Enchanted Weapons

[Banned Beetle]

Automatic casting is fine, as Matrices always used to be automatic-cast.

Matrices always used to be automatic-cast? Are you saying they were automatic in RQ3? Unless it was some sort of special item, I always played with that you had to cast the spell as normal. Can't remember reading anything else either.

Trifletraxor.

 

[soltakss]

We have always played them as automatic cast, for longer than I can remember.

Maybe it was just a very longstanding houserule.

 

[ninthcouncil]

In that case, why not have the chance of making an enchantment limited to the minimum of the Enchant and Relevant Runecasting skill?

That's a sensible idea but it doesn't really solve the problem - even a guy with just 20% is going to succeed eventually. In fact, by the time he's done it 4 times his chance of succeeding at least once has grown to nearly 60%. For a Magnitude 4 Weaponbless, for instance, this means that after 3-4 enchanting sessions (that's two days (16 hours) work each, i.e. about a week) Mr Twenty Percent - an incompetent bozo - is likely to have a +20% to hit, +4 damage weapon which has cost him nothing except a week's lost employment opportunities and 4 POW, which he can rebuild.

For reference, in a certain other game often ridiculed for its ridiculous oversupply of magical geegaws, a +4 weapon is worth 32,000 gp, costs half that in materials and 32 days work to produce, and requires a character to be 12th level and have taken a fairly specific Feat.

It would help slightly more to require both the spell and the enchantment to be rolled, but I'm still not sure it fully solves the problem.

In addition to the house rules I've already suggested, some material cost might be in order - perhaps 500 x M^2 silver, where M is the magnitude? This would be expended whether or not the enchantment worked.

Otherwise, the MRQ world ought by rights to be awash with magic items.

 

[Yoda300]

The reduced MP cost seems really bizarre. I wonder what the rationale is there?

You cast Heal 1 (one MP) and the Power Enhancer augment your spell to magnitude 4 (in this case).

Enchantment is so going to be house-ruled.

The rules are clearly incomplete. Thought they'll be an extension in Magic of Glorantha, but it isn't the case. We will need clarifications.

Matrices always used to be automatic-cast? Are you saying they were automatic in RQ3? Unless it was some sort of special item, I always played with that you had to cast the spell as normal. Can't remember reading anything else either.

I agree here. Used POWx5% or 95% or sorcery skill. The matrix only hold the know-how, it doesn't cast the spell itself (that's what magic spirits are for).
We could use a rule saying that the chance of casting a spell from a matrix is the same as the chance that the enchanter had at the time of the enchanting.

 

[ninthcouncil]

The reduced MP cost seems really bizarre. I wonder what the rationale is there?

You cast Heal 1 (one MP) and the Power Enhancer augment your spell to magnitude 4 (in this case).

This this isn't a Power Enhancer enchantment we're talking about; it's just a Spellcharge. There shouldn't be any "power enhancement" as that isn't the purpose of the enchantment - it's a freebie. I suspect it was written with the Sorcery rules in mind, without considering how it would interact with Rune Magic.

Enchantment is so going to be house-ruled.

The rules are clearly incomplete. Thought they'll be an extension in Magic of Glorantha, but it isn't the case. We will need clarifications.

They're Core Rules, so they should work out of the box, not be extended in a Glorantha-specific volume.

Matrices always used to be automatic-cast? Are you saying they were automatic in RQ3? Unless it was some sort of special item, I always played with that you had to cast the spell as normal. Can't remember reading anything else either.

I agree here. Used POWx5% or 95% or sorcery skill. The matrix only hold the know-how, it doesn't cast the spell itself (that's what magic spirits are for).
We could use a rule saying that the chance of casting a spell from a matrix is the same as the chance that the enchanter had at the time of the enchanting.

That I quite like; it discourages boobies with 25% spellcasting rolls from enchanting rubbish items.

It's also not clear whether the user of an item charged with a Rune Spell needs to have the relevant Rune(s) integrated. The lack of any influence from the abilities of the item user suggests not, which is a further unintended bonus, if the rules are used as written.

 

[Adept]

We have always played them as automatic cast, for longer than I can remember.

Maybe it was just a very longstanding houserule.

I'm pretty sure it went like this:

Rune (divine) magic was "automatic" (100%-enc as usual). (we always used rune magic as automatic though. It seemed silly rolling for that.

Battle/Spirit magic was POW*5 + magic modifier, just as usual. Having a matrix meant you didn't have to have the spell in memory.

Sorcery spells had to be started from magic modifier (possibly at a +d6) and you had to build the skill normally.

 

[Adept]

In the Magic of Glorantha book the runes are presented somewhat closer to the classic RQ/Gloranthan powered crystals.

A sample heroquesting result/reward was something like this: You take an ordinary sword along on the quest, and when you come back the sword has an embedded rune on it's pommel, and a something like a bladesharp 4 effect powered by the rune!.

