Sorcery Range
- Thread starter PhilHibbs
- Start date
It depends on whether or not your opponent is likely to have some magical protection, in which case trading some Range for Magnitude would be a good idea.
Remember that for Sorcery, Magnitude is only used to overcome, and is not related to Spell effect, which is a function of the Grimoire skill.
Anyway, that's still a 3 MP expense and 3 Combat actions lost.
Remember that for Sorcery, Magnitude is only used to overcome, and is not related to Spell effect, which is a function of the Grimoire skill.
Anyway, that's still a 3 MP expense and 3 Combat actions lost.
I should have said "1 point for the basic spell and 1 for the range". It seems that Magnitude is very rarely necessary for its own sake, as the "effectiveness" of a spell is usually proportional to the caster's skill and nothing to do with the manipulation. But yes, you're right, some extra Magnitude might be used to overcome defences.
This is quite a big change from AHRQ3, where most spells cost loads of MPs to cast. Was it this way in MRQ1?
Is it intended to cut down on the necessity for Magic Point Matrix Enchantments? Most sorcerers in AHRQ3 would invest some POW in magic point matrixes or POW spirit bindings as part of their character creation, otherwise they'd just be one-shot-wonders in combat.
This is quite a big change from AHRQ3, where most spells cost loads of MPs to cast. Was it this way in MRQ1?
Is it intended to cut down on the necessity for Magic Point Matrix Enchantments? Most sorcerers in AHRQ3 would invest some POW in magic point matrixes or POW spirit bindings as part of their character creation, otherwise they'd just be one-shot-wonders in combat.
PhilHibbs said:
The drastic change on MP costs was introduced in MRQ1.
However, MRQ1 still had one skill per Manipulation type and 1 skill per spell like in RQ3.
With Magnitude 60%, Range 35% and Duration 45%, you could spend 3 MP to cast a Magnitude 6, Range 4 and Duration 5 spell.
Besides the MP cost and reduced duration, it was very similar to RQ3 Sorcery.
I guess so. I remember Loz saying in this forum that it was one of their goals.
camocoffey
Mongoose
My own interpretation is that it would be slightly faster. I make it 1 CA + 2 MPs for most combat spells. The basic Magnitude is automatic; the spell costs 1 CA per effect of Manipulation, to a minimum of 1. It would take you longer if you were throwing extra points into Magnitude specifically to punch through any magic resistance, as Mugen suggests.PhilHibbs said:
If you dont need magntude then you use 1 manipulation component=range so it would cost 1 MP and 1 Action. And thats only if they are beyond touch range.
Peronally if I was trying to bust through spell protection, then I'd have 2 manupulations - Range and then multiple spells - simulcasting Neutralise Magic (to take down their spell protections) with Wrack and Damage Enhancement to max out the damage. That would be 2MP and 2 CA.
Otherwise if they didnt have spell protection then I'd shut them down with Palsy versus multiple targets at range.
(Yes, my sorceror does have 3 Grimoires for all the mix n' match. The joy of Jrusteli!)
SJE
Peronally if I was trying to bust through spell protection, then I'd have 2 manupulations - Range and then multiple spells - simulcasting Neutralise Magic (to take down their spell protections) with Wrack and Damage Enhancement to max out the damage. That would be 2MP and 2 CA.
Otherwise if they didnt have spell protection then I'd shut them down with Palsy versus multiple targets at range.
(Yes, my sorceror does have 3 Grimoires for all the mix n' match. The joy of Jrusteli!)
SJE
I agree that Sorcery is powerful, but it's controlled by the grimoire access provided by GM's. If you want to weaken sorcery then only give them 1 or 2 grimoires with 2-4 spells in each.
Glorantha its a bit different as you can learn multiple grimoires from allied cults, noble backgrounds, Brithini careers and what have you- buts thats kinda to be expected in the 2nd Age and its era of Sorcerous hubris and power.
SJE
Glorantha its a bit different as you can learn multiple grimoires from allied cults, noble backgrounds, Brithini careers and what have you- buts thats kinda to be expected in the 2nd Age and its era of Sorcerous hubris and power.
SJE
Faelan Niall
Banded Mongoose
Running into some of the same problems myself. Most of it has to do with a couple of spells and how their counterparts in Common and Divine Magic behave. Not in an immediate future sense but in a down the road sense. Damage Resistance and anything with a flat bonus based on Magnitude can be a problem, particularly since I want to make sure magic use never makes you untouchable. So currently I am working on rewriting some of the spells and writing is some restrictions.
kintire said:
By that logic you could equally argue that the defences are neutralised but the Neutralise tries to dispel the Wrack.
