Disruption

[Mankcam]

Well I think an example like that proves Disrupt was only intended for living beings. I remember its original intention was to stun a recipient, there was even discussions about its everyday use being to stun rodents and such.

Not sure if casting a lot of low magic has a culminative effect or not. Given the consequences can be real game-changers then I suspect not.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Mankcam

[MJ Sadique]

50 minutes ago, g33k said:

In a world where magic reliably works, why are ancient-tech "fortresses" still a thing?  When you can land an elite-combat squad at a gatehouse (fly, teleport, magic-stealth, etc) and control it long enough for your army to pour in through the gate, why do you still have castles ?

To bring it back to an example by @Atgxtg above:  if your battering-ram squad all had "Disruption" -- why do they even have a battering-ram???

The reason is simple, in Glorantha you can do things Physically (a ram) or with Magic. For human, Magic and Physic are at the same strength : a punch (D3 damage) is similar to disruption (D3 damage, ignoring and armor but not the solidity/Armor_points). A hundred of punchs can't take down a castle door nor a hundred of disruption. Remember that a door with 20HP have also 20 AP (armor point = Hit point for objects), so 1D3 Dam vs 20 AP = 0 hit points loss.

You can use Disruption on objects but it's not necessary effective or usefull.

If you see Disruption as a magical punch that can fly at 50m and bypass an armor, you'll understand it's greatness !

About magic vs physical in fantasy :
-Castles are needed because a 1 meter wide stone wall is not easy to build but unlike magic it don't have a 10 minutes duration.
-An elite magic-squad could take down a city door but as in heroquest lore, most big places are under protection of a gardian. The contest will become Elite-squad magic vs Gardien-awareness magic.

45 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

Not sure if casting a lot of low magic has a culminative effect or not. Given the consequences can be real game-changers then I suspect not.

-Is magic cumulative in RQ rules : no.
-Is magic cumulative in Glorantha : yes, for a hero or cults rituals.

-Does it change the game : Yes from RuneQuest to Herowars/HeroQuest
-Does it change the world you play in : No, it's the same Glorantha.

[Mankcam]

I think Spirit Magic works fine in RQ not being cumulative, as it is everyday folk magic that is helpful, rather than mythical feat-level magic. So I doubt there will be too many changes from this concept in any upcoming RQ rules.

However I suspect that higher level magic could potentially be very powerful in the new RQ. Rune Magic, Sorcery, etc may possibly be able to be combined with other likewise casters to replicate feats of magic as portrayed in HQ. I cannot remember reading anything along those lines from the design notes, but it would stand to reason that the new RQ could do this, so that the portrayal of Glorantha is somewhat consistent with HQ.  

Pure speculation, of course.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Mankcam

[MJ Sadique]

4 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I cannot remember reading anything along those lines from the design notes, but it would stand to reason that the new RQ could do this, so that the portrayal of Glorantha is somewhat consistent with HQ.  

Pure speculation, of course.

There was nothing about spirit magic in New Design, I tried to lure Jeff by opening the thread "New Design - Spirit Magic" but that old fox didn't take the bait. We just had some infos from Kraken and there was some about a mass combat rule in the New RQ but nothing more.
 

[Darius West]

On 3/2/2017 at 9:16 PM, David Scott said:

RQ2 80m, RQ3 & RQ4 50m. But basically the same point, not a game changer.

As its POW vs POW, assuming an average POW of 12 vs 12 only 50% is going to get through. The average of a D3 is 1.5, so 1000 x 1.5 x .5 = 750. If they add POW to the casting that will of course increase the chance of it going through. This kind of coordinated magic is only seen in the Hero Wars with specialist groups like the Lunar Collage of Magic and Sartar's Magical units.

Crack is a 1 point Thed Rune spell, longer range (160m) and a much more extreme result.

I think Disrupt is very weak against non-living items, and in my games can be used against anything.

*giggle* "Collage" of Magic.  Probably indirectly a very good description of the Sartar Magical Union.  Putting some Red Moon magic amplify and range skill into a disruption spell would cost more but hit harder and further.  I totally agree with your assessment that disruption can be used on anything.  

