Sorcery Question

[Rurik]

Now that there are no longer any "Instant" socery spells how would one convert Firebolt from the MRQ1 Magic of Glorantha book?

Surely one could not keep throwing balls of fire for as long as the Duration of the spell?

What I think am leaning towards is that the spell can be 'stored' for the duration (while the sorcerer's hands glow with magical fire) and can be released at any time during the duration. Any thoughts?

Or does that kind of spell just not work the way Sorcery is envisioned in MRQ2 (will we not see instant 'zap' spells in any upcoming supplements)?

Thanks in advance for any and all input!

 

[Rurik]

OK, Second Question. Creating a Sorcerer.

Learning the Grimoire Skill counts as an Advanced Skill. Got it, fine.

Now, from the Sorcery chapter, under Aquiring Sorcery:

No matter how many spells are contained within, it requires one week of studying a grimoire to gain its specific Sorcery (Grimoire) skill.

Then, in the next Paragraph:

Each spell takes a further week and two Improvement Rolls to learn, after which the sorcerer will then be able to cast that spell using the Sorcery (Grimoire) skill...

So is it correct to infer that during chargen learning a Grimoire Skill does NOT automatically mean the Sorcerer knows all spells from that Grimoire, but that each spell must be 'learned' as a new advanced skill (costing 10 skill points to learn but thereafter being cast with the Grimoire skill)?

 

[dbhoward]

I would say (if we're talking standard beginning-level chargen here) the character may start with Grimoire skill; but right, no spells fully learned from the Grimoire (being an apprentice-type). Use those first improvement rolls to get some study time in with the books! (You remember what it was like to be a 1st-level D&D MU, right?)

Maybe let them have a 1-2 points of Common Magic... if their master was feeling generous. :wink:

 

[Dal Thrax]

Now that there are no longer any "Instant" socery spells how would one convert Firebolt from the MRQ1 Magic of Glorantha book?

Surely one could not keep throwing balls of fire for as long as the Duration of the spell?

What I think am leaning towards is that the spell can be 'stored' for the duration (while the sorcerer's hands glow with magical fire) and can be released at any time during the duration. Any thoughts?

Or does that kind of spell just not work the way Sorcery is envisioned in MRQ2 (will we not see instant 'zap' spells in any upcoming supplements)?

Thanks in advance for any and all input!

The direct damage would be a result of the Wrack spell. Wrack has a duration of concentration so he could keep throwing "firebolts" (a wrack cosmetic effect) for the duration. On the other hand Wrack has pretty poor single round damage. Alternatively, firebolt could be a common spell based of Dragon Breath of Lightning.

But yeah if you shot off a Wrack, single target, range, don't concentrate to extend the spell, you'd get a 1 CA combat spell doing probably 1d8 or 1d10 to one target.

 

[Rurik]

I would say (if we're talking standard beginning-level chargen here) the character may start with Grimoire skill; but right, no spells fully learned from the Grimoire (being an apprentice-type). Use those first improvement rolls to get some study time in with the books! (You remember what it was like to be a 1st-level D&D MU, right?)

Maybe let them have a 1-2 points of Common Magic... if their master was feeling generous. :wink:

Well based on the fact that after chargen learning a spell costs exactly the same as learning a new advanced skill I am assuming that during chargen you have to learn the Grimoire Skill and then also spend 10 skill points per spell from that grimoire you want to learn (as opposed to automaticaly gaining all spells in the Grimoire). But the rules do not seem to be clear on this.

I'm playing in Glorantha so the 6 points of Common magic goes to everyone. It is actually kind of refreshing after how stingy with lower magic MRQ1 was compared to previous editions.

I entirely understand the desire to make magic, and particularly sorcery, harder to come by, especially in a lower magic setting. The act of having to seek out ancient tomes of knowledge or scrolls of lost spells is indeed fuel for many a good game.

 

[Loz]

If you're a sorcerer, your starting Grimoire (see page 27, boxed section) will have up to 4 spells in there drawn from the master Grimoire of your order. You'll begin the game knowing all of these and casting them at the Grimoire skill.

Additional spells from then on will require the research to gather them and commit them to memory for casting - or to add to the master Grimoire for the good of your order.

It is a little unclear, but the above is the intention.

 

[Rurik]

Now that there are no longer any "Instant" socery spells how would one convert Firebolt from the MRQ1 Magic of Glorantha book?

Surely one could not keep throwing balls of fire for as long as the Duration of the spell?

