Cults of Glorantha 2 - sorcery questions

[Deleriad]

A few sorcery spells have Mag 3, 4, or 5 as a trait. What does this mean? Does it mean that the spells must be cast at that magnitude using the Manipulation skill?

Read Grimoire says that the magnitude of the spell must be "matched" against the number of spells -what does this mean? Is this spell meant to be permanent or instant or does the ability run out after Duration expires.

Healing sleep says "While in this sleep, he heals at a rate equal to the spell’s Intensity." Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as Intensity, nowhere does it say what this means.

Spells such as Create Basilisk and Create Familiar need to be either permanent or instant - presumably the latter. Similarly Bless Corpse.

Bless (Animal/Person) - can any skill be chosen for this or is there a different blessing for each skill?

 

[Voriof]

My answers may be flawed. I wrote CoG 2 before some major revisions to the Sorcery rules occured.

A few sorcery spells have Mag 3, 4, or 5 as a trait. What does this mean? Does it mean that the spells must be cast at that magnitude using the Manipulation skill?

I believe so. These are some fairly powerful spells, IIRC. I'd have to go and check. The lexicon changed between writing and publishing, sadly.

Read Grimoire says that the magnitude of the spell must be "matched" against the number of spells -what does this mean? Is this spell meant to be permanent or instant or does the ability run out after Duration expires.

Er, what? Yes, you must have a magnitude at least as large as the number of spells in the grimoire you are trying to translate.

This spell was originally an enchantment and some of the original text was removed so here's a somewhat rewritten version...

This enchantment transforms a grimoire into a readable form for the wizard. The caster may attempt to read a grimoire in a language or code he cannot read. The Magnitude of the spell must match or exceed the number of spells contained in the book. Should the attempt succeed, the wizard is now able to read the spells and learn them, as they are now in a language he can understand.

When the spell duration expires, the enchantment ends. Each time this ritual is performed, the user expends 1 POW permanently in addition to the magic points used. Should the enchantment be broken (by defacing the runes of the spell on the book), the grimoire reverts to its original language.

Without being able to read the grimoire, it may be difficult to determine how many spells it contains.

SIDE NOTE: This means that the duration must be extended long enough to read and learn the spell. However, durations have changed so it may just be that the spell lasts until the grimoire is defaced and is thus a Permanent instead.

Healing sleep says "While in this sleep, he heals at a rate equal to the spell’s Intensity." Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as Intensity, nowhere does it say what this means.

Play nice.

Intensity = Magnitude. Again, lexicon changes occured.

And the healing rate is equal to the magnitude. Thus, you cast the spell at magnitude 2 and you heal twice as fast while in the trance.

Spells such as Create Basilisk and Create Familiar need to be either permanent or instant - presumably the latter. Similarly Bless Corpse.

Yep. The first two were orginally enchantments. The spells were changed.

Bless Corpse was originally an Instant. I do not know why it was changed.

Bless (Animal/Person) - can any skill be chosen for this or is there a different blessing for each skill?

The skill is chosen by the caster - however it should be from the order/church/etc skills only. That's probably something for the errata. Otherwise we have another case of creeping incompetence.

Hopefuly this helps.

Jeff

 

[Deleriad]

Play nice.

8) There must be times when it gets very frustrating writing for Mongoose...

Intensity = Magnitude. Again, lexicon changes occured.
...
Hopefuly this helps.
Jeff

Thanks for these answers. They are generally guessable but it's nice to have an official stamp as it were.

The only thing that is an issue are those spells with a Magnitude # as there needs to be an explanation as to what it means. My take on it was simply that a spell with a Magnitude # is not progressive and must be cast at that magnitude. That said, a spell with Magnitude 3, for example, is pretty easy to cast and, as per the rules, would still only cost 1 MP so it is a very minimal restriction.

Read grimoire would need to be a permanent as even a master of Duration can only extend the spell to 3 hours in duration which is clearly not long enough to make any progress.