8 hours ago, g33k said:

In a world where magic reliably works, why are ancient-tech "fortresses" still a thing?  When you can land an elite-combat squad at a gatehouse (fly, teleport, magic-stealth, etc) and control it long enough for your army to pour in through the gate, why do you still have castles?

Actually all that flying and teleporting is a really good excuse for having bunker-like underground structures.  Some people call them "dungeons", but that is a bit of a misnomer.

8 hours ago, g33k said:

To bring it back to an example by @Atgxtg above:  if your battering-ram squad all had "Disruption" -- why do they even have a battering-ram???  30 soldiers (15 on each side of the ram) just drop the damned thing and Disrupt instead (average 60HP damage), then charge (unencumbered by the ram) and hold the gate for long enough for the next wave to arrive.

Within the rules, equipping 30 people with disruption is a lot more expensive than fashioning a battering ram.  Also, bow range is longer than spell range, so while everyone runs up to cast their spell they are under fire.  Now a disruption spell does 1d3 damage, which is the equivalent of a punch from an unexceptional person, or perhaps the stab of a table knife.  I think it will take more than 60 equivalent blows to wreck most doors, even without the armor value.  I am sure there is a Murphy's Rule at play.

[g33k]

Under the RAW "ignores armor" effect of Disruption, and the commonly-understood use that when you hit a (living) target with multiple Disruptions,they take all the damage of each casting... a platoon would appear to be able to demolish most gateways via charge-and-cast methods.  And if a battering-ram crew can turtle-up and carry a friggin' ram to the gate -- despite bowfire / etc -- then surely other soldiers could get up to the gate, too.

I would presume that most armies in Glorantha wouldn't NEED to "equip" their soldiers with Disruption -- enough soldiers will have learned it on their own, for the utility of it, that any sizeable army will have hundreds of Disruption-equipped troops.

Honestly, the "solution" to this conundrum looks pretty pbvious to me:  Disruption DOES have "game change" potential, yo.  Because Magic; done.  But... did someone say "Magic"???  Howsabout a new spell... call it "Integrity" (stackable) ... each MP or POWpt provides 2-points of armor against magic such as "Disruption" and "Shatter" and the like, but not against physical objects.  It reduces the damge-bonus offered by Bladesharp, but has no effect on the sword carrying the Bladesharp, or the damage done by the sword.

Now, just as the besieging army will arrive with "Disruption" in-hand, the fortress or city will have plenty of casters with high-point "Integrity" defensive spells.  "Game Changer" : changed back.

YGMV.

 

[MJ Sadique]

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

Now a disruption spell does 1d3 damage, which is the equivalent of a punch from an unexceptional person, or perhaps the stab of a table knife.  I think it will take more than 60 equivalent blows to wreck most doors, even without the armor value.  I am sure there is a Murphy's Rule at play.

Yep, 100% agree but If you have some milllions years, you could like The Doctor pierce an adamant wall with your tiny punch... but it take a lot of time and lives.

8 minutes ago, g33k said:

1/ Under the RAW "ignores armor" effect of Disruption...

2/ Disruption DOES have "game change" potential, yo.  Because Magic; done.  But... did someone say "Magic"???  

3/ Howsabout a new spell... call it "Integrity" (stackable) ...

YGMV.

1/ The spell state that disruption "damage is not absorbed by armor". It doesn't ignore armor points of an object, just the protection a target may wear.

2/ No, unless you forgot that a castle door (in RQ III) have 30 ArmorPoints & HP. Disruption CANNOT ignore innate armor points of objects but only any armor the target may wear.

3/ If you want to counter disruption just use counter magic 4. If you want to counter bladesharp just use dullblade or simply protection (that don't stop disruption). No need for a new spell like this.

[davecake]

I would not assume that 'Red Moon' magic as described in RQ3 Gods of Glorantha has any existence in modern Gloranthan canon. Though some Lunars will have access to weird sorcery like Glamours that might resemble some of those effects. And even then  it will only be a tiny minority of elite magicians who have access to it,  who have a lot of other magical tools in their armory, many of them more significant in the big picture. 