What I think am leaning towards is that the spell can be 'stored' for the duration (while the sorcerer's hands glow with magical fire) and can be released at any time during the duration. Any thoughts?

Or does that kind of spell just not work the way Sorcery is envisioned in MRQ2 (will we not see instant 'zap' spells in any upcoming supplements)?

Thanks in advance for any and all input!

The direct damage would be a result of the Wrack spell. Wrack has a duration of concentration so he could keep throwing "firebolts" (a wrack cosmetic effect) for the duration. On the other hand Wrack has pretty poor single round damage. Alternatively, firebolt could be a common spell based of Dragon Breath of Lightning.

But yeah if you shot off a Wrack, single target, range, don't concentrate to extend the spell, you'd get a 1 CA combat spell doing probably 1d8 or 1d10 to one target.

Converting it to a Wrack variant may work, that is agood idea. I ask for the purpose of converting an MRQ1 character and would like the spell to behave similiar to before. The Damage from firebolt was much higher than wrack (but one time only). I'm not sure how I feel about the 'no instant sorcery' thing. I'll have to play with it a bit.

 

[Deleriad]

Well you could simply play it as written on the basis that magic is always idiosyncratic. Probably won't have any game balance issues. I would probably have it do 1d6 damage for each 30% of grimoire skill. Makes it about twice as damaging as Wrack but a one-shot effect.

 

[Rurik]

If you're a sorcerer, your starting Grimoire (see page 27, boxed section) will have up to 4 spells in there drawn from the master Grimoire of your order. You'll begin the game knowing all of these and casting them at the Grimoire skill.

Additional spells from then on will require the research to gather them and commit them to memory for casting - or to add to the master Grimoire for the good of your order.

It is a little unclear, but the above is the intention.

Thanks for getting back to me.

So in the case of Glorantha for example if someone has Grimoire (Abiding Book) or (True Malkioni Church) where the actual Grimoire contains well more than four spells a character starts with 4 spells 'learned' at no additional cost. Is that the intent?

The bos on page 27 makes it sound like they get ALL spells for existing Grimoires, which would be VERY powerful in some cases.

 

[Dal Thrax]

I don't know, seems like making casting time base 1 action + manipulations might result in a better balance. That and not using the 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 4/4 progression of other casting types seems like the developers instituting a grind. Grind based game play does not seem to be selling well in a market with MMOs. (With rounding up a 1/4 Int in spells would result in 4 spells starting at Int 13 and 5 at Int 17).

Of course what the player most likely wants is a caster with a good attack spell, a good defense spell, a movements spell and a healing spell. Limiting the number of starting spells is more likely convincing casters to specialize in two types of magic, to diversify to meet these needs (alternative the character could start off with three grimoire skills).

Also, and I'd just like to point this out, under the current rules almost everyone is going to start with a divine pact. Your average PC, not just the specialized magic user, can shoot off a 3d6 lighting bolt in combat. That change game balance a bit.

Personally I'd say put sorcery on the same progression (1/4, ect) as other types of magic and advance all caster based professions one degree of initiation (which would give you something akin to the various levels of magic users in the black company novels).

 

[dbhoward]

Also, and I'd just like to point this out, under the current rules almost everyone is going to start with a divine pact. Your average PC, not just the specialized magic user, can shoot off a 3d6 lighting bolt in combat. That change game balance a bit.

Only if you want it that way and it makes sense in the campaign background. No character (PC or NPC) in my current campaign can shoot lightning *at all*. The spell isn't there.

Sounds pretty obvious to say, but this is not D&D 4e. The default in RQ is that you do not pick from the whole list in the book nor do a character build but go with what your character's culture dictates.

 

[Dal Thrax]

Well you can certainly do whatever you want in your own game. I don't have any of the Chaosium material but I somewhat gather from various reviews that the who "almost no magic at all thing" is more a MRQ I thing than a vital setting element.

The easy cultural availability of the pact skill is an express feature in the main book. Even if you disallow Lightning Strike you still have initiate level Divine spells such as: Amplify (put common magic on steroids), Blessing(Weapons), Elemental Summoning, Fear, Madness, Laughter, True Weapon and Sureshot (suggest poisoned arrows with that last one tbh). These spells are part of the rules as currently written.

When we're talking about game balance we need to keep in mind that a starting PC warrior can potentially shoot of a lightning bolt, summon a spirit and put up a potent counter magic shield. Most likely the PC doesn't belong to a cult that can do all of those but they are, as a default, probably going to have one or more potent divine spells at their disposal. Of course the opposition is also likely to have similar magic so I except the smart PC might go for defensive spells over flashy magic described (certainly any armored knight in my game is going to have at least countermagic shell or shield).