But what I’m describing (a sorcerer attempting to dispel the enemies protection while pushing his own spell through) seems entirely thematic for a sorcerer. Otherwise you nerf sorcerous duels- for example, 2 Jrusteli are duelling. Both go in with Spell Resistance. If you cant combo neutralise with another spell then you need to cast a Ranged Neutralise in CA1. Then in their CA1 they put up Spell Resistance (and their defensive suite, unless they are pumping Magnitude) again. This goes on and on until someone runs out of CA’s or Magic points. Which is a bit dull.
SJE
SJE
Er, no you couldn't. Neutralise and Wrack are the same spell. You have combined two different effects (three in fact including the amplify) and cast them as one composite effect. They all affect their targets at once.
Anyway, even if they were seperate why would the sorcerer target his own neutralise at his own Wrack?
"Nerfing" Sorcerers from autoneutralising everybody else with no chance to recover before the spell hits seems fine to me. Anyway, why not just put enough magnitude on the wrack to punch through the spell resistance?
SJE said:
And carefully look at the spells selected.
I can't imagine the effect of a Grimoire with 4 different "Wrack" spells on a campaign. Especially if, like me, you want to use Generic Hit Points for NPCs and PCs...
As for the cost of Sorcery spells, may be a solution would be to revert to RQ3 (that is, Base MP cost = "Intensity" (max = Grimoire/10) + sum of manipulations levels) then add something (skill, object -crystal ?- and/or enchant) to lower this cost.
Deleriad
Mongoose
kintire said:
Two issues. One, adding Magnitude reduces the ability to manipulate other elements such as combine and range. Plus it adds to the cost and increases casting time.
On the other hand, if you don't bump the Magnitude, any peasant with a countermagic spell can negate the whole spell with a Countermagic 1. Bit embarrassing for your magus.
The balance between attack and defense spells is quite complicated and people have a habit of forgetting that all sorcery spells are 1 Magnitude unless Manipulated. So casting Wrack at 143% without increasing Magnitude will be blocked by a 23% Spell Resistance.
Also Neutralise Magic, RAW, doesn't not allow you to pick which spells to be neutralised, it starts with the highest magnitude and works down until it can affect no more.
Conversely, the target can reaction cast Neutralise Magic against the incoming spell so if your attack spell doesn't have increased Magnitude then its toasted.
My personal reading of Spell Resistance vs Neutralise is that 1) the spell resistance can block it if the Neutralise doesn't have enough *Magnitude* to bypass the Spell Resistance. If the Neutralise does get through it can start taking out spells, including the Spell Resistance. Don't forget also that Neutralise is autonomous, so if it's big enough it might take out all cast spells on the target and still have room left in which case it will take out spells as they're cast on the target. Therefore, if someone combines Wrack and Neutralise and there's enough effect in Neutralize then yes, it could neutralise the Wrack.
Conversely, if a sorcerer has mystic vision and can see individual spells than I would allow the Neutralise to be cast at just the spell. of course, spell resistance would easily block a 1 Magnitude Mystic Vision.
That's my take on it.
Except Mystic vVsion isn’t being cast on the person with Spell Resistance. You cast Mystic Vision on yourself, and then you look at the person with Spell Resistance and say “I see magic people” or words to that effect- perceiving the that the target does have defensive spells up. Spell Resistance doesn’t get to stealth itself or oppose Mystic Vision because they are not opposed things- Spell Resistance protects you from magic cast on you, Mystic Vision lets you see magic on others.
Deleriad
Mongoose
SJE said:
Not sure I agree with this. If you stick a wall between two people then they can't see each other. This is not because the wall opposes people's ability to see things. Similarly, I reckon Spell Resistance works like a magic wall, preventing the ingress of magic and magical senses.
Seems like a judgement call to me but I would have Mystic Vision as well as (sense) projection and Sense (Substance) all be stopped by Spell Resistance dependent of course on Magnitude.
BTW, another issue with Neutralise Magic is about choosing the target. If a PC cast NM on a sword held by a warrior then it would only affect spells targeting the sword. As far as I know, most people rule that if you cast NM on a person, then it affects magic targeting them or the possessions they have on them. However it is an option to read the spell more literally.