And to get really nitpicky, I think the powerful anti-magic properties of adamant might render efforts to destroy adamant with a zillion Disrupts moot. I suspect adamant would ignore efforts to Disrupt it, just as adamant weapons ignore magical defences entirely. Of course, a theoretical material with enormous physical strength but without adamants anti-magical properties is another question. s

[Jeff]

Fortifications are still a thing because few universally available spells make that much of a difference. Yes, the Orlanthi have warriors who can fly or teleport over walls - that's been a game-changer in the past (but even then there are defenses against it). Walls are still the cheapest way to keep all but the most determined enemy at bay.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Fortifications are still a thing because few universally available spells make that much of a difference. Yes, the Orlanthi have warriors who can fly or teleport over walls - that's been a game-changer in the past (but even then there are defenses against it). Walls are still the cheapest way to keep all but the most determined enemy at bay.

Thank you for this!  Can you give anything "official" RE the OP's original query:  does the Disruption spell affect inanimate objects (such as ropes, doors, saddlegirths, linchpins, wagonwheels, etc)?

Also, RE MJSadique's point above:  if the damage can "ignore armor," can it ignore "armor points" (i.e. tough targets, what d20 calls "damage resistance") that don't have separate "armor"?

Note that an answer of "the rules don't specify, house-rule as desired" Is fine (but implies the followup question, will this be resolved in the new edition?)

Many thanks!

[g33k]

On 3/3/2017 at 1:31 AM, MJ Sadique said:

... disruption (D3 damage, ignoring and armor but not the solidity/Armor_points) ... a door with 20HP have also 20 AP (armor point = Hit point for objects), so 1D3 Dam vs 20 AP = 0 hit points loss.

-Is magic cumulative in RQ rules : no.
-Is magic cumulative in Glorantha : yes, for a hero or cults rituals.

-Does it change the game : Yes from RuneQuest to Herowars/HeroQuest
-Does it change the world you play in : No, it's the same Glorantha.

Do you have a rule that clearly & explicitly states that while Disruption can bypass "Armor" it cannot bypass "Armor Points"?  If you have such a rule, for what edition(s)?  Or, in the absence of a rule:  does this simply seem like the obvious interpretation?

 

On 3/3/2017 at 1:31 AM, MJ Sadique said:

-Is magic cumulative in RQ rules : no.

I think we may be dealing with differing usages of "cumulative."

Take a large (big) target -- a Great Troll, for example.  If somebody casts a Disruption spell on the Troll (and overcomes POW), and then another (overcoming POW again), certainly both spells take effect, and do damage?  They don't do a single wound with "cumulative" damage summed onto a single hit... nevertheless, the total-HPs-of-damage-done is still cumulative.  By the same token, if 6 different casters ALL target the same Great Troll in a single round with 6 Disruption spells (and all of them overcome POW), then they do 6 different wounds, accumulating 6 Disruptions-worth of damage (not a single wound with "cumulative" HP's on the single hit).

So this spell is "cumulative" in one way of speaking, but NOT in another...

 

[Mankcam]

20 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

There was nothing about spirit magic in New Design, I tried to lure Jeff by opening the thread "New Design - Spirit Magic" but that old fox didn't take the bait. We just had some infos from Kraken and there was some about a mass combat rule in the New RQ but nothing more.
 

I'm sure Jeff has mentioned somewhere that there will be Spirit Magic in the new RQ

[Darius West]

19 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Yep, 100% agree but If you have some milllions years, you could like The Doctor pierce an adamant wall with your tiny punch... but it take a lot of time and lives.

It will probably take less time if you don't have to resurrect yourself after every punch huh?  The Doctor's answer was hell on his POW.

[Atgxtg]

On 3/2/2017 at 11:02 PM, davecake said:

 Disruption isn't bad, but its not a big game changer IMO. 

You're missing the context. It's not that Disruption is a game changer, per say, or that it is over powered. it isn't. It's that allowing dirsupt to be used on objects rather than against living beings is. 

[Atgxtg]

On 3/2/2017 at 3:14 PM, D said:

When I asked Iskallor if my character could use disrupt on rope, I thought it would be an easy yes/no answer

I only asked him as I wasn't in a position to check the rule book when I posted.

By the rules the answer is no. I'll see if I can find the issue of Wryms footnotes that has it. 

