Charles VA

7 hours ago, g33k said:

. but I (the player) still REALLY like the spell!

 

I second that, but trollkin with slings really mess with your concentration. 

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Don't feel to bad. A friend on mine had RQ1 and got burned badly at a tournament  becuase they changed one of the Rune Spells (I think it was Warding) between editions. The orginal included Detect Enemies, while the RQ2 version did not. The player figured he was covered, and got ambushed. 

You mean the RQ1 version didn't have Detect Enemies and the RQ2 version did. And that would do it. :-)

In my experience, Fireblade was really only good for the opening rounds of combat and only if the user was able to close quickly and put it into effective use. After the first couple, maybe 3, rounds the user has likely taken a nick of damage, somewhere, and dropped the spell. Because of this, I had many players who forswore Fireblade in favor of Bladesharp in most instances. Firearrow use was another matter entirely.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

BTW, how many Chaotic Features does an "AVATAR OF CHAOS" get?

 

 

Consult your local Cacodemon summoning for the answer to that question. ;-)

Last I heard "Ever-Last wafers" were a Dorastan Broo supply. Or at least that's the last place I read of them. In the Dorastor source book.

The sorcery spells of "Summon", "Contact" or "Call" are all headings which have many other spells that fall under those. Summon Carp, Contact Second Cousin of King Hottentot or Call Ubermensh would be the spells your sorcerer would know not the title names. Hope that helps.

F.Y.I - I love coming up with weird stuff. :-)

4 hours ago, Byrom said:

I posted this in the Facebook RQ page, but there was not a lot of feedback, so any help appreciated:-

RuneQuest 2 (c1980 GW under license from Chaosium) A question for the Rule Lawyers: The spell Fireblade, on the inside cover of the rule book there are a set of clarifications, corrections and Additions which state:

Page 38

" Fireblade - An impaling blow with a Firebladed weapon does the full damage of the weapon (11 points for a 2 H spear, for instance) plus the normal 3D6 damage of the Fireblade. The damage from a Fireblade replaces only the weapon damage. If the character using the weapon has a damage bonus, that damage bonus is still effective. If the weapon impales or slashes the damage is based on the Fireblade damage, not the weapons regular damage."

 

The last sentence seems to counter the example of the 2H spear, logically the damage should be 18 rather than 11

(The same info appears in the RQ Companion as well)

Correct

4 hours ago, Byrom said:

Runemasters (1980):- Page 10, section 6: "Inverting spells - a number of spells can be used to good effect when used in a manner opposite to normal use. If you are faced, for example with a giant using a great sword (who does 2D8 +5D6 damage), then cast Fireblade upon his great sword. Now he only does 3D6 and furthermore he cannot slash with a Fireblade."

This information is incorrect and should be replaced with the Fireblade description from the RQ2 rules.  It is a really bad idea to cast Fireblade on an enemies weapon, under normal circumstances.

4 hours ago, Byrom said:

 

 

Just to confuse the matter further in issue 14 of Wyrms Footnotes (April1982) Advice from Rurik (edited by Steve Perrin), feedback to letters from players etc "If a flaming weapon impales or slashes the extra damage is based on the fire damage for Fireblade and weapon damage for FireArrow (which is, after all a lower cost spell)."

 

Is there any further official clarification on this issue?

 

Thanks  Byrom

Fireblade is a more powerful spell than Firearrow. The Advice from Rurik is correct, of course. It's Steve Perrin after all.

On 1/17/2016 at 7:44 PM, SDLeary said:

IIRC, this is something that was resolved in the RQ Companion. And I don't think it was restricted to spears, but for all 2h weapons. I believe you could attack and parry in the same round, but not on the same strike rank, so if actions were simultaneous, and both connected, both were screwed. Alas I am not sure as I don't have anything to hand.

SDLeary 

That's my understanding of the rules as well. If we're wrong here, I've been using the wrong rule for over 30 years. I do hope we're not wrong. :-)

6 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Unfortunately, the wording in the original RQ2 and Cults of Prax is contradictory. It explicitly states that it will not carry any other living thing, even should the caster wrap his arms around it and then contradicts this in the next sentence. In this instance the status of Non-Stackable appears unambiguous.

Not with a second (stacked) casting. Port in the CoP wording as you like, I have that too. 

1 hour ago, M Helsdon said:

The same contradiction can be found in the original; I suspect, based on the other text, that this spell should be non-stackable and A stackable spell, it can be used to teleport someone else, within the same limitations should be deleted.

The spell in the original CoP gives the ability to teleport others with the caveat that the caster has to travel with the target, hence, "stackable" as multiple castings at the same time.

1 hour ago, M Helsdon said:

Unfortunately this arises from including the Cults of Prax version, which doesn't explicitly state stackable or non-stackable. Suspect this should be Stackable.

Dark Walk is extendable through multiple castings at the same time, not-stackable.

Stackable suggests an increase in the effectiveness of the particular spell being stacked, i.e. Shield.

