Sorcery Magnitude MRQ1 v MRQ2

[PhilHibbs]

Does Magnitude of sorcery spells convert equally between MRQ1 and MRQ2? In the Jrustela book, it lists the Magnitude required for various occasions, e.g.:

HeroQuest Type       Magnitude Required

Rarely-told story    2
Specific God’s tale  3
Cultural tale        4
Popular legend       5
Epic                 6

Should I use these numbers as they are in MRQ2, or was the Magnitude scale a little different in MRQ1? Or, was Magnitude in MRQ1 the equivalent of the level of effect that you get from Grimoire skill in MRQ2?

 

[RosenMcStern]

Or, was Magnitude in MRQ1 the equivalent of the level of effect that you get from Grimoire skill in MRQ2?

This.

I have insisted with everyone involved in the game that having Magnitude mean different things in Common and Sorcerous magic is just a source of confusion, but to no avail. The fact that the person who is most active on the forum still poses this question confirms the counter-intuitivitiy of this concept.

 

[Deleriad]

I tend to agree that separating out Magnitude was not a good idea. The introduction of spells which have varying effects when Magnitude is increased muddies the water further.

In retrospect it might have been less confusing if they had given a name to Grimoire/10. E.g.

"A spell's INTENSITY is equal to the caster's Grimoire skill divided by 10. This value is not changed by situational modifiers because it represents the caster's degree of mastery of the Grimoire."

That way at least you have a name in the spell descriptions. E.g. "gains +2 DEX per Intensity of the spell."

On a broader topic I hope that Mongoose follow the procedure for playtesting FRQII that they did with Traveller. The open playtest seems to have ironed out some contentious mechanics. Although I don't think there are any mechanical changes needed in FRQII there is some refining. One would be, should Magnitude in sorcery stay as it is or should it automatically scale with Grimoire/10 so that a spell's effect is based on its Magnitude?

 

[Simulacrum]

I couldn't agree more and have raised this issue in forum threads before tho it seems no-one wanted to join in a beef about it. IMHO it's about the only seriously dumb design decision in the whole RQII ruleset. And it makes writing a pig because you end you end up having to have an almost legalistic care to language to try and avoid the chance of causing confusion between different sorts of magnitude.

To use the old term of Intensity is one route, and I think it should be adopted if there is no other rules tweak. It leaves magnitude itself to be a common term to the resistance to be overcome when dispelling etc. Having read Pete's draft of Blood Magic it seems to me he was taking the opportunity to play with this terminology, but frankly I wish it would be fixed in the rules. If it were, I guess it might have an effect on '100% compatability"?

I get the point that sorcery has enough upsides at higher skills to militate for separating out magnitude and 'intensity' and demand that the 'stickiness' of a spell is goverend by an additional manipulation - so on balance its the terminology that is wrong.

 

[PhilHibbs]

The fact that the person who is most active on the forum still poses this question confirms the counter-intuitivitiy of this concept.

It's only confusing to me because I am using MRQ1 material without being familiar with MRQ1. But I agree that Grimoire/10 should have a name, and Intensity is as good as any.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The funny thing is that I labeled it as "Spell Level" in the Italian setting expansion, a term that would not have generated any confusion in the D&D-addict Italian audience, and the editor changed it back to "Grimoire / 10".

I think that Intensity or Effectiveness could be a good idea, but Spell Levele or Spell Points would be more intuitive for people who have never played RQ3. You only need to write down a very simple sentence: "For Common and Divine Magic spells, Level and Magnitude are always the same. For Sorcery, Level and Magnitude are two different concepts." It is as simple as this.

 

[Deleriad]

The funny thing is that I labeled it as "Spell Level" in the Italian setting expansion, a term that would not have generated any confusion in the D&D-addict Italian audience, and the editor changed it back to "Grimoire / 10".

I think that Intensity or Effectiveness could be a good idea, but Spell Levele or Spell Points would be more intuitive for people who have never played RQ3. You only need to write down a very simple sentence: "For Common and Divine Magic spells, Level and Magnitude are always the same. For Sorcery, Level and Magnitude are two different concepts." It is as simple as this.

Level would also be fine and it is many ways the obvious choice. One good reason to use Intensity though is that it does get used quite a lot elsewhere and could be used to tie together various tables. E.g. Wind STR, fire intensity, spirits and so on.

The other issue with "level" is that it does come with a lot of baggage. Some people might think it's an attempt to D&Dise FRQII.

Overall, I think the split between sorcery Intensity/Level and Magnitude is a perfectly reasonable thing to do providing the terms are right.

As you say:
"For Common Magic spells and Divine Spells the Magnitude of the spell is the same as its Level. Sorcery is unique because each spell is cast at Magnitude 1 no matter how high the level of the spell. However a sorcerer can always use Manipulation to increase the spell's Magnitude."

 

[soltakss]

The other issue with "level" is that it does come with a lot of baggage. Some people might think it's an attempt to D&Dise FRQII.

And we wouldn't want anyone to think that, would we?