 

But according to the text of the spell in RQ2:

DISRUPTION 1 point
80 meters, focused, permanent
A spell designed to speed up random molecular motion in the
target’s body. If the caster’s POW overcomes the target’s POW,
the target takes 1D3 points of damage in a random body area.
This damage is not absorbed by armor.

 

It is implied that the spell only works against living creatures (and/or undead or possessed dead) objects since the  that the target must have a body and a POW/Magic Point score to overcome. That would disqualify most objects as valid targets. 

 

[Atgxtg]

On 3/3/2017 at 2:58 AM, g33k said:

This actually raises another issue I've seen 'round various fora, for ages ...

In a world where magic reliably works, why are ancient-tech "fortresses" still a thing?  When you can land an elite-combat squad at a gatehouse (fly, teleport, magic-stealth, etc) and control it long enough for your army to pour in through the gate, why do you still have castles?

Probably because the designers start off trying to create some sort of ancient/medieval fantasy setting and fortress are part of the trappings. Historically thy worked fine, it's just that fantasy RPGs ususally introduce powerful , reliable, and plentiful magic to the setting that can often make the historically appropriate tech obsolete (or worse).

 

Realistically a society that has such magic would eventually adapt to it, and become something different than an ancient/medieval setting with magic thrown in. For instance, the relatively low cost and effectiveness of the protection spell would probably shift the balance of power in warfare away from the heavily armored troops, much like how gunpowder eventually shifted the balance of power away from the armored knight. 

 

And considering  how many people died from infection and poor medical skills historically, the effects of the Heal spell would be amazing. 

 

[David Scott]

37 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I'll see if I can find the issue of Wryms footnotes that has it.

@Rick Meints put all the rules articles from WF into the new Classic RQ2. There doesn't appear to be a Disruption change. The text for Disruption in RQ2, 3 and 4 is basically unchanged, except for the range decrease from 80 to 50m between RQ2 & 3.

[TRose]

 Speaking of Disruption, has any other group had players make what we call shotgun Wands?

 A shotgun wand was made by enchanting  6 or more disruption spells on a wand and then using the Link condition from RQ3/ Magic book  so you cast them all at once. Getting hit with one disruption spell is annoying, but getting hit by 6 tends to get peoples attention.

[MJ Sadique]

6 hours ago, g33k said:

1/ Do you have a rule that clearly & explicitly states that while Disruption can bypass "Armor" it cannot bypass "Armor Points"?  If you have such a rule, for what edition(s)?

2/ I think we may be dealing with differing usages of "cumulative."
... accumulating 6 Disruptions-worth of damage (not a single wound with "cumulative" HP's on the single hit).
...So this spell is "cumulative" in one way of speaking, but NOT in another...

1- If you did read my post : 1/ The spell state that disruption "damage is not absorbed by armor". The quotation marks ("...") mean it is the exact text in the spell description from the RQ III version Deluxe by Avalon Hill and I will add that my RQ III, french version by Oriflam state "Ces dommages ne sont pas absorbés par l'armure".

2- In your example, The effects of the spells are cumulative but not the spells themselves. 6 men casting six Disruption 1 can't create a Disruption 6. Each spell are treated separately making six separate spells rolls, MP oppositions, localisations rolls and damages rolls.
-The english term in RQ is "stackable" or "variable"; Disruption is not a stackable/variable nor it can be boost with Crystal of Powers (elders secrets, chapter Glorantha Mineralogy, RQIII Avallon (en) and Oriflam (fr) editions).
-The rules also state that "One adventurer cannot combine a spell with that of another adventurer". You cannot have combined spells unless you do sorcery and use Multispell (also in RQIII Avallon (en) and Oriflam (fr) editions).

The very best example is TRose Shotgun wand (It's a beautiful and marvellous idea) : Even if the six spells are simultaneous, the player will have to do six separate rolls for overcoming the target POW, six separate rolls for the random localisation and six separate rolls for damage. Even if half failed, the target will get 3x 1D3 damage which mean an average of 6 HP loss up to 9. Only a counter-magic 3 will protect you.