Maybe an explicit definition of Stackable is needed.

13 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

You have the pdf? Did I miss the distribution of the pdf?

I'm feeling the same way.

11 hours ago, Joerg said:

FWIW IMG Sun Hawk is the Praxian version of Yelmalio. The full fiery glory of the sun may have rested with Splendid Yamsur, but Sun Hawk never was the Golden Age sun, only its perception.

Actually that clears up your point of view quite nicely. At least in regards to Sun Hawk. It's not my vision but good none the less.

YGMV but I still see no reason not to give a Spirit of Fire, fire. Yelmalio may have lost his flame, but not all the lesser powers of Fire did. Firshala, for instance, still retains a lesser elemental for use along with a connection to minor (Battle) magical fire. Thunderbird retains Air and Raven retains Darkness, the elemental powers not just the association so it stands to reason that Sun Hawk would as well.

I'm also interested which Chaosium document (c1980) carries with it that list of RQ2 Battle Magic.  Wyrm's Footnotes #4 I haven't seen since 1984 so I'll defer there. I'm not seeking to give an offense, just to follow the chain of logic to it's fullest. Esp. with the rebirth of RQ2. :-)

21 hours ago, David Scott said:

Sun Hawk  - Sky Gazers. Sun Hawk has no fire powers.

Just curious. Why do you have Sun Hawk with out fire powers?

With the duality of spiritual and physical making up the totality of a living creature, it's only likely at least a few would be sentient. The fish recruiter in Pavis (Temple of Feroda) is a good example.  The nomad "awakening" of a beast for use as an allied spirit would be another.

And now ... we wait.

49 minutes ago, Chaot said:

Writing up a BRP Supers system has long been on my wish list of things to do.

I would be interested in seeing this. I enjoy Superworld completely but I never turn down new ideas.

6 hours ago, SDLeary said:

For many, its not the POW (characteristic, not points) expenditure, its that for those that are not priests, this type of magic (or if you will Divine Miracle) is only of single use. After, a non-Priestly character must go back to a temple and sacrifice another point of POW to regain the spell.

In the games I was in, POW fluctuations were such that I never saw this as an issue, until my character was in the middle of Pamaltella with no temples around.

SDLeary

I'm still not seeing the problem with the mechanic though. That's part of how it's played. Having been stuck in Snake Pipe Hollow with a steadily dwindling supply of Rune Magic and stored POW pts. can be a slightly disturbing issue but that's knowing when to get out and live to fight another day.

Are most players interested in endless supplies of magic to complement a more aggressive and less dangerous gaming style?  My players are the masters of the combined Disruption casting. They use that tactic regularly to defeat larger creatures. A good idea that also nets, usually, a POW increase roll and another chance to have more magic available. This makes magic more plentiful and to easy to gather if it's endless.

Granted I'm a little subjective about the whole topic but, could someone explain to me why the great disagreement with POW pt. expenditure for Divine/Rune Magic. Each spell is another Pact made with the divinity who is supporting the magic and Pacts take POW.  Without some stipulations that require effort, there would be an over abundance of RuneLevels everywhere.  Now, I'm ready to listen.

I always asked my group, "What did you learn?", with each player detailing some new information their character had picked up in the session. Enough new information and I would either allow an Experience Tick on a particular skill (could be any skill grouping) that conforms to this information or I would give a flat +5% if the information learned was significant enough or the skill being regarded was low enough (i.e. under 25% usually).  The What Did You Learn sessions can build up over the course of a complete adventure to produce a skill gain at the end anyway, even if not in an individual session.

It adds an extra element to player/character development.

8 hours ago, tooley1chris said:

NOW this thread is out of place.

 

My apologies.

Gaming in Glorantha, I didn't mod the system but made additions to it. Using RQ in non-Gloranthan backgrounds left open the differences in approach. Consider, since RQ was originally written to be tied to Glorantha with WOW/BRP as the generic gaming system.

Personally I always prefered a method of gaining "Divine Influence". Like Elan in the old Stormbringer game. It's where, as you do things, you gain divine favor or disfavor for that particular deity and can trade these for uses of formulaic magic similar to Rune Magic (Divine).  My players acted in ways they normally wouldn't just to gain that divine favor and it really added a bit of spice to our games. 

11 hours ago, Baron said:

Thanks sir, that's perfect! I really appreciate your extra effort on my behalf!

For us all, thank you sir for the extra effort. I like the work and look forward to any in the future.

The idea was simple really. Priests, of all stripes, are supposed to be managing their flocks not galavanting around the landscape killing and pillaging. For a god, it's more important for the temples to be properly cared for and the worshippers led in prayer then a priest to be chasing glory. That's what RuneLords are for.  Praying for a day per pt. of expended RuneMagic is, in my mind, reasonable considering the amount of divine power spent to power those miracles.  It's best to think of Rune/Divine Magic as directed miracles then just a source of codified power. That's sorcery.