More on Divine Magic

[Rurik]

It has no effect on magic cast against you from the snippet of information given in the book.

So Iron weapons can be useful in some situations, but iron armour is a realy, realy bad idea if you have any intention of using or resisting magic.

This is a big change. It actualy makes iron wearers significantly more vulnerable to magic, rather than less vulnerable as in previous editions. Very strange, I wonder what the reasoning is behind this?

To keep Wizards from wearing armor and Fighters from casting spells. :twisted:

 

[simonh]

As in RQ3. I suppose a Consecrated area would do, too. These Enchantment rules are a Powerplayer's dream, mates.

They certainly go a huge way to mitigate worries about divine magic being under powered. Ok so you have to go through the hoops of making enchantments, but it's worth it. The only fly still in the ointment is the rarety of POW increases, but as you can drop your POW down to 5 or 10 with relatively little penalty, it's not so bad.

Good. Looks like a workable set of rules in this area.

 

[Vadrus]

It has no effect on magic cast against you from the snippet of information given in the book.

So Iron weapons can be useful in some situations, but iron armour is a realy, realy bad idea if you have any intention of using or resisting magic.

This is a big change. It actualy makes iron wearers significantly more vulnerable to magic, rather than less vulnerable as in previous editions. Very strange, I wonder what the reasoning is behind this?

To keep Wizards from wearing armor and Fighters from casting spells. :twisted:

Sort of buggers Orlanthi Runelords though

{edi} And insert 'OMG it's getting too AD&D comment here' (getting slow in my old age, didn't recognise your inference at first).


Vadrus

 

[B_Steele]

To keep Wizards from wearing armor and Fighters from casting spells.

Now, now...there is nothing to stop martial-type characters from learning a bunch of nifty spells, just as there is nothing against spell-heavy characters from wearing armour.

Just not IRON.

Sheesh.

Bry

 

[RosenMcStern]

Rurik wrote:
In RQ3 if a Sorcerer combined three spells and manipulated the magnitude, range, and duration he would get 6 experience checks.


I'm not sure about that. Weren't those skills knowledge skills and so could only be increased through research? Not 100% sure about that. IIRC you could improve spells by experience but not intensity or the other sorcery skills.

You remember correctly. Though the fact that now you need to spend research time to increase the spellcasting skill, too, makes a sorcerer's life harder. But the advantages are HUGE, on the other hand.

I start liking these rules, isn't it visible ?

 

[RosenMcStern]

They certainly go a huge way to mitigate worries about divine magic being under powered. Ok so you have to go through the hoops of making enchantments, but it's worth it. The only fly still in the ointment is the rarety of POW increases, but as you can drop your POW down to 5 or 10 with relatively little penalty, it's not so bad.

Good. Looks like a workable set of rules in this area.

You get an average of one POW increase per adventure, if you forfeit other increases. Not that bad, I think. In RQ3 my players used to cast Disruption at fleeing opponents to get a chance to increase POW, which is not exactly an example of rule-induced good roleplaying. So yes, it looks fine to me, too.

 

[Rurik]

In RQ3 if a Sorcerer combined three spells and manipulated the magnitude, range, and duration he would get 6 experience checks.

I'm not sure about that. Weren't those skills knowledge skills and so could only be increased through research? Not 100% sure about that. IIRC you could improve spells by experience but not intensity or the other sorcery skills.

You might be right. I think in my group the sorcery skills got experience checks but that is assuming that: 1)I am remembering correctly, and 2) We weren'r playing 'wrong' in that regard.

Either way, the point of my post isn't really changed. Divine Magic only needing one skill check allocated to it is a big advantage over other magic types.

 

[gamesmeister]

You get an average of one POW increase per adventure, if you forfeit other increases. Not that bad, I think. In RQ3 my players used to cast Disruption at fleeing opponents to get a chance to increase POW, which is not exactly an example of rule-induced good roleplaying. So yes, it looks fine to me, too.

Why would you give them a POW gain roll for that though? All experience in earlier RQ was dependent on performing the action in a stressful situation, where you could then learn from it. I'm pretty sure POW gain rolls fell under the same rules, and even if they didn't they should have.

I'm probably going to stick with the original experience rules, because I can see the new ones generating very one-dimensional characters, but I sure as hell don't give players experience rolls unless they earn them!

 

[gamesmeister]

Either way, the point of my post isn't really changed. Divine Magic only needing one skill check allocated to it is a big advantage over other magic types.

Yeah, this is true. Not sure it's enough to truly set divine magic apart from (and indeed above) other magic sources, but it is a big help, you're right.

I'm still house-ruling it though (Either using the original rules or using your sacrificed POW pool idea.)

 

[Rurik]

Either way, the point of my post isn't really changed. Divine Magic only needing one skill check allocated to it is a big advantage over other magic types.

Yeah, this is true. Not sure it's enough to truly set divine magic apart from (and indeed above) other magic sources, but it is a big help, you're right.

I'm still house-ruling it though (Either using the original rules or using your sacrificed POW pool idea.)

I never said it didn't have its disadvantages! :wink: It is certainly has been weakened compared to the other magic systems when compared to earlier editions. But it is a very appealing aspect of Divine Magic.

The Enchantment bit looks pretty potent too - note that the spell automatically succeeds - no roll needed. Since Magnitudes of Divine Spells are approximately twice as effective as other magic types divine enchantments cost about 1/2 the POW as other magic types (True Weapon costs 3 POW to enchant - compare to Bladesharp 3 or Damage Boosting 3). Of course it is only one use until recharged, but still pretty nice.

 

[Rurik]

Why would you give them a POW gain roll for that though? All experience in earlier RQ was dependent on performing the action in a stressful situation, where you could then learn from it. I'm pretty sure POW gain rolls fell under the same rules, and even if they didn't they should have.

I'm probably going to stick with the original experience rules, because I can see the new ones generating very one-dimensional characters, but I sure as hell don't give players experience rolls unless they earn them!

In RQ 2/3 you got POW increase rolls for winning POW vs. POW rolls for things like Spirit Combat or winning spell resistance rolls. Since there are no POW vs. POW rolls in MRQ POW no longer increases easier than the other stats. I think many of the changes in MRQ are tied to the fact that there are no POW vs. POW rolls any more.

 

[Trifletraxor]

POW roll for a successfull disruption? That's pulling it! :?
My players frequently had a POW below 10 due to successfull divine interventions, but even the POW 3 characters didn't get POW rolls for disruption.

SGL.

 

[canology]

POW roll for a successfull disruption? That's pulling it! :?
My players frequently had a POW below 10 due to successfull divine interventions, but even the POW 3 characters didn't get POW rolls for disruption.

Huh?
I recall that any time you successfully overcame someone's POW in a POW vs POW roll you got a chance to make a Power increase roll. I am pretty sure that Disruption was, in fact, a spell that required a POW vs POW roll.
So why wouldn't you allow a POW increase roll for that?

 

[Trifletraxor]

Huh?
I recall that any time you successfully overcame someone's POW in a POW vs POW roll you got a chance to make a Power increase roll. I am pretty sure that Disruption was, in fact, a spell that required a POW vs POW roll.
So why wouldn't you allow a POW increase roll for that?

Cause my players would start spelling cows unless I put my foot down. I gave a chance to make a POW roll with disruption if the character had extremely low POW, but otherwise, it had to be usefull to count. If there was something else you could do that was more effective, I didn't give ticks.

SGL.

 

[RMS]

Huh?
I recall that any time you successfully overcame someone's POW in a POW vs POW roll you got a chance to make a Power increase roll. I am pretty sure that Disruption was, in fact, a spell that required a POW vs POW roll.
So why wouldn't you allow a POW increase roll for that?

All increases (skills, POW gain, etc.) gained from adventuring in RQ2 and RQ3 were only when done in a stressful situation. This was specifically to prevent experience check hunting and it worked great. The situation described above would result in no POW check. Now if they were reoccuring enemies and the PCs wanted a parting shot for good in-game reasons, I'd grant it. I would never allow much of the abuse of the experience system I've read about in RQ 2/3. (I never had to deal with players like that, luckily.) Btw, not only do you have to win a POW vs. POW check, but it must be against someone with a higher POW.

 

[gamesmeister]

No, it didn't have to be against someone with a higher POW, but it did have to be a stressful situation.

 

[Trifletraxor]

I would never allow much of the abuse of the experience system I've read about in RQ 2/3. (I never had to deal with players like that, luckily.)

No? My players are a bunch of marauding munchkins. When their enemies were down, they sometimes tried to pull other weapons to finish the job with. Hehehe, never allowed the ticks though.

SGL.

 

[RosenMcStern]

All increases (skills, POW gain, etc.) gained from adventuring in RQ2 and RQ3 were only when done in a stressful situation. This was specifically to prevent experience check hunting and it worked great. The situation described above would result in no POW check. Now if they were reoccuring enemies and the PCs wanted a parting shot for good in-game reasons, I'd grant it. I would never allow much of the abuse of the experience system I've read about in RQ 2/3. (I never had to deal with players like that, luckily.) Btw, not only do you have to win a POW vs. POW check, but it must be against someone with a higher POW.

Don't bother reminding me the RQ3 rules, my average players would always find a way to cast Disruption / Demoralize / Befuddle (sometimes even Ignite on body hair) in a way that would lead either to an endless RuleQuest debate or to a "The GM says no. 'Nuff said" ruling on my part. Which I do not like.

I'm probably going to stick with the original experience rules, because I can see the new ones generating very one-dimensional characters, but I sure as hell don't give players experience rolls unless they earn them!

Yes, apart from tick hunting and the bad effects of unlucky rolls, the RQ3 system allowed more diversified characters. There was always the room for a successful usage of Dodge or Staff attack on the part of a wizard, and that was an almost assured increase with the experience check system. Now I am wondering which spellcaster PC will want to waste an increase roll on a combat skill when magic skills need so many increases to go up at high levels. nevertheless, I do not dislike this system. I have seen too many well-roleplayed characters who could not become RuneLords because of unlucky experience rolls that prevented that last required skill to go up to 90%. This is not going to happen with this new system.

 

[gamesmeister]

So maybe somewhere in the middle is required. Perhaps tick based experience, but one free roll every now and again, maybe awarded for good roleplaying.

The thing is, a Rune Lord will achieve his or her tick so often, that by the law of averages they should succeed eventually (bearing in mind they have a minimum chance equal to their INT under previous rules).

 

[RMS]

No, it didn't have to be against someone with a higher POW, but it did have to be a stressful situation.

This comes up somehwere because I specifically remember ignoring it. Is it spirits or perhaps it's a different BRP game, like Stormbringer? They all blur together after a while. I just reread the RQ2 rules and it spends a paragraph describing how stressful a situation must be to gain a roll.