womble

That certainly seems to be the intent. I think this intent is that an ability can only be augmented by one other ability at a time. So you could augment your Orate with Sing in one scene, but later in the session, in another scene augment it with your Earth Rune or your Hate (Lunars) Passion. But you could not stack your Sing, Earth and Hate onto one speech.

I would hazzard a guess that it is 'not a thing' in the Homelands so far revealed. It strikes me as a more 'Western' development, culturally (I'm of the "Sartar is somewhat analogous to Germano-Celtic historical Iron Age culture, and barding wasn't around for them).

But then increases in STR would stop being useful for things where strength is useful. You're entirely free to make whatever stats you think proper apply to whatever skills you like. You don't have to compromise.

I'd far rather fight a trained lackwit than a trained genius of similar motivation; the genius will adapt to my actions way better than someone who's just been drilled and doesn't have the creative spark to think outside their kata. In some ways it makes sense that a giant would be a good crafter: their strength means they can manage things a human-strength character couldn't. Their size should count against them in some way though; they'll struggle with really fine work. 'Tis the problem with a generic bonus.

I recall from my recent reading (Sourcebook, RQG, 2 x Red Cow and the three Sartar Rising books) statements to the effect that the Lunars don't actively bother Sartarite worship ceremonies because the Orlanthi "magic is at its strongest". Anyone rudely interrupting a couple hundred Heroforming Initiates in direct contact with their God, and their Priests and Wind Lords better have some serious mojo at their back. Or a death wish. "Summons of Evil' actively calls such foes for the specific purpose of the ritual, so they'd be incorporated as part of the worship event. Again, from my memory of the above recently read, yes, the Gods take the inedible bits burnt on a fire (or what have you) and the yummy rest of the Cow makes the centrepiece of the post-Worship celebratory feast.

They can't use it on any other day (unless their Seasonals aren't on Wildday - no time to dig in and find out). That was part of my point. You can Worship anywhere that's Sanctified, but only on appropriate days.

Y'all are neglecting Ernalda's blessings . Pregnancy rates can be higher, and perinatal mortality of mother and child (or children - multiple births are an option) reduced by Rune Magic. 180 fertile mothers could produce 90 (or even 180) live births per year, or you only need 120 (or even 60) mothers. At least in the latest incarnation of 'how Rune Magic works' (RQG)... There are plenty of people able to cast the right spells. Now I'm sure many mothers would want to spread their births out a bit more than every year or two, but would 'duty to clan' following times of loss encourage more to group their pregnancies more tightly (or have 'just one more')? I gather the Romans had awards for mothers bearing 5 or more children.

That seems about right to me, as a reading of RAW. An ad hoc Sanctified space wouldn't give you any 'location' bonus to your Worship chance, but there's no occasion listed for getting Rune Points back which isn't at least a minor Holy day. I think it's one of the advantages the big Cults (Orlanth, Ernalda, Seven Mothers and the like) that they have weekly minor Holy days... lesser Cults only get Seasonal and High Holy days, which means their Priests have to be much more prudent about when to blow their Rune Points.

The only thing that is abundantly clear about all this is that the RAW are abundantly murky about how Detect Enemies (and the like) are meant to interact with Countermagic.