Lore(Cult) is a setting allowable skill for every characters. PC's are not stay at home farmers (unless you're building a game around that). Most PCs are likely to, quite in character, belong to such things as the cult of the warrior thunder god or the patron god of soldiers and mercenaries. I expect that such cults feature spells that are effective in a fight. Spiritual culture does not imply passiveness (see various warrior medicine societies, knights templar, ect). Under the rules as they currently stand, I expect PCs will have access to some of the nastier initiate level combat spells. Warrior cults are about keeping their members alive and making their enemies dead/incapacitated, not hoarding secret knowledge that might have saved a members life if they'd known it years ago.

 

[dbhoward]

The easy cultural availability of the pact skill is an express feature in the main book. Even if you disallow Lightning Strike you still have initiate level Divine spells such as: Amplify (put common magic on steroids), Blessing(Weapons), Elemental Summoning, Fear, Madness, Laughter, True Weapon and Sureshot (suggest poisoned arrows with that last one tbh). These spells are part of the rules as currently written.

I don't see anywhere that Pact skill is an express feature of any of the cultural backgrounds. Only the Priest profession starts with it, so it isn't assumed that everyone will have Pact. And how easy it is to become an Initiate, even, is left totally up to the individual GM to determine. (In some settings, cults might hide and hoard their knowledge and only give it to a few.)

I look at these rules as a toolbox. I don't mean allowing or disallowing certain spells or weapons or creatures; this goes much deeper than that. What you can use doesn't mean that all of it has to be used or will be used. As far as I'm concerned, Pact is optional; Divine Magic is optional; heck, Magic is optional. Really, it is.

This is not a question of what is or is not an "express feature" of the game. It's like Combat Maneuvers: if you don't like them, you don't have to use them. Sorcery? If you don't want it, you can leave it out and it doesn't affect the game one jot. Et cetera. Just because it's in the Core Rulebook doesn't mean it has to be used. There are actually only about ten things that are "express features" of the rules that you can't play the game without (skill rolls, for example). It's a set of tools, and you use it to build your own game. This is the most flexible, modular roleplaying system I have ever seen. But unless you're playing 2nd-Age Glorantha, I certainly wouldn't play with 100% of the rules straight out of the book. And if you are... then I don't see what your problem is.

Mind you, I'm not saying *change* the rules. I'm saying use what you like. The toolbox approach.

And as far as the opposition having similar magic, and everyone having Countermagic Shield and so on: that kind of magical-arms-race is what makes me want to run a low-magic campaign to begin with. If everyone has Lightning Strike and then Countermagic and then Amplify, then magic begins to be more about tricks and tactics than about cult relationships, ancient sorcerous lore and dealings with spirits. If that's the kind of game you want to play, that's great; the rules certainly accommodate that. But it's not what I want, so I don't use these rules that way. "Your RuneQuest May Vary."

 

[Dal Thrax]

Mind you, I'm not saying *change* the rules. I'm saying use what you like. The toolbox approach.

Well you certainly can do anything you want in your own game. I think the point here is that when discussing rules and how they balance on an internet forum we need to use something close to the rules as written to have a useful discussion. I could convert the magic system from Ars Magica on Mage into Runequest (the later quite easily). Talking about highly variant games isn't going to help the casual reader, or point out much of use to the Mongoose developers.

The published rules state that any character can start with the pact skill. The bonus point rules say that magic skills are handled like any other advanced skill and are not limited by profession. The example of character creation included in the main book features a warrior with the pact skill and divine spells. Certainly you can house rule this out. That really doesn't have any bearing though to the question of "how do we balance sorcery in a world where divine effects are common."

If everyone has Lightning Strike and then Countermagic and then Amplify, then magic begins to be more about tricks and tactics than about cult relationships, ancient sorcerous lore and dealings with spirits. If that's the kind of game you want to play, that's great; the rules certainly accommodate that. But it's not what I want, so I don't use these rules that way. "Your RuneQuest May Vary."

So um why are you posting on a discussion of general rules citing things that are only valid to your variant campaign. Personally, I think your confusing cult with "peaceful spiritual/mystical cult." Lots of real life societies have cults/lodges, ect that teach both magical traditions and useful life skills (such as how to hunt, how to fight with a spear, ect). But yes, I really do think that for a warrior cult part of their relationship with the cult patron actually should include "tricks and tactics." The followers of Mithra are under no obligation to peacefully seek their god by meditation and repose.