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, David Scott said:

@Rick Meints put all the rules articles from WF into the new Classic RQ2. There doesn't appear to be a Disruption change. The text for Disruption in RQ2, 3 and 4 is basically unchanged, except for the range decrease from 80 to 50m between RQ2 & 3.

It's not a change, it's a clarification. Disrupt was never intended to work on inanimate objects.

[David Scott]

25 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Disrupt was never intended to work on inanimate objects.

Where is the reference for this please. 

[g33k]

8 minutes ago, David Scott said:

Where is the reference for this please. 

I believe he is just going by inference.

The spell-description presumes (by the language used) that a person -- or at least a being with body-parts for hit-location & POW to resist -- is the target of the spell.  This does appear to be the obvious understanding to use !   While the RAW does not explicitly disallow an inanimate target, the clear presumption is that it is written about a combat spell with an animate target.

Unless there are further rules or clarifications to cite ... ?

The RAW also does not explicitly disallow creating copper wire and making a telegraph for quick Boldhome-to-Prax communications, after all...  But where there's a clear presumption in the RAW, I feel that going against that presumption is an instance of YGMV / MGdoesV / etc...  <says the guy whose Glorantha includes ubiquitous Morokanth charioteering (under the auspices of Ronance's cult) & lots of racing, with "tailgate parties" after, usually featuring BBQ Gern>

 

[g33k]

N.B we agree on pt #2 -- each of us at great length and with careful example.  I'm not sure what we're trying to convince each other of,...

5 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

1- If you did read my post : 1/ The spell state that disruption "damage is not absorbed by armor". The quotation marks ("...") mean it is the exact text in the spell description from the RQ III version Deluxe by Avalon Hill and I will add that my RQ III, french version by Oriflam state "Ces dommages ne sont pas absorbés par l'armure".

2- In your example, The effects of the spells are cumulative but not the spells themselves ...

RE point #1 -

I am looking for some clarity on the rule differences between "armor points" and "armor (the item)" and whether something that affects -- or explicitly does not affect -- one, has any rules-based implication for the other (or does not have).  I see the rule you are quoting, but I find either interpretation reasonably-likely.  I'm not saying you are "wrong," but I do not see the rules clearly saying you are "right."

Let me ask this:  if a tough creature has inherent "Armor Points" (let's say at least 3 of them), is it automatically this 100% immune to Disruption?  My gut answer is "of course not!"

So I'm looking for some extra clarification; maybe my gut is wrong.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by g33k
Typo

[Mankcam]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But according to the text of the spell in RQ2:

DISRUPTION 1 point
80 meters, focused, permanent
A spell designed to speed up random molecular motion in the
target’s body. If the caster’s POW overcomes the target’s POW,
the target takes 1D3 points of damage in a random body area.
This damage is not absorbed by armor.

It is implied that the spell only works against living creatures (and/or undead or possessed dead) objects since the  that the target must have a body and a POW/Magic Point score to overcome. That would disqualify most objects as valid targets. 

 

I agree with this implication that this spell is intended to affect living organisms rather than inanimate objects.

I have never heard of an inanimate object's mass referred to as a 'body' in commonly spoken English, and the reference usually pertains to a living creature. Yes, the term 'Body' can actually technically refer to the mass of anything, but in commonly spoken English language it usually indicates a living creature, so I have always interpreted the spell description as pertaining to such.

So I personally feel very clear with not being able to use Disrupt on most inanimate objects. 

However to throw a spanner in the works - does this mean it works on trees and plants? And if so, does it work on wooden furniture and such?

My feeling is that is doesn't work on wood, as it is no longer a 'living organisms', but it possibly could work on plants (unless there is a Gloranthan mytho-rationale that prevents such), or perhaps it doesn't, purely because a plant has no POW.

By this reckoning it would not work on the Undead either...hmmm

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Mankcam

[TRose]

 For the record , as a GM I would say disruption worked on anything that normally had power and did not work on things that do not have power.. Mostly as a game balance.

•  I can see casting disruption on an Undead or an elemental even if they are not really alive. as sometimes that's the only thing players have to fight some monsters. But I cannot see a Lunar Centurion getting 50 Hoplites together and casting mass disruption  to form a hole in a castle wall.