Except it specifically says in the CM description that CM protects you from (amongst other things) Detect spells. You can choose to discount that, obviously, but it's no more 'correct' than discounting the other copypasta inconsistencies in the spell rules relating to Detect. There are a limited number of spells which don't have a target, just have effects in an area. The subset of those where the effect is 'magical' (as opposed to the consequence of the physical presence of something, like fire) is smaller, and the subset of that subset where the effects affect 'beings' (rather than the environment) is smaller yet. There are no Spirit Magic spells I could see other than the Detects where there's an area effect affecting beings with magic, and I can't see any at all in Sorcery. In Rune Magic, you have: Command Worshippers Create [Great] Market Group Laughter Harmony. This one is especially interesting because it explicitly says it " can be boosted with magic points...to blast through Countermagic and other defensive spells." From the reading of the general rules, I'd've said it would be the case for all spells that are trying to cause an effect on beings. The existence of one explicit allowance of this doesn't, to my mind, constitute evidence that other spells cannot be defended against with Countermagic; there are spells which do exclude defensive spells of one kind or another, and the existence of those demonstrates that, in general, protective magic, well, y'know, protects. It stands, instead, as a testament to inconsistent editing. Peace Path Watch (a long duration, large AE "Detect Enemies") Summons of Evil Warding Warding and the Market spells are examples of where having CM protect you from Det Enemies while still having the protection registered by the caster would be useful (and provide a further case where Detection Blank would be superior to CM). The Warding doesn't detect you as an enemy (that's an inference made by the caster), so the damaging and alarm effects do not trigger (and a strong enough Detection Blank would mean even the caster doesn't know an enemy has slipped within their defenses). Command Worshippers, Group Laughter, Harmony, Peace and Summons of Evil are all 'offensive mind affecting spells' that the target may not wish to have affect them. As such, sufficient Countermagic, for long enough, should block these spells' effects. In practice, this probably means Extended Shield spells for most of those. I'd say sufficient Countermagic effect would protect against any of these spells area effects, even though none of them even mention "Target".

Ar. Mebbee. Given the historical lack of clarity, I'm not sure delving into older versions (and unearthing any contradictions between them to add to the confustications) is necessarily helpful. For one, the intents may have changed (as they did with Healing/Xenohealing between v2 and v3).

Nope. In none of the Detect spells does it allow the caster to use the spell on anyone else. They all say "...from the caster..." Not "from the target".

Were those questions in the other thread? I'm assuming you mean encounters like the 'urbane highwayman' who has no intention of harming you if you calmly surrender your valuables, but will have his minions shoot you in the gizzard if you're lippy... I'd take those as 'not registering'; a Detect Enemies would produce no result, confirming the robber's "honesty" about letting you go on your way unharmed if you comply (or warn you if he intends to cut you even if you do give up the goods). A suspicious Guard isn't your enemy until you skin your bronze at him... No; an omission. I think it has to include only physical harm (however inflicted). A chiselling conman or beer-watering alewife isn't an Enemy; they don't want your blood, just your Lunars. And yeah, if the Trickster is particularly vindictive, there might be times when they're seriously considering slipping a shank between the Wind Lord's ribs while they sleep.

Making, again, the point that CM "...protects the target it is cast upon against ...Detection..." useless. If Det Enemies only registers as being blocked by CM protecting Enemies, then CM doesn't protect against Detection. Also, for this edition, I don't think the entry for any of the Detect spells suggests you can cast them on anyone other than yourself. They all say "...gives the approximate direction and distance from the caster..." which means whoever you cast it on, the caster is the focus. And for Detect Enmies, in addition, the caster is the person who is considered when assessment of who the potential detectee is intending to harm "... from the caster of any being intending to harm them..." Thirdly, the wording of Detect Enemies is thoroughly slack. "...or it detects and locates a specific individual on whom the caster concentrates." Doesn't require the individual in question to be intending to harm them, which is probably good, since they may not even be aware of the existence of the specific person who's casting the spell. Whole thing needs a rework, including the removal of the "Focused" descriptor (since the duration is "Instant"), unless "Focused" getting an actual definition helps in sorting out the mess. Which gives me an idea. Make the spell (Quotation for separation purposes only - this is a suggestion not some sort of attempt to pull Authority out of my wazoo): Thoughts? Anyone with (a strong enough) Detection Blank just gets skipped over. Detect Enemies stops being a mass "Dispel Countermagic". Having Countermagic reduces the information the caster gets out of the spell. The undefined "Focused" limitation is replaced by the defined "Active", but its flavour is retained. The flow of information to the caster is made more manageable. The above suggestion allows you to confirm an ambush by your enemies, if you see something suspicious and follow it up with a Detect Enemies, even if the ambushers have 'cleverly' put someone with a big Shield spell at the entry to the ambush. You just won't get any more information like you would if the ambushers didn't have any Countermagic-effect at all. It lets you check out a dubious social situation before you enter it.

Not many Initiates stay that low for very long, given 2