That's how I would deal with enchanting MRQ runemagic, especially if the spell works with a reduced MP cost. To enchant a rune magic item, you have to sacrifice/embed a rune into the item! That will make your players think twice about creating items on a whim. Much better than an abstrach cost in silver coins á la D&D, I think.

 

[gamesmeister]

That's how I would deal with enchanting MRQ runemagic, especially if the spell works with a reduced MP cost. To enchant a rune magic item, you have to sacrifice/embed a rune into the item! That will make your players think twice about creating items on a whim. Much better than an abstrach cost in silver coins á la D&D, I think.

There are two different Enchanting effects at work here.

1) Spellcharge Enchantment: Embeds a spell into an object, which requires 1MP to trigger. Therefore yes, you could force the enchanter to embed a rune into the item, which is pretty expensive but not unreasonable.

2) Weaponblessing Enchantment: Gives a permanent 5% bonus to attack and parry and a permanent +1 damage, per point of POW invested. This can be done via Rune magic, Divine Magic or Sorcery, and therefore doesn't follow the same rune requirement.

On a weapon, there's no point embedding Bladesharp onto it as you might as well use the Weaponblessing enchantment for the same result, but without the MP cost to trigger it (plus the latter is an easier enchantment to perform).

 

[ninthcouncil]

On a weapon, there's no point embedding Bladesharp onto it as you might as well use the Weaponblessing enchantment for the same result, but without the MP cost to trigger it (plus the latter is an easier enchantment to perform).

I must say that I find it very strange that it should be easier to enchant an object with a permanent effect requiring no further MP expenditure, than to embed a spell with the same effects, but that has duration, has to be triggered and requires MP expenditure. That's just counter-intuitive.

I'll stop banging on about Enchantment now, I think, in case I start to sound obsessed. :roll: :wink:

 

[elgrin]

Having followed the thread, it looks a distillation along these lines would be suitable for play.

Divine Spells, the embedded Rune required - good heavy requirement in line with the abilities of the spell

Rune spells (Battle magic to us oldies), the 'Enchantment is simply a spell matrix which saves holding the spell in mind (looks like free Int may need to make a comeback to control who can remember what). The caster can then access it directly, using only 1 CA, but the casting is done by him. The requirement to integrate the Rune will be optional on the GM to suit their campaign.

For any characters with 'Runes to spare'(as if that will ever happen) or following a successful HeroQuest. they still have the option of using a Rune and having it embedded for use of a Rune Spell, which will cast on command automatically at the level of the Spell caster who actually embedded it.

 

[Halfbat]

I suspect it was written with the Sorcery rules in mind, without considering how it would interact with Rune Magic.

The more I reread the more I think it wasn't intended for Rune Magic at all. It only talks about Divine Magic and Sorcery without mentioning Rune Magic in the description at any time. :roll:

I can't help but agree with the "no-brainer" suggested of using the POW equal to the Magnitude of a Rune Magic spell. The flexibility given, even with the the loss of POW, is huge and on the surface does seem a bit one-sided but not, perhaps, as much as might be expected.

However, on the loss of POW I think the RAW is better balanced than has been suggested: one side of the POW improvement equation cannot be looked at can be looked at without taking the other into consideration. As a result, I'm not too worried about the regaining of POW.

For example, if a character puts Heal 4 into an item his POW drops from (say) 14 to 10. Sure, he only takes a 4% hit on Persistence and Resilience rolls, but he's also 4 POW down to store Divine Magic and in MP to power _any_ spell - and he can only cast the spell twice rather than three times.

Improving his POW after this isn' t so quick or easy as suggested: to regain the lost POW on average it will take around 21 experience rolls (around 7 checks, perhaps more) to regain that lost 4 POW (3 each at 50%/45%/40%/35% chances with the failure chances at each step), which is an incredible number of rolls and demands a large amount of questing using the RAW! And if the character is more POWerful it's even worse.

Of course, if a GM allows a large number of experience checks or easier Characteristic gain it's a different issue... but then that's a houserule rather than RAW anyway.

Just a thought....

 

[Licheking]

My answer is easy, the Enchanting rules only apply to Sorcery. This means that like the God learners enchanted items are all over the place. But in the future when the God learners die out they become rarer as they break, burn out or are lost.

Now Enchanting is only available to Sorcerers who require their POW for spell casting so they are unlikely to use loads of their own POW making items for the rest of the group, but they make some low level stuff to help out everyone. In my own game that i'm running, the sorcerer of the group looked at enchanting and decided not to bother since he wanted to keep all his POW for spellcasting. But then my group is all about Role-playing not power gaming and number crunching.

Frankly the better quality weapon abilities you can buy are just as gross, and more accessible since you just need to spend money on them. Look at Baleful, only requires Marvellous quality so you can have 2 levels of Keen put on it, on a greatsword you get a 4d8+2 greatsword for 10x cost. Enchanting doesn't sound so bad now does it.

 

[Rurik]

The Greatsword with Baleful and 2 Keen would be 2d10+2, not 4d8+2.

If a character wants to contract a superior Item to be made they will need to find a skilled anough craftsman. Skill is halved 3 times, so even with a 200 skill the chance of the weapon coming out is only 25%, after waiting the 10x base time. And if you are playing in Banned Beetles game such weapons will all the more difficult. :wink:

I assume such a skilled smith will require some payment for his time even if the weapon does not come out, as he could have spent the time creating normal, or even greater items, at no chance of failure, for a garanteed return of the same amount as if he makes his 25% roll on the greater item. So I would think he wants at least half of the item cost even if the attempt fails. Perhaps more.

That is the way I intend to play it.

 

[simonh]

But then my group is all about Role-playing not power gaming and number crunching.

In which case, I'm surprised you're using any version of RQ!

 

[Rurik]

Related to my above post and also to the ease of enchanting I think it may be worthwile to say that an enchantment attempt 'uses up' an items potential for enchantment. If you fail enchanting an item you cannot just attempt to enchant it again.

The logic behind this is that a major part of the enchanting process is the preparation of the item in question, including inscribing all the correct runes and such. If you fail you can't just cross out your bad inscriptions and start over. Boy would that sword it took ten attempts to create look like a mess.

Another thought would be to require the correct craft skill as well for the item being enchanted. How exactly to you inscribe the correct inscriptiona on a blade without knowing anything about swordsmithing? Grease pencil? So maybe you have to roll uner both enchanting and craft skill or ruin the item. This would limit the ease of enchanting items and specifically enchanting superior items.

 

[Mugen]

I must say that I find it very strange that it should be easier to enchant an object with a permanent effect requiring no further MP expenditure, than to embed a spell with the same effects, but that has duration, has to be triggered and requires MP expenditure. That's just counter-intuitive.

Personnally, I will simply not use this enchantment.
If one of my players want a magic sword, he'll have to do it through a BladeSharp matrix.

 

[Deleted_Account]

One way to deal with all of this is to give the item a POW score and it's own MP pool.

Every POW invested into the item gives the item 1 POW. When you cast a spell from the item, 1 magic comes from the user, and the rest comes from the item.

In addition, POW can be invested into an item for the sole purpose making the item charge faster. Every point of POW invested in this manner adds 1 to the POW of the weapon, but also allows the weapon to regenerate 1 POW every 8 hours.

Items without built-in regeneration take the wielders excess MP. If MP regeneration would cause the wielder to have more than max MP, the excess is funneled into items, starting with the lowest POW item and going up.

This places a very strict limit on how often magical items that cast spells can be used. Investing your POW in a magical item is still effective, because you do away with skill checks.

Weapons enchanted with to-hit and damage use 1 MP per 2 points of extra damage (rounded up) on every successful use (be it a hit or a parry). These come first from the wielder, and then from the weapon.

Enchanted weapons become something you only want to use if you don't have any other use for your MP.

 

[ninthcouncil]

Related to my above post and also to the ease of enchanting I think it may be worthwile to say that an enchantment attempt 'uses up' an items potential for enchantment. If you fail enchanting an item you cannot just attempt to enchant it again.

The logic behind this is that a major part of the enchanting process is the preparation of the item in question, including inscribing all the correct runes and such. If you fail you can't just cross out your bad inscriptions and start over. Boy would that sword it took ten attempts to create look like a mess.

Another thought would be to require the correct craft skill as well for the item being enchanted. How exactly to you inscribe the correct inscriptiona on a blade without knowing anything about swordsmithing? Grease pencil? So maybe you have to roll uner both enchanting and craft skill or ruin the item. This would limit the ease of enchanting items and specifically enchanting superior items.

A variant on this approach would be to only enable enchanting of objects while they are being made, with the enchanter needing to also be the crafter. The enchantment is an intrinsic part of the being of the item, and can't be added on top afterwards.

 

[Adept]

But then my group is all about Role-playing not power gaming and number crunching.

In which case, I'm surprised you're using any version of RQ!

It's not quite that bad. One could go for realism* at least with RQ2 / RQ3. The system does little to help portray characters, but it doesn't actively resist it either (like D&D pretty much does).

*as opposed to power gaming

 

[Licheking]

A little off track, but, a system with rules doesn't preclude the ability to Roleplay, that comes down to how much effort players and GM's want to put in, the rules of a game are always there to add and adjudicate the experience.

In my experience, some 20 years now, it doesn't matter how many or complex or simple the rules are to a game, the roleplaying comes from the players and the GM's ability to describe the environment and adventures as well as the people and places. In fact the so called storytelling systems with few rules i have found were no good for roleplaying since more questions were raised about how things would work because they were so vague. Whereas systems with any level of detail understood by everyone in the group became part of the background and wern't constantly questioned therefore enhancing the roleplaying experience.

Sorry again for going off-track.