easily become invulnerable to magic againg if he has enought Magic Points.

 

[Rurik]

Pete Nash suggested that the Resistance-lowering effect of Overcharging should be dropped altogether, as Rurik suggested in his description. However, I think also the defender should no longer be able to increase his resist roll by spending MP, or else the target could easily become invulnerable to magic againg if he has enought Magic Points.

I didn't intend to imply that that Resistence Lowering from overcharging should be dropped, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was assuming that it is still used above.

You CAN drop the resist modification for both caster and target if you want, but as yet that is not an official ruling. The steps I posted were in the context of using all official rules as they currently stand - which includes the resist modifiers.

 

[RosenMcStern]

You are right, the modifiers for overcharging have not been officially dropped. However, the opposed roll makes them obsolete (and confusing).

 

[weasel_fierce]

I dont think they are obsolete. The main difference with the update is that a "partial defense" will mean that an overcharged spell does not have the increased duration

 

[RosenMcStern]

I dont think they are obsolete. The main difference with the update is that a "partial defense" will mean that an overcharged spell does not have the increased duration

Well, they are, at least for the skill reduction part. The reasons are mainly two:

a) if you allow characters to Overcharge to reduce the target's resistance, you are introducing an unneeded level of complexity. Do you Overcharge to reduce your opponent's chance of success, or do you keep your skill high hoping to get a "roll higher" result due to your skill being over 100%? While this might be fun for a cunning tactician, it is exactly the sort of complexity that might scare new players.

b) most forum members complained that a 100% Persistence caracter is unaffected by magic, and the update was specifically devised to address this without resorting to Overcharging. If we allow the defender to use MPs to increase Persistence, the "magically invulnerable character" issue is back, considering how many MP storage crystals the average RQ character ends up carrying after a few months of campaigning.

Note: I am not advocating the update as being the final answer to all problmes, I preferred the old system where overcharging was the solution. But a hybrid of the two is the most awful solution possible.

 

[Space Coyote]

I really like that you can spend MP to increase your magic resistance. But then, in order to compensate, the attacker must be able to overcharge, otherwise it's true, you'll end up with magical immune characters.

But I just don't think it really fits with the opposed rolls mechanic. Actually, is there an instance in the game where the opposed roll works as is and does not require special rules/cases? Well, OK, skill use, but still, for the central system of the game... For one, I think that the partial success is an added complication: why does it stop 2 out of 3 effects? (Well, because the third has already occured!) I find it unaesthetical.

FWIW, I don't like the new rules for Persistence and Resilience, too. I don't see the need of a attribute/skill hybrid that never again occurs in the game. I think they work better just as skills.

On the other hand, Sorcery is very cheap! Now we understand why everybody hates sorcerers. At least the spiritist's player (who used to play a sorcerer in RQ3) does!

Cheers, Alex.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Pete Nash suggested that the opposed skill roll to overcome resistance superseded the old mechanics where you had to spend MPs to alter the resist roll. But this is by no means an official answer, although Pete contributed a lot to the update.

The problem, as I stated, is that mixing both systems results in a lot of complications.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Pete Nash suggested that the opposed skill roll to overcome resistance superseded the old mechanics where you had to spend MPs to alter the resist roll. But this is by no means an official answer, although Pete contributed a lot to the update.

Yes, opposed roll spell casting was something I came up with when developing an alternate magic system for a different setting. It simplified spell casting and also overcame the problem of a resistance skills of over 100%. Because of its effectiveness and ease of use, it was later included in the Player's Update as an official fix.

My additional and unofficial recommendation that Overcharging (and by implication the defender's counterpoint) should be dropped, was simply to preserve the elegance and speed of using my original rule.

The problem, as I stated, is that mixing both systems results in a lot of complications.

Precisely. Overcharging undermines the whole purpose of the original rule fix.

Honestly, games run much smoother if overcharging and resistance boosting are dropped. But I am aware that some people prefer the legacy rules.

 

[weasel_fierce]

ah, sorry. Yeah, I'd drop the magic point effects on defenses.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

FWIW, I don't like the new rules for Persistence and Resilience, too. I don't see the need of a attribute/skill hybrid that never again occurs in the game. I think they work better just as skills.

