[Play Feedback] What's the point of Fireblade?

[Halfbat]

OK, I know under previous version Fireblade was hefty (3D6), and some felt it was overpowered, but what's the point of it under MRQ? I ask as one my players (frequently a pyromaniac) has just dumped it in favour of assorted spells and is now hunting down a Metal Rune for Bladesharp 4....

1. Fireblade (Mag 4) and Bladesharp 4 cost the same
2. Bladesharp 4 is more potent on all weapons bar a dagger (and that can be argued: 1d4+5 and +20% vs 1d10? I know which I'd go for)
3. Bladesharp 4 is quicker to cast (2 CA vs 3 CA)
4. Bladesharp 4 lasts longer (10m vs 5m)

Has the attempt at balance/rectification gone too far?
Anyone else come up with this problem?

Firearrow may also have gone too far down, too: it does _less_ damage on a longbow, though I grant you the flames sticking into something can be useful (Ignite anyone?)

 

[Itto]

Its very good for taking on Spirits! Bladesharp 4 is just going to do 4 per hit, Fireblade will be doing 1D10.

But I agree its a under powered in most other situations. I may just alow the player to add the D10 to normal damage as it is a 4 point spell, hardly weak. Or and I'll need to look up setting things on fire but I may give the weapon a chance of making the opponent catch fire, which would give it an addition fear quality which may add a bit of more balance.

 

[Halfbat]

Or and I'll need to look up setting things on fire but I may give the weapon a chance of making the opponent catch fire, which would give it an addition fear quality which may add a bit of more balance.

It's an option, but it depends on the contact, I guess, as to how likely it will be. Ignite used against an item of clothing being worn kicks in a Resist(Resilience), but is this valid on a Fireblade in combat?

 

[TRose]

Fireblade is better versu monster that can only be damage by magic(Gorps for example) or that are vulnerable to fire such as a Vampire. But for day in and day out work Bladeshap is better. Might add that for weapons that normally do more then 1d10 such as some 2 handed weapons you might want to keep the weapons normal damage instead of having fireblade do less damage then normal.

 

[Mugen]

To me, the best reason why one would cast Fireblade rather than Bladesharp is he has not integrated the Metal Rune...

Strange as it may seem, it is also the most powerful Fire spell in the rules.

 

[Halfbat]

Fireblade is better versu monster that can only be damage by magic(Gorps for example) or that are vulnerable to fire such as a Vampire. But for day in and day out work Bladeshap is better.

That's been mentioned a few times, and it is true, but less than it might be thought. As average magical damage, Bladesharp 4 does 4 points, Fireblade only 5.5. Moreover Bladesharp 4 gives you +20% to hit, upping the chance of inflicting that 4 points....

 

[Gnarsh]

This really isn't much of a change from RQ3 though. They made fireblade *worse*, but it was already a pretty questionable spell. Even when it was 3d6, that's still an average of 11.5 points of damage. A broadsword with bladesharp4 does 9.5 damage. Darn close. And the bladesharp has a higher minimum and +20% to hit. Also, at least in RQ3, no other damage enhancing magic could be combined with it, so cults with trueweapons quickly found fireblade to be useless.

Odd that they made it even less useful in MRQ. I personally would have just made it add fire damage (but no percent increase). +1d10 (or 2d6) would both work about right for a 4 point fireblade spell. You get a slightly higher average damage then a bladesharp, with a much greater potential increase in damage, but without the +20%. Seems balanced IMO.

The counter though is that since spirit combat involves doing magical damage instead of Pow v Pow contests, fireblade becomes a very powerful "ghost killer" spell. Dunno. I'd suggest just keeping it and seeing how much it's used. If it's not that useful, up it's power a bit.

 

[Mugen]

If it's not that useful, up it's power a bit.

Or perhaps reduce its Magnitude to 2 ou 3.

 

[GoingDown]

There is one really good reason to have Fireblade instead of Bladesharp:

If you don't have Metal rune integrated, but you have Fire.

 

[TRose]

MIght which runecasting skills you chose to learn might now also influence now wether you want to use fireblade or blade sharp 4
With a high Fire runecasting skill you can learn and cast Fireblade, Firearrow and ignite So you have a melee magic attack a range magic attack and ignite which is a very useful and versatile spell
With the metal runecasting skill you can learn Bladesharp/Bludgeon, dullblade and repair, So youhave a nice attack spell(either bladesharp or bludgeon as few people learn both) a spell to lower damage from other people and repair of course.
So some people might go for fireblade because they feell the Fire rune casting skill is a better skill to raise high first then metal runecasting. although both are 2 of the better runecasting skills to raise.

 

[soltakss]

We always laughed at people with Poleaxes who bought Fireblade.

It was really good when you started out, as you got a lot of damage for a few MPs. But, when you joined combat cults and got True Weapon/Slash or a wodge of Bladesharp it became redundant. I can't remember the last time one of my PCs used Fireblade.

Certainly, using the abysmal new rules on Spirit Combat, anyone with spells can harm spirits, so Fireblade is a bit useful, but if you use the Spirit Bane spell then your weapon damages spirits, including Weapon damage, Bladesharp and Damage Bonus. So, Spirit Bane makes Fireblade redundant against spirits.