Similarly I doubt Healing Sleep can be made useful. IIRC a person recovers 1 HP/day. At Magnitude 10 this would be one HP per (roughly) 2.5 hours and that also requires Duration 10 in order to get 3 hours of spell. I'm guessing that the changes in Duration nobbled this spell. Perhaps change it so that the Duration of the Spell is measured in hours rather than minutes - that way Duration 10 would be roughly 180 hours - more than enough.
I will say that the problems with CoG 2 sorcery are basically fairly minor and 95% of it is really well done.

 

[Voriof]

Hopefuly this helps.
Jeff

The only thing that is an issue are those spells with a Magnitude # as there needs to be an explanation as to what it means. My take on it was simply that a spell with a Magnitude # is not progressive and must be cast at that magnitude. That said, a spell with Magnitude 3, for example, is pretty easy to cast and, as per the rules, would still only cost 1 MP so it is a very minimal restriction.

Or the spell's effects progress in that multiple of magnitude. Or somesuch. I would have to go and look. What spells did this, if you can recall?

Read grimoire would need to be a permanent as even a master of Duration can only extend the spell to 3 hours in duration which is clearly not long enough to make any progress.

That would be my thought. The stabalize spells might be similarly treated. Or turn some back into enchantments. Again, something for the errata.

Similarly I doubt Healing Sleep can be made useful. IIRC a person recovers 1 HP/day. At Magnitude 10 this would be one HP per (roughly) 2.5 hours and that also requires Duration 10 in order to get 3 hours of spell. I'm guessing that the changes in Duration nobbled this spell. Perhaps change it so that the Duration of the Spell is measured in hours rather than minutes - that way Duration 10 would be roughly 180 hours - more than enough.

I think I'd have done with it and make it a 1 day duration spell. I am usually opposed to sorcery spells which are useless at Magnitude 1 but some effects simply aren't very granular. The downside is fairly severe with this spell, so I'd go with the 1 day duration.

I will say that the problems with CoG 2 sorcery are basically fairly minor and 95% of it is really well done.

Thanks - I would note that much of the sorcerous material had to be retrofitted to the new rules by Richard.

Jeff

 

[soltakss]

Play nice.

No, play nasty, kick them when they're down and never, ever leave an enemy alive behind you.

That's the way to play. Climbing over a mountain of corpses to kill more things, destroying a whoole village to punish them for hiding one of your enemies, building a throne made of bones on a hill made of skulls.

None of this play nice malarky.

 

[OldMongooseFordy]

It's a while ago since I edited this so please stick with me, but as far as I can remember the Magnitude trait was set high on the spells in question to reflect the high level of power needed to cast them. Therefore to create one undead you would need to expend 5 magic points, as opposed to the usual 1 for all Sorcery spells.

As written, the Healing Sleep spell is pretty much bobbins, the fact that I left the Progressive trait on it, which Sorcery spells don't have in MRQ, shows that. Essentially, had I had more time to refit the spells to the rules set, Healing Sleep would heal 1 Hit Point to a location of the caster's choice for every 10 minutes of the spell's Duration. By using the Manipulation (Duration) skill this amount can be increased. Thus it is more efficient to add the Magnitude (Duration) effect to the spell, rather than simply casting it numerous times. I'd probably give it the Casting Time 2 and Touch traits.

And yes, where it says 'intensity' please read it as Magnitude.

Fordy

 

[Deleriad]

It's a while ago since I edited this so please stick with me, but as far as I can remember the Magnitude trait was set high on the spells in question to reflect the high level of power needed to cast them. Therefore to create one undead you would need to expend 5 magic points, as opposed to the usual 1 for all Sorcery spells.
Fordy

Thanks for the insight. It does open up several issues though. As a quick comment, sorcery spells have a cost of 0, not 1. That aside, if Create Zombie has a cost of 5 then that does need to be put in some errata somewhere.

Secondly, Create Zombie doesn't need any manipulation to work therefore, even adding that errata, your average peasant who has found the scroll "Creating Zombies for Dummies" and now has a 23% chance of doing so can create their first zombie within a day of finding a nice fresh corpse. As written, each failed attempt costs 0MP and there is no Magnitude requirement so you can create a zombie with just 23% in the skill.

An awful lot of the problems with sorcery, especially in the Spellbook, are due to this interaction with magnitude when the spell is not written to scale with magnitude.

 

[Loz]

Secondly, Create Zombie doesn't need any manipulation to work therefore, even adding that errata, your average peasant who has found the scroll "Creating Zombies for Dummies" and now has a 23% chance of doing so can create their first zombie within a day of finding a nice fresh corpse. As written, each failed attempt costs 0MP and there is no Magnitude requirement so you can create a zombie with just 23% in the skill.

Here's where I'd expect to see GMs exercising both some common sense and some creativity. I can see what you're getting at with this example, but it does offer some wonderful roleplaying/scenario opportunities. So, Billybob Jackdoe of backwater Ralios finds a Create Zombie scroll, studies it and learns the skill at 23%. Sure he can make a zombie with the requisite dead body, and he'll do so successfully, but as a GM I'd be looking at his competency in the skill. At 23% he's a novice so perhaps that zombie would be far more sluggish than usual; perhaps it just moans and rolls its eyes, but can't move. Or maybe it can move, but is blind and simply stumbles around and cannot follow instructions properly.

My point is: look at the skill in the spell and apply some caveats based on it. That's the GM's job and its quite within his gift to say that, although Billybob made a zombie, as he's still got a lot to learn, his initial attempts might be very flawed and nowhere in the league of an experienced sorcerer who's been churning out zombies for years.

Yes, I know there are rules as written, and those imply that Billybob's rolling under his 23% in the spell is as successful as an experienced sorcerer, but a GM's job is to look at the circumstances, the situation, the characters and the rules, blend 'em, and help come up with something fun but still filled with gaming potential.

 

[OldMongooseFordy]

Of course you're right on all points Deleriad. Perhaps then having the Magnitude figure placed in the traits section should be stricken, and instead it should be stated within the body of the spell that it costs 5 MP for each attempt at casting, and regardless of the result, a fresh corpse is required for every attempt (although I do like Loz's suggestion).

Obviously this makes it slightly easier for Billybob the Farmer from Ralios, but unless he also has access to some form of Dominate or Control (Undead/Zombie) spell he might find himself in a spot of bother once he has finally managed to create the undead.

Fordy

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Here's where I'd expect to see GMs exercising both some common sense and some creativity. I can see what you're getting at with this example, but it does offer some wonderful roleplaying/scenario opportunities. So, Billybob Jackdoe of backwater Ralios finds a Create Zombie scroll, studies it and learns the skill at 23%. Sure he can make a zombie with the requisite dead body, and he'll do so successfully, but as a GM I'd be looking at his competency in the skill. At 23% he's a novice so perhaps that zombie would be far more sluggish than usual; perhaps it just moans and rolls its eyes, but can't move. Or maybe it can move, but is blind and simply stumbles around and cannot follow instructions properly.

There are times when I think the approach of "The GM needs to apply common sense & creativity regardless of the rules" is a very sensible approach (usually when I suggest it) and times when I think it is a very poor fix for poorly written/designed or inadequately tested rules (usually when offered as a fix by writers/designers connected with the game - sorry Loz...)

The problem with this particular approach can be seen by contrasting it with other skills, as people did in the other sorcery/magnitude thread.

Billybob also learns to shoot a longbow at 23%. When his village is attacked by Broo, he takes cover on the roof of the inn, where he can shoot at them uninterupted - which is just as well since with only 23% it takes him 5 attempts before he finally manages he hit. He reaches for the 2d8 hoping to take out his opponent before they set fire to the inn...
"Hang on" says the GM "you're a bit of a novice at this archery lark, so your shots are ony about 1/4 to 1/5 as effective - that's 1d4 damage..."

 

[Deleriad]

There are times when I think the approach of "The GM needs to apply common sense & creativity regardless of the rules" is a very sensible approach (usually when I suggest it) and times when I think it is a very poor fix for poorly written/designed or inadequately tested rules (usually when offered as a fix by writers/designers connected with the game - sorry Loz...)

8)

More pertinently, where I come from is being back into rpging (due to MRQ) after a long time involved in CCGs and boardgaming. In a RPG rulebook what I think you should be able to expect is consistent answers to common questions. Naturally there always mistakes that creep in.

So, for example, if a player tells me he wants to use the Create Zombie spell he's just learned I want the rules to tell me the basics. Player rolls dice and succeeds. I figure it's perfectly ok to tell the player that the zombie's basically a bit pants because he's not very experienced at the skill. It's not, however, ok, to tell him, "your zombie is going to have all of its stats halved because you're not very good at the skill". It's analogous to the rules for a craft skill I figure.

Ironically, CCGing has made me a less heavy-handed GM than I used to be. I generally figure these days that if a player does something by the book then it's not really my job to reinterpret the book if it gives me a result I don't like unless there's a massive problem in which case I'll tell players precisely that. Once upon a time I would have used Loz's approach. These days I'm more likely to say, "Congratulations! Your first zombie. You must be very proud. Right, everyone roll initiative*..."

.
.
.
*Except I don't use MRQ initiative but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Loz]

There are times when I think the approach of "The GM needs to apply common sense & creativity regardless of the rules" is a very sensible approach (usually when I suggest it) and times when I think it is a very poor fix for poorly written/designed or inadequately tested rules (usually when offered as a fix by writers/designers connected with the game - sorry Loz...)

Does being a writer/designer invalidate my approach or position as a GM then - which is the POV I'm coming from on this debate? Sorry to sound churlish Duncan, but I don't think your remarks, even if made tongue in cheek, are especially fair. I wasn't attempting some kind of fix - just describing how I, as a GM, if faced with this sort of situation, would approach it. My being one of the Mongoose writers has nothing to do with it.

The problem with this particular approach can be seen by contrasting it with other skills, as people did in the other sorcery/magnitude thread.

Billybob also learns to shoot a longbow at 23%. When his village is attacked by Broo, he takes cover on the roof of the inn, where he can shoot at them uninterupted - which is just as well since with only 23% it takes him 5 attempts before he finally manages he hit. He reaches for the 2d8 hoping to take out his opponent before they set fire to the inn...
"Hang on" says the GM "you're a bit of a novice at this archery lark, so your shots are ony about 1/4 to 1/5 as effective - that's 1d4 damage..."

And you're quite right. Such an application would be ridiculous. But surely the approach is going to depend on the kind of skill being used? Sorcery spells are complex formulae and, as such, not comparable with, say, the archery skill. Its about the GM looking at the circumstances, situation and skill being used and applying sound reasoning based on those conditions. In your archery example, Billybob, on top of the inn, in an advantageous spot, would be given, by me, certainly, +20% or +40% to his Archery skill to reflect his actions and advantage. With his Create Zombie attempt, which is based on a complex, unfamiliar, magical skill you could, quite legitimately, rule that, due to inexperience, the zombie's a success but, as Deliriad said, 'a bit pants ' in some respect or another.

If Billybob was a trained sorcerer, rather than a peasant who's stumbled on a Create Zombie scroll, then I'd rule that, even though Billybob might find creating the zombie is on the difficult side, his general sorcerous training means he creates a zombie that isn't pants, because, due to his training and vocation, he can achieve an appreciable result. Its about looking at the circumstances, the skill and the character's background.

 

[soltakss]

One easy fix is that a Sorcery Spell costs 0 MPs and has 0 Magnitude.

If you want Magnitude then you have to use the Magnitude skill.

It's not very helpful as you can't just cast a spell with no sorcerous training, but that's probably a good thing.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Sorry guys, but this is turning into some sort of "Bash the writers" thread, and I will not restrain myself, either :wink:

I am not very happy with your suggestion, Loz. You imply that, all other details being the same, a spell works differently according to the caster's background. Average Joe's zombie is less functional because it was created by a peasant, not because of the 20% skill, whereas Arlaten the Sorcerer who has also just learned the spell can cast it with full effectiveness. This sounds dangerously like Character Classes from That Other Game(TM) to me.

Simon's suggestion seems more straightforward, albeit it was probably not what Fordy had in his mind when he edited the description: make the spell effective only when it is cast at Magnitude 5 or more. This means that even if have managed to read some obscure necromantic scroll and figured out how to cast the spell, it will do you no good if you are not at least 41% proficient in Manipulation (Magnitude).

 

[kintire]

Actually, I think that making "Animate Zombie" so easy that anyone can cast it, and "Control Zombie" much harder is a great thing... :twisted:

 

[Voriof]

Actually, I think that making "Animate Zombie" so easy that anyone can cast it, and "Control Zombie" much harder is a great thing... :twisted:

Hurray. Someone noticed.

Jeff

 

[RosenMcStern]

Yes, but unlike Ye Olde CoC Cartoon in which the party Summoned a Dimensional Shambler and then asked the GM "Do you mean that there is a separate Bind Spell for it?", it is not so difficult to chain the zombie-to-be to a wall before the ritual.

 

[Deleriad]

One easy fix is that a Sorcery Spell costs 0 MPs and has 0 Magnitude.

If you want Magnitude then you have to use the Magnitude skill.

It's not very helpful as you can't just cast a spell with no sorcerous training, but that's probably a good thing.

The drawback to this is that every spell now requires looking at two skills every time and suddenly sorcery is only useful to fully-paid up sorcerers. The first problem is just an issue of overhead, the second drawback is only a drawback if you play in a world like Glorantha where peasants actually do know sorcery.

My preferred fix is that a *failed* spell costs 1MP (plus manipulation) but all else stays the same.

On the more general points raised upstream, the issue for me lies in the responsibilities of the rulebook. I don't want to make it seem like I'm picking on anyone here, but the Create Undead spell is, to me, a classic example of rulebook failure so I'll use it as an example because it has problems on three levels.
1. Technical. The spell description and formulation simply fails and the author and editor explain why above. It's on the level of an instruction which says "press the green button first" when there is no green button because the button makers have decided to use blue switches instead.
2. Structural. The possibility of being able to cast the spell for 0MPs due to the sorcery system. Although this is, essentially, a feature of the system, it's the kind of feature that tends to sow doubt about the system as it just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of system.
3. Simulation. Finally, you are left with an old issue about percentile systems, what does it mean to be 25% at Create Undead? Is my zombie better or worse than someone else's zombie? Is someone who is 25% with shooting a longbow better/worse/equal at shooting arrows than someone who is 25% with creating zombies is at creating zombies?
(actually, given that the base chance for the former is DEX as opposed to INT+POW then the archer has probably spent more improvement rolls on his archery than the zombie maker has on his zombies).

I would say that the prime responsibilities of a rulebook are to get the technicalities correct and to create a consistent structure and design around it. For me, too much of the Mongoose RQ line has failed on the first two points. In RPGing you can usually hand-wave your way out of most problems - it's the beauty of pen, paper and real people - as no rpg rules-set is going to be complete. Every rules set is really just a foundation, however MRQ keeps crumbling when I run it. It's a shame because as far as I can tell there are several really talented authors working on the line.

 

[Loz]

I am not very happy with your suggestion, Loz. You imply that, all other details being the same, a spell works differently according to the caster's background. Average Joe's zombie is less functional because it was created by a peasant, not because of the 20% skill, whereas Arlaten the Sorcerer who has also just learned the spell can cast it with full effectiveness. This sounds dangerously like Character Classes from That Other Game(TM) to me.

Then feel free to ignore it. As said previously, this is just one of doing it and suggested from a GM's POV; not from the POV of introducing a rule fix as a Mongoose writer.

I'm saying that, if one has issues with any Tom, Dick or Billybob finding a sorcery scroll and using it, the approach I've offered is a simple, logical way of handling it. Its up to the GM and his style. But, since you raise it, I'd imagine that if a peasant and a sorcerer, both with an equal Create Zombie skill, were to raise a zombie, then the sorcerer, because he's been trained in the sorcerous arts, will most likely make a better fist of the deal than the peasant. Why? He'll have the mindset. He'll know the principles of rituals. He'll perhaps know how a body has to be prepared. He has experience. So, yes, experience, training and vocation absolutely count for something. Although how you suddenly translate that into the emergence of D&D Character Classes is beyond me. I don't think anything was further from my mind.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Does being a writer/designer invalidate my approach or position as a GM then - which is the POV I'm coming from on this debate?