I agree with you entirely. The whole reason for my concept of an opposed roll of Casting versus Resistance was so that Persistence and Resilience could remain as unadulterated skills.

Placing an artificial cap on them not only undermines the skill system, but now places the defender at a disadvantage when facing highly trained spell casters; since casting skills can grow without limit, whereas resistance skills no longer can.

The probable reason they were artificially capped was because there is one remaining place in the rules where Resistance skills are used unopposed... The wound level chart.

Unfortunately despite designing a rules fix for this (and streamlining the wound effects too), it never made it to the Players Update. However, it might be coming out in the GMs Handbook and thus see the light of day after all.

Once the rules have been adjusted so that resistance skills are only ever used in Opposed Tests, then they no longer need an artificial cap.

 

[Loz]

Placing an artificial cap on them not only undermines the skill system, but now places the defender at a disadvantage when facing highly trained spell casters; since casting skills can grow without limit, whereas resistance skills no longer can.

I really don't think the cap undermines the skill system at all. Look at it this way. Persistence and Resilience have to be confined by human/species limitations. Whilst both can be trained and improved, like skills, they're still functions of the relatively frail constraints of the physical and mental form. You can boost either through magical or mystical means, but if taken as straight forward capabilities, rather than as skills, Persistence and Resilience can only be taken so far before they reach the limits of species potential. I don't think making this kind of case undermines the way skills are meant to work.

Magic use, on the other hand, is bending and shaping reality and channelling otherwordly power in order to transcend mundane limitations. If a spell caster has trained himself to high levels part of that intention will be to be able to overcome opposition. Powerful magicians should be very difficult to counter - even in a magic rich world - that's the whole point, and its found throughout fantasy fiction and in myth.

That seems realistic to me - something you like to represent, Pete (and I agree with that philosophy). But surely it all comes back to GM fiat and what kind of campaign you're running? If you want a heroic-level campaign where heroes can shrug-off magic and damage in a superhero kind of way, then don't operate the P&R caps. Heck, don't even use P&R to resist magic if you don't want to. If you're running something gritty and realistic, then the cap and the rules reflect that kind of style.

All this remains completely within a GMs control. Consider how you want your game to run and decided on the mechanics to support it. You don't have to use the RAW all the time. All you need to do is explain to the players, even at a convention or demo session, how you are intending to handle magical resistance, Persistence and Resilience, and the reasons why. I've done the same throughout my long GMing career and never encountered issues with it.

To quote page 2 of the RQ rules: 'The Games Master, using the rules in this book as a guideline, decides what effect any actions undertaken by the Player Characters have.' Its old advice but 100% accurate.

 

[Space Coyote]

The probable reason they were artificially capped was because there is one remaining place in the rules where Resistance skills are used unopposed... The wound level chart.

Mmh... This worries me, but we're still far enough from those skill levels that it shouldn't come up in play soon.

In general, I can understand the cap on Persistence and Resilience. However, I would just treat them as attributes: their values equal 30 (or whatever) + characteristics, and they only change if the characteristics change (again, for simplicity and simmetry).

Speaking of increasing characteristics, if I read it correctly you spend 3 improvement rolls, then try to roll above your current value x 5. This means it's impossible to increase a characteristic past 20 with experience, isn't it?

Finally, the reason why I like the "spend MP to change the resitance roll" rule is that it's dramatic: i.e., it gives something to do to the target's player besides rolling a dice. And it's nice to describe.

Cheers, Alex.

 

[Loz]

Speaking of increasing characteristics, if I read it correctly you spend 3 improvement rolls, then try to roll above your current value x 5. This means it's impossible to increase a characteristic past 20 with experience, isn't it?

Pretty much, yes. All species have a maximum value for their attributes beyond which only magical enhancement would be possible. There's further clarification on this in the GMs' Guide.

 

[Space Coyote]

Pretty much, yes. All species have a maximum value for their attributes beyond which only magical enhancement would be possible. There's further clarification on this in the GMs' Guide.