Now they've buggered Spirit Combat up, I'm waiting to see how they can bugger shamans up as well :x

 

[Halfbat]

Thanks guys,
A reminder about it's usefulness vs spirits (though the 4@+20% vs 5.5 ain't too great a difference), but the only reason really mentioned is what we already had: Metal vs Fire Runes and Firearrow/Ignite vs Repair/ Bladesharp/ Dullblade.

Cheers, though!

 

[homerjsinnott]

This really isn't much of a change from RQ3 though. They made fireblade *worse*, but it was already a pretty questionable spell. Even when it was 3d6, that's still an average of 11.5 points of damage. A broadsword with bladesharp4 does 9.5 damage. Darn close. And the bladesharp has a higher minimum and +20% to hit. Also, at least in RQ3, no other damage enhancing magic could be combined with it, so cults with trueweapons quickly found fireblade to be useless.

Bladesharp 4 max damage on broadsword 13
Max fireblade 18.

So both the max and the average was higher.

Also dagger bladesharp 4 vs dagger fireblade, no contest.

Also I don't remember the rule about no other damage magic c fireblade, could you point me in the right direction?

Odd that they made it even less useful in MRQ. I personally would have just made it add fire damage (but no percent increase). +1d10 (or 2d6) would both work about right for a 4 point fireblade spell. You get a slightly higher average damage then a bladesharp, with a much greater potential increase in damage, but without the +20%. Seems balanced IMO.

The counter though is that since spirit combat involves doing magical damage instead of Pow v Pow contests, fireblade becomes a very powerful "ghost killer" spell. Dunno. I'd suggest just keeping it and seeing how much it's used. If it's not that useful, up it's power a bit.

The whole concept seems poor and badly thought out, I agree with your fix though, if it were'nt for the spirit thing...

 

[Gnarsh]

This really isn't much of a change from RQ3 though. They made fireblade *worse*, but it was already a pretty questionable spell. Even when it was 3d6, that's still an average of 11.5 points of damage. A broadsword with bladesharp4 does 9.5 damage. Darn close. And the bladesharp has a higher minimum and +20% to hit. Also, at least in RQ3, no other damage enhancing magic could be combined with it, so cults with trueweapons quickly found fireblade to be useless.

Bladesharp 4 max damage on broadsword 13
Max fireblade 18.

Yeah. But you can't just look at maximum. You have to look at average as well, since that's going to tell you the overall performance. Remember, *minimum* damage on a broadsword with bladesharp4 is 6. Minimum damage with a fireblade is 3. Sure. I could do more damage with the fireblade, but I could also do less. Which is more important is a matter of taste.

Additionally, in this particular case, the broadsword could be used as an impaling weapon in RQ3 (as can gladius, and dagger for that matter). You're going to impale in RQ3 20% of the time. And when you do, your max damage is going to be 22. If we're playing the "how much can I do if I get lucky?" game, the bladesharp still wins out in this case.

Where fireblade has historically been most useful was on very small weapons. Being able to toss a fireblade on your dagger when you're in a fight during a town adventure (where perhaps no one's allowed to carry large weapons and wear armor) is a huge deal. The spell has been most often used by more thiefly types for exactly this reason. It makes them more formidable in combat when they're most "in their element".

Firearrow also works wonders on thrown weapons for the same reason.

Also I don't remember the rule about no other damage magic c fireblade, could you point me in the right direction?

I'll look it up when I get home. Don't have my RQ3 books with me right now. I'm reasonably sure that the description for fireblade states that it replaces the normal weapon damage with the fireblade damage. Thus, spells that add to the normal damage of the weapon can't be stacked with it because there is no "normal" weapon damage left. It's all replaced with fireblade damage. In fact, I've seen some games where it's assumed that you can't use your strength bonus on a firebladed weapon either.

Obviously, it varies by interpretation. But everyone I've ever played RQ with interpreted fireblade to mean that you could not cast truesword, slash, crush, etc on top of it. That makes it a neato spell if you use a small weapon and don't have access to those other spells, but somewhat non-useful for any actual war cult to use (since they all tend to get at least some of those other spells).

 

[Halfbat]

Where fireblade has historically been most useful was on very small weapons. Being able to toss a fireblade on your dagger when you're in a fight during a town adventure (where perhaps no one's allowed to carry large weapons and wear armor) is a huge deal. The spell has been most often used by more thiefly types for exactly this reason. It makes them more formidable in combat when they're most "in their element".

Yeah - when it ws 3D6, and the thief was rumbled anyway. Interestingly a Dagger with Bladesharp 4 now does 6-9 points damage, average 7.5, and at +20%. A Dagger with Fireblade does 1-10 damage average 5.5. :?

For interest (vs all foes):
Fireblade - 1-10 Avg 5.5

With Bladesharp 4 (ignoring the +20%) (vs Spirits 4):
Bastard Sword 1H - 5-12 Avg 8.5
Bastard Sword 2H - 6-13 Avg 9.5
Battle Axe 1H - 6-11 Avg 8.5
Battle Axe 2H - 7-12 Avg 9.5
War Sword - 5-12 Avg 9.5
Dagger - 6-9 Avg 7.5
Great Axe - 8-18 Avg 14.5 (this was always going to be good)
Great sword - 6-20 Avg 13 (and this)
Longspear - 5-14 Avg 9.5 (not bad!)
Shortspear - 5-12 Avg 9.5
Shortsword - 5-10 Avg 7.5

Just thought it might help....