 

[dbhoward]

I really think you're missing my point here. As I said, I am talking about the rules as written and not about a "variant" campaign. I am citing things that are valid to just about everybody. Go back to what I said about these rules being a set of tools.

Of course you can start with the Pact skill. I never said characters wouldn't. I was questioning you assertion that it (along with any given spell choice) was an "express feature" of the cultural backgrounds. It isn't. Read the rules. Not the examples; the rules. Not my or anybody's house rules: The Rules.

Of course all characters can start with magic; that's the way RQ has always been. But it isn't houseruling or "highly variant" to say that not everything in the rulebook is gospel or has to be used. That's the D&D kitchen-sink approach. Muchkinism.

Read the rules.

When you say "Okay, a knight will have Pact and know Shield," or whatever, it's perfectly fair for me to say, "No he won't"; and that isn't being "highly variant." Because everybody will set these things up differently. If we didn't, we might as well just go play Warhammer.

You say "That isn't helpful to the Mongoose developers." Guess what? They don't need your help. They don't need my help. They have already balanced sorcery vs. divine magic vs. spirit magic, regardless of culture or setting. Trust the game designers. Trust the rules.

Read the rules.

And please: don't tell me what I am thinking. I have known and used RQ cults in all their forms since 1978. I know very well what cults are and are not, and what they do, and what they do not do. And when I said "tricks" I was clearly referring to player metagaming vs. in-game roleplaying.

But I really don't think you and I are ever going to understand each other. We obviously just look at gaming too differently.

 

[Deleriad]

Now that there are no longer any "Instant" socery spells how would one convert Firebolt from the MRQ1 Magic of Glorantha book?

I think what I would do is is to give the spell the same damage progression as Wrack but allow it to be cast a number of times equal to its Magnitude while the spell's active. The range of the Firedarts would be equal to the range invested in the spell at casting and if you invest the spell with targets then you can affect multiple targets with each dart,

E.g. Someone with Firedart 57% would do 1d6 with each firedart. If cast with base duration, 3 range, 4 targets and 3 Magnitude (8 levels of Manipulation) then the sorcerer could fire the spell 3 times as a CA during its duration. Each time he fires it, it would have 3*POW in range and could affect up to 4 people at once. Each firedart would be resisted with Evade.

The advantage over Wrack is that you can change targets each time. The disadvantage is that you run out of uses quickly making it quite expensive in MPs.

By the way, who lets spells gain CMs? For example, I allow people with shields to use them as portable cover but that does prevent the person from evading. It seems logical to allow a spell user to choose location though if they get a CM.

I've also recently started using a CM called "set alight." It does what you might expect. Useful for firebladed weapons for example or Firedart in this case.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Well you could simply play it as written on the basis that magic is always idiosyncratic. Probably won't have any game balance issues. I would probably have it do 1d6 damage for each 30% of grimoire skill. Makes it about twice as damaging as Wrack but a one-shot effect.

Well, one-shot but multi-target, 51% skill giving 2d6 to each of 5 targets at over 50m range is quite nasty. A major limiting factor on Wrack is that it is Concentration, so you can only Wrack one person at a time.

 

[bta820]

A major limiting factor on Wrack is that it is Concentration, so you can only Wrack one person at a time.

I don't see anything to support this. is it true? multiple targets is still one spell so concentrating would affect them all

 

[PhilHibbs]

I'm interpreting "concentration" as "you have to concentrate on the effect", rather than a more literal "you have to concentrate on the spell". I don't see any difference between casting Wrack on 5 targets, and casting it 5 times and then trying to concentrate on all 5 separate spells. They are both equally not possible in my mind.

 

[Deleriad]

I'm interpreting "concentration" as "you have to concentrate on the effect", rather than a more literal "you have to concentrate on the spell". I don't see any difference between casting Wrack on 5 targets, and casting it 5 times and then trying to concentrate on all 5 separate spells. They are both equally not possible in my mind.

Concentration spells have been clarified elsewhere. Basically with something like Wrack you cast it and it does damage. For the rest of its duration you can concentrate as a CA and the target(s) take damage again. It's akin to the sense projections, animate and form/sets etc where you can manipulate the spell by concentrating on it.

So, if you cast Wrack with Range and at 5 targets then for a total of 3 MPs, for the duration of the spell, you can Wrack those targets as often as you like.

Not nice.