That's the problem: for humans it's 21 (which is already above 20!) but for a dwarf, say, his STR maximum is 27! The same goes for an Elf's DEX. 20 is pretty much below their species maximum. Is this what it's really wanted?

If not, as a quick fix: roll lesser or equal than (species maximum - actual score) x 5 (RQ 2 or 3, don't remember which).

Cheers, Alex.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I really don't think the cap undermines the skill system at all. Look at it this way. Persistence and Resilience have to be confined by human/species limitations. Whilst both can be trained and improved, like skills, they're still functions of the relatively frail constraints of the physical and mental form. You can boost either through magical or mystical means, but if taken as straight forward capabilities, rather than as skills, Persistence and Resilience can only be taken so far before they reach the limits of species potential. I don't think making this kind of case undermines the way skills are meant to work.

I will politely have to disagree with this interpretation and postulate my own!

Although I agree that ultimately any physical or mental skill is limited by the human form, I do feel that Persistence and Resilience are being given unfair limitations.

Most of us on this forum would agree that a world class fighter modeled in MRQ could easily have a skill in excess of one or even two hundred percent. What does that number represent precisely? Why is is difficult to visualise a Resilience or Persistence skill breaking a 100%, such as an alcoholic after years of exposing his body to booze? Or that British swimmer who just set a world record by swimming in sub zero water at the Arctic for half an hour? These people are masters of training their bodies to extreme limits, so why is their mastery not allowed to be 100%+ like any other skill?

The second point is that in real life, mastery of a skill is not normally limited to a physical characteristic. The majority of the best martial artists I've had the pleasure of watching or fighting against have not been hulking brutes with rippling muscles. They've been small slight guys, who've proven that on the whole, technique is superior to physique.

A Himalayan Yogi might not have a particularly high INT, but would that stop him from being able to use his mastery of Persistence to meditate whilst sitting under a waterfall, ignore hunger whilst starving in his cave, or resist the impassioned oratory of a priest of a different faith?

There are plenty of examples of phenomenal human resistance, both physical and mental.

Do we see combat skills capped by your STR or DEX? Do we see knowledge skills capped by INT? In my opinion, if Persistence and Resilience are supposed to be skills then let them be proper skills! If they are supposed to be attributes then the rules should be changed back to RQ3.

Personally I love them as skills. How else can I model the fact that I can sit in a Sauna for hours, whilst you Loz can barely take 5 minutes! Or that you can ignore your howling of a pack of dogs, continuing blithely to write more supplements, whilst I cringe at the pain in my ears!

My last, and most important point is from the perspective of game design... Any skill or ability in a game, must be balanced by an opposing skill or ability of equal nature. If not, the those rules are flawed, and are open to abuse or dissatisfaction.

Capping has substituted one flaw for a less obvious second, but which will still break campaigns once skills rise above the capped values.

To quote page 2 of the RQ rules: 'The Games Master, using the rules in this book as a guideline, decides what effect any actions undertaken by the Player Characters have.' Its old advice but 100% accurate.

That is of course a very sensible piece of advice! :wink:

 

[Deleriad]

Yes, opposed roll spell casting was something I came up with when developing an alternate magic system for a different setting. It simplified spell casting and also overcame the problem of a resistance skills of over 100%. Because of its effectiveness and ease of use, it was later included in the Player's Update as an official fix.

My additional and unofficial recommendation that Overcharging (and by implication the defender's counterpoint) should be dropped, was simply to preserve the elegance and speed of using my original rule.

I must admit that I prefer opposed rolls and the removal of overcharging and the ability to spend MPs to bump up your resistance. I think they have to go together or not at all.
There are still problems though. The RAW "partial success" result makes no sense. It either has to be dropped or modified. Dropping it is easiest with some specific spells (e.g. Fear, Befuddle) possibly having a partial success option.

The game does need an ability to boost a spell in order to overcome defensive Magic. e.g. Boosting a Disruption with 4 MPs to get past a Shield 2 and so on. You could stick with the old RQ rules (basically you just do it). I will put this back in I think.

