Forums of the Megaverse®

Can the spell energy field be moved once it is cast by a level 7 wizard? My player is arguing with me because I wouldn't let him cast energy field twice and move them to smash the militia that's after his party.

Now, in his defense, I did used a mobile energy field as a trap 3 games ago, but it was in an alchemist's tower. So, yes, I got very inventive with the traps.

As a general rule, I would say no BUT I would allow it to be anchored to a moveable point... so if you attached your energy field on a wagon, you could move the wagon, but the field itself would stay attached to the wagon.

Mark Hall wrote:As a general rule, I would say no BUT I would allow it to be anchored to a moveable point... so if you attached your energy field on a wagon, you could move the wagon, but the field itself would stay attached to the wagon.

...and if you know Anti-Gravity Flight you can really bowl your enemies over.

pblackcrow wrote:Can the spell energy field be moved once it is cast by a level 7 wizard? My player is arguing with me because I wouldn't let him cast energy field twice and move them to smash the militia that's after his party.

Now, in his defense, I did used a mobile energy field as a trap 3 games ago, but it was in an alchemist's tower. So, yes, I got very inventive with the traps.

Text does not say if you can or can not. GM's call. I would lean toward immobile though. They could create one EF that is immobile and use something else "mobile" to smash them into the wall (PF might not have it, but Rifts has a Magic Shield spell (Wizard Level 3, WB16 FoMo or BoM for sure, might also be in RUE, granted you'd have to convert, then there is the issue of TK can be used to move the shield, etc...). Or use EF to trap them and then another spell(s) to hit them inside (in the past we found that the psychic powers of TK:FF and Pyrokenesis column of flame could be pretty devastating).

As an Alchemist Trap (or any magic artifact builder) I'd say it doesn't follow the same rules as general spell casters.

My thoughts would be "if you could move this around and use it to move things... then it would have a listed PS. It doesn't so that isn't an ability it has"
After all, squashing a militia would require forcing them all to move....that's getting into some serious PS areas there. It would become the ultimate weapon able to bowl over power armor with ease and the like.
The fact that it doesn't seem to be able to do that, nor has it ever been implied to be able to be used like that suggests that it is an immobile field.

To: Mark Hall, Khanibal, Eliakon, and future posters...do you guys agree with ShadowLogan that as an alchemist trap, it doesn't have to follow the same rules that a general spell caster does? Even though yes, it was anchored to two sliding panels...one below and one above. Fortunately for them, they figured that destroying 1 or both of the panels would destroy the sliding one. Dwarf hit the bottom one with his hammer and the wizard in question targeted the top one with an energy bolt spell. The dwarf hit for 40 (including bonuses) which broke it free and sent it flapping back. The wizard got a 20...needed a 35 to brake it...but since it was energy and the gears and everything was metal and Mum-Ham, the mummified hamster, that was on the treadmill in the middle of the gears didn't have but like 5 sdc and 1 on the wrappings. So...um, yeah...POOR MUM-HAM, his job as an NPC was cut short. He sorta got disintegrated.

1) In Rifter #6 Hugh King suggest that NPCs shouldn't get gear or powers that the players can never get.
2) Palladium books' guiding principle is that NPCs get gear and powers the players can never get.

So, yes, your NPC-only class can break the rules of ANY spell.

pblackcrow wrote:To: Mark Hall, Khanibal, Eliakon, and future posters...do you guys agree with ShadowLogan that as an alchemist trap, it doesn't have to follow the same rules that a general spell caster does? Even though yes, it was anchored to two sliding panels...one below and one above. Fortunately for them, they figured that destroying 1 or both of the panels would destroy the sliding one. Dwarf hit the bottom one with his hammer and the wizard in question targeted the top one with an energy bolt spell. The dwarf hit for 40 (including bonuses) which broke it free and sent it flapping back. The wizard got a 20...needed a 35 to brake it...but since it was energy and the gears and everything was metal and Mum-Ham, the mummified hamster, that was on the treadmill in the middle of the gears didn't have but like 5 sdc and 1 on the wrappings. So...um, yeah...POOR MUM-HAM, his job as an NPC was cut short. He sorta got disintegrated.

I would say that an NPC, especially an Alchemist doesn't have to follow the normal rules no.
Between custom researched variations and the weird stuff that Alchemists do...
You can have some weird one off stuff.

But just because "NPC <name> can do something odd with something that is based on something and my or may not be that exactly" doesn't mean that the PCs can do odd stuff.
And in this case it sounds like it supports the "can not move" theory since the fields weren't moving. What they were anchored to was moved.
So in this case the mage in question could cast energy field on some sort of moveable object and then move said object around to accomplish the desired feat... but they can't simply move the energy field itself.

pblackcrow wrote:To: Mark Hall, Khanibal, Eliakon, and future posters...do you guys agree with ShadowLogan that as an alchemist trap, it doesn't have to follow the same rules that a general spell caster does? Even though yes, it was anchored to two sliding panels...one below and one above. Fortunately for them, they figured that destroying 1 or both of the panels would destroy the sliding one. Dwarf hit the bottom one with his hammer and the wizard in question targeted the top one with an energy bolt spell. The dwarf hit for 40 (including bonuses) which broke it free and sent it flapping back. The wizard got a 20...needed a 35 to brake it...but since it was energy and the gears and everything was metal and Mum-Ham, the mummified hamster, that was on the treadmill in the middle of the gears didn't have but like 5 sdc and 1 on the wrappings. So...um, yeah...POOR MUM-HAM, his job as an NPC was cut short. He sorta got disintegrated.

There are a few things to keep in mind in general...:
1. You could state the NPCs know a variant of the spell in question that allows them to use a spell differently than the one in the book(s), and that the mage hasn't learned it. This isn't without precedent either as magical classes (wizard, necromancer, conjurer, etc) of spells do exist with enhanced or "cheaper" spells not found in other classes (necormancy and Circle magic each have different ways to create a more powerful version of the Wizard Animate and Control Dead, and an Earth/Air Warlock can create Golem or Zombie like creatures with the right spell combination)
2. Techno-Wizard construction rules in RUE do allow spells to be modified by other spells, so in the case of the Alchemist trap (or who ever) they might know a secondary spell that they used in conjunction to achieve the desired effect. This is a megaversal aspect, but one not without precedent (there are spells to enhance duration, or manipulate illusions after they are cast, and Elemental magic shows that spells can have a stacking effect). Now a spell to manipulate EF may or may not exist (megaversally, AFAIK it doesn't), but that doesn't mean one can't be created (one of the Nightbane SBs has rules for creating new spells and variants IINM).
3. Alchmeist created magic weapon features (in PF2E mainbook) don't have the same performance as their spell counter parts (ex. Fireball/Lighting Bolt damage/range)
4. They might be misidentifying the active spell(s) involved.

Heck, "I am able to do odd things with regular magic" is explicitly baked into the rules I wrote for alchemists, so....