Of course not - though in this case, I don't much care for your suggested fix anyway,

Sorry to sound churlish Duncan, but I don't think your remarks, even if made tongue in cheek, are especially fair. I wasn't attempting some kind of fix - just describing how I, as a GM, if faced with this sort of situation, would approach it. My being one of the Mongoose writers has nothing to do with it.

It is particularly unfair in this case, as neither the writing or the editing of the spell is anything to do with you. It would be worse, of course, if I were happy to accept the same change if it had been suggested by someone with no mongoose connections - say Rurik, for instance.

I was merely pointing out that one of the things I expect/hope for from a set of rules is to set out a level of expectation that can be shared between the GM and all the players - and here the rules suggest that a player with a 20% "Create Zombie" will, on average, create a functional zombie one time in every 5 attempts. I suspect as a player I would be upset to discover that the GM was interpreting it as being on average create a malfunctioning zombie once in every 5 attempts. (Much depends of course, on when and how I found out)

And you're quite right. Such an application would be ridiculous. But surely the approach is going to depend on the kind of skill being used?

By and large, no. The basic rule is that your skill is the %age chance that you succeed in the activity. If I'm using a cookery skill to prepare a meal (given that I have the correct ingredients to hand) then I expect to get an edible meal if I make my roll, not a creative GM deciding that I've only got a low roll, so the resulting concotion is inedible. If I have a "Create Zombie" spell and the correct ingredients then I expect to get a Zombie at the end, not a mound of twitching flesh...

In your archery example, Billybob, on top of the inn, in an advantageous spot, would be given, by me, certainly, +20% or +40% to his Archery skill to reflect his actions and advantage.

I didn't consider giving him a bonus for being on the roof - I just wanted him somewhere he could get enough shots to stand a chance of hitting before they rushed him! - Let's make it a windy night and a steeply pitched roof, cancelling out the bonuses :wink:

With his Create Zombie attempt, which is based on a complex, unfamiliar, magical skill you could, quite legitimately, rule that, due to inexperience, the zombie's a success but, as Deliriad said, 'a bit pants ' in some respect or another.

Well I didn't think perhaps it just moans and rolls its eyes, but can't move. Or maybe it can move, but is blind and simply stumbles around and cannot follow instructions properly was 'a bit pants'. I thought it was taking an ability the player had legitimately taken and used and making it completely pointless.

If we don't want Joe Normalpeasant going around creating zombies with a skill of 23% then I think the answer is to amend the spell so it is clear in the rules that he can't, not rely on the GM making an ad-hoc ruling every time, such that a player never knows whether or not it's worth trying to cast a spell.

If Billybob was a trained sorcerer, rather than a peasant who's stumbled on a Create Zombie scroll, then I'd rule that, even though Billybob might find creating the zombie is on the difficult side, his general sorcerous training means he creates a zombie that isn't pants, because, due to his training and vocation, he can achieve an appreciable result.

Again, this fails my reasonableness test. If a peasant and a trained warrior both learn a new weapon "War Flail" at 23% then I'd expect, as per the rules, that both are equally proficient with it, not that the GM will decide that one is better than the other due to background

(I can imagine exceptions to this, but it would be in where you call for rolls, not how you interpret them. Fred the Godlearner and Pete the Praxian both have 30% ride Bison, though Fred has never actually ridden a live bison before. Fred needs to roll to Mount the beast, and to start it moving, Pete only needs to roll to persuade it to jump over a small skullbush. In all cases though a success indicates they stay on the beast, and a failure indicates they end up on the floor)


If a peasant's "Create Zombie" 23% is worse than a Necromancer's "Create Zombie" 23%, at what level does a peasant achieve parity? Will a peasant with "Create Zombie" 50% create better or worse Zombies than a Necromancer with "Create Zombie" 23% if they both make their rolls? Is a Peasant who learned "Create Zombie" 23% 3 years ago, and who has been casting it every week going to be creating better zombies than the necromancer who finished learining "Create Zombie" 23% this morning, but has never cast it before?