Finally, back in my RQ3 days I used to allow any character to spend MPs to gain a skill bonus for one skill test. This represented the character's willpower and putting every ounce of him or herself into the attempt. Basically, every MP spent added +5% to the skill. You could cap this at a max (e.g. +20%). With the resistance caps and so on, I am strongly tempted to put this back into my games. It's particularly useful in settings where only specialists have access to magic as it gives non-magic-users something to do with their MPs.

 

[Loz]

Most of us on this forum would agree that a world class fighter modeled in MRQ could easily have a skill in excess of one or even two hundred percent. What does that number represent precisely? Why is is difficult to visualise a Resilience or Persistence skill breaking a 100%, such as an alcoholic after years of exposing his body to booze? Or that British swimmer who just set a world record by swimming in sub zero water at the Arctic for half an hour? These people are masters of training their bodies to extreme limits, so why is their mastery not allowed to be 100%+ like any other skill?

I'd postulate that the mental and physical discipline needed to transcend 100% in a specific skill includes the necessary frame of mind and body to reach these dizzy heights. The fighter who is a master of his sword knows the state of mind he needs to be in to exercise his skill. Ditto the swimmer or the Yogi. They have trained themselves for specific situations and tests, and the skill value represents that capability.

Resilience and Persistence, OTOH, represent a mixture of raw capabilities, that can be trained in general ways, to counter things such as physical and magical harm. The sauna/dog analogies are good ones. When my pack of hellhounds start to squabble I can, sometimes, cut through the racket; but not always. I don't have an 'Ignore Squabbling Basenjis' skill, so my Persistence is tested. This reflects my own innate lack of patience.

On the sauna-side, I can withstand more than 5 minutes (the cheek! I matched you minute for minute last time! And did the lake plunge too...) but I agree there's only so much heat and humidity I can take. Same with hot, sunny days, when I grow sweaty and irritable and much prefer the cool shade. My resilience has reached its limits and I know that no amount of training or acclimatisation is going to improve that.

If one wants to model personal abilities in withstanding certain circumstances, such as fiendish saunas or rabid dogs, then it is simple enough for the GM to offer a bonus to the P or R test in circumstances where the character might be expected to have a general resistance to such things. There is no reason why a bonus cannot take a character over the P & R cap. If a character is being tortured, and has undergone torture before, for instance, then a +20% modifier would be wholly appropriate. Same for resisting an offensive spell from a sorcerer which the character has successfully resisted before.

My last, and most important point is from the perspective of game design... Any skill or ability in a game, must be balanced by an opposing skill or ability of equal nature. If not, the those rules are flawed, and are open to abuse or dissatisfaction.

Game balance is certainly important. But I don't believe that P & R should, by default, be treated in the same way as other skills. If we are both bitten by a Black Widow spider, chances are we'll both go down in the same way to its venom. Our relative abilities to withstand supernova saunas will not matter a jot: our physical conditions are what determine our general ability to withstand various forms of assault, and modelled in game terms, that's a function of Resilience, and the cap models the fact everyone's physique has certain, physical limits.

The best way to go, of course, would be to introduce specialisations within a broad skill range, as with the Craft skill, for example. So the general skill can be trained up to a root maximum (CON x5, say), but specialisations can go beyond this, recognising training in a specific area. That way we can have Pete at Resilience (Sauna) 250%, and Loz Persistence (Squabbling Basenjis) 150%. 'Ringworld' did this, and bloody good it was too. However, RQ's aiming for less, rather than more, game complexity.

Sooo... having rambled on, I can certainly see, and appreciate your argument, but I think the rulings as they've been made are justifiable and there are mechanisms within the game to assist in resolving exceptions whilst still preserving, and modelling, certain limitations. I agree consistency and balance are important, but a case CAN be made for certain differences, although these do need explicit mitigation so that everyone knows where they stand.

Shutting up now. Believe it or not, the bloody dogs have just started a ruck!

 

[Mongoose Pete]

On the sauna-side, I can withstand more than 5 minutes (the cheek! I matched you minute for minute last time! And did the lake plunge too...)

Ah, yes. Which reminds me about those photos. So if I wish to engage you in an opposed test using my Blackmail skill, how much would you say your Persistence was..? :wink: