[Rq-rules] Re: Question about multicast

[Fred Vogel]

Replies inline below.  I apologize in advance for the length!
Fred
----------------------------------------

>From: Simon Phipp <soltakss at yahoo.com>

>As to the Multicast question, I always played Multispell as creating one
>entirely new spell containing the spells multicast within it.

Yes I agree.  This discussion has made me focus real hard on what multicast 
really is.  It is a manipulation skill just like intensity, range, and, 
duration.  I am not completly convinced that when you cast this you are 
casting one spell.  In the case of active spells you are concentrating on 
maintaining the spell and not on using it.

>As for keeping it up, it is an Active spell, so if the sorcerer wanted to 
>cast another spell or do >something difficult, then he'd have to roll an 
>INTx3% to keep the spell.

Yes, again agreed.  This is my understanding of how active spells work.  I 
have seen several references by people mentioning people using active spells 
and then taking other activites such as running, which cannot be done with 
active spells up without concentration rolls.

>... if the Projected Vision goes through walls or through earth/stone then 
>he neds a concentration >rolll. If something shocking happens in the area 
>viewed, such as a dragon appearing, he would >need to make a concentration 
>roll.

I'm not sure I agree with this.  I think in travelling in a wall he risks 
getting lost but don't understand why this would make him have to 
concentrace more.  I see it this way because I am of the opinion that 
concentration is maintaining the spell and not so much using it.  I likewise 
don't think seeing a dragon or something would cause him to risk dropping 
the spell.

I do agree that if something happened that caused the caster to be 
"suprised" either on the far or near end; that he would definatly have to 
make a concentration roll.

>...someone with Mystic Vision would be able to see the Projected Vision 
>spell effect, as a little eye, and could target spells at it and affect the 
>sorcerer. He would then
>have to make a concentration roll to keep the spell going.

Again completly agree here.  This is also embodied in the spell descriiption 
and is a built in limitation of the spell.  I have been on the recieving end 
of this and it isn't fun. When i use the spell I have to try to hide the 
eye, but mystic vision by the enemy does tend to find me and put me in 
danger.

>For long duration active spells, I normally require a concentration roll
>every hour. Anyway, they give the caster a headache if they last a long 
>time.

I had not thought of this; but given my view of maintaining a spell, this 
seems like something that would be reasonable to consider.  Clearly, a 
person can only activly concentrate on something for so long and once they 
have reached their threshold it gets progressively more difficult.  Try 
concentrating in a meeting that last 4 hours with no breaks.  Nearly 
impossible.

>Nikk:
>>Suddenly you're attacked! You run away, but your projected sight remains 
>>where it is. For     >> starters, it'll take a while to bring it back, but 
>>more likely you'll run out of range, and the spell - I
>>would rule, is cancelled.
>
>That's exactly how I play it. In fact, he would need a concentration roll 
>to
>keep it up while he is attacked and another while he is running away.

Exactly, a concentration, perhaps more than one or at increased dificulty, 
would be required to maintain the spell.  If they succeed then the spell 
does stay up, if not it drops.  An when the sorcerer runs away from the 
location of his projected sight he could cause it to drop by exceeding it's 
range unless he was trying to actively move it back with him.  That could 
cause further penalties in concentration.  Futhermore, the eye moves so slow 
he would likely be outrunning it.

>>... when you cast Project, do you rule that the Projected Sense appears 
>>anywhere within the >> casting range, or start at the caster and then move 
>>out?
>
>It can appear anywhere within the range, in my opinion.

Actually, despite an explict mention in the description, my concept was that 
the sense being projected would originate at the caster and then have to be 
moved to the location intended; but limited by its range.  It is clearly a 
more powerful spell to make it appear anywhere within the range, but then 
how do you deal with LOS issues?  We have been using it where it originates 
at the caster and has to be moved out.  It limits the spell a bit, but not 
beyond value in my opinion.

>But, there are times when player tactics can totally ruin a game's 
>enjoyment.
>... one session they cast a long-extension Project Vision and scouted out a
>castle, room by room. After 4 hours , I asked them if they were enjoying 
>the session. ...they
>said "No" and they never again used Project Vision in that way, but it was 
>their choice.

Exactly.  When players get "too powerful" or whatever they do real boring 
safe stuff for a short time and then move on to more challenging things on 
their own.  As a GM you don't have to send tougher stuff after them, they 
will seek it out all on thier own.  From what I can tell, at the heart of 
every player is a profiteer, and they realize that you can profit more by 
moving up on the food chain than picking on all the petty easy stuff.  If 
they insist on doing the easy thing and making the game boring, it can 
realistically stay that way for so long.  Sooner or later word will get out 
that a band of thugs are harrasing people and someone will come to take them 
out...isn't that was every western is about?

>If you have PCs with long-duration Fly spells to stop them falling down 
>pits,
>for example, then it can affect how the game is played.

This fixes itself because fly is an active spell and they are limited in 
what they can do while they are using it.  But even so, if it were passive 
and they figured out they could use it to not fall down pits, more power to 
them. God didn't make us not able to have an M1A1 tank because being able to 
target and kill the enemy at 45mph made things to easy or annoying.

Once again, if PCs are doing this stuff, they are not going to be the only 
ones to come up with this idea.  Defenses should be layered.  If a castle 
only uses pits as a defense they deserve to be easily cirmumvented.  If they 
had proper defenses, there would be other traps to counter these things, 
particularly if this was a common circumvention tactic.

>There are ways around it, though, I would play that someone with a Fly 
>spell could only move at the speed of the Fly spell, so that should make 
>them think twice about using it.

Again, this is changing the description of the spell to stop the players 
from doing something that it allows.  The purpose of the "rules" is so that 
everyone has a common expection to the outcome of actions.  When you start 
changing that you are changing how the game works on the fly and then 
expectations of outcomes can no longer be trusted.  This makes PC's no trust 
thier GM, makes them find the GM to be an adversary, and makes them like the 
game less.

>People with other long-duration spells would detect as magical or show up 
>on
>Mystic Vision/Second Sight as being powerful sorceres, so would be the 
>likely
>recipient of the multimissiled Arbalest barrage.

Perfectly reasonable response from an enemy.

>Yes, but not everyone plays according to the spirit of the rules.

The GM is the rules of the game.  Players are restricted to the parameters 
that you let them, not the other way around. If a tactic works it works, it 
not, it doesn't, so what?

>One thing I have found particularly useful is the maxim "Let others do unto
>you what you do unto others". So, if the PCs use Project Vision to spy on
>enemies, then they will be the target of Project Visions.

While i wouldn't do this to PC's just because they do it; they certainly are 
not immune to tactics that they use.  I think it is definatly fair game for 
the rest of the world to be able to do what the PCs do.  That is the way the 
real world is.  If you like to spy using sight project you are a real idiot 
if you are shocked and upset that someone is using it to spy on you!

Fred