Rather than responding via comments on my last post, I thought I would just post another blog addendum. For those that haven’t read one of my older posts on Channeling, you can find it HERE.
So a few thoughts, but first, a clarification! When I suggested the idea of no spell failure, I didn’t mean to suggest an automatic SUCCESSFUL spell casting. I was probably too vague; it was a new idea and I threw together the blog post in a rush. What I meant was no spell failure roll–so while the Diety might not grant the spell (to be discussed in a minute) there might not be a negative effect normally attributed to a failed SCR. The concept akin to a surge protector–the diety acts as a buffer to any negative backlash. Of course an “active” god can always punish a follower in a number of ways at anytime…
Per my previous Channeling blog, we have a Channeling SCR due to a casters attempts to cast a higher level spell, cast quicker than normal, or under other non-optimal conditions. But now I’m thinking that if they don’t make a successful SCR that’s it, no failure roll, they just don’t get any reaction from their god. In some ways that adds more cinema to the action than a purely mechanical resolution.
A few other thoughts:
- Great feedback. My “deconstruction” posts are about stripping away memes, tropes and mental models, so I appreciate everyone that is willing to think outside their comfort zone. One of the great benefits of the RMBlog is the differing viewpoints, and the willingness to absorb other peoples ideas!
- The ongoing debates between rules among the various RM versions really woke me to caring less about rules. To me, Rolemaster will always be a versatile and fundamental toolkit and game engine no matter what version. I feel the lack of adventure material (not rule companions) is the real challenge. RMU may not convert everyone, or even sell that well, but new adventures, campaign books and modules will continually expand the RM ‘verse.
- I think everyone hit on a key point: Channeling is SO specific to setting that RM/Spell Law might be better to eliminate the realms in the primary book and create a framework where spells could be allocated to differing magical systems.
- I would also re-iterate that the concept of Channeling may require a re-think of imbedded scrolls and magical items. Should you be able to imbed a Channeling spell onto a scroll and then have ANYONE (even an evil opponent of the Diety) use Runes to cast the spell. Does that make any sense? Not to me.
- Ultimately, Channeling works best for me if it’s in direct correlation with the God(s) and their aspect and power. That requires a Channeling Realm to be developed simultaneously with the settings Divine plan. The idea that all clerics, followers or holy warriors have access to the same base powers is pretty boring and un-original.
One thought on “Spell Law Deconstructed. Channeling & Spell Failure. Pt. II”
Regarding channeling items, I think Dan did a great job of making channeling alchemists different from the other realms in RMU Treasure Law (and essence and mentalism alchemists are different from each other too). There are lists for charms (which basically give a little protective favor from the god), demonic binding (for that kind of god), disenchanting, sacred items, golems, creating holy places and structures, sacred purpose for creating items that are limited to particular faiths or purposes, sacred runes, and tattoos.
Sacred items work with items or effects that are based on the faith. Sacred runes do embed channeling spells but can easily (1st level spell) be made extremely difficult to use (-100) for non-members of your faith. Tattoos are non-transferable so there’s no concern about non-members taking them. Sacred places and structures are also not so transferable.
So, there’s not a lot of just general-purpose items here that anyone can pick up and start using. Much less than you will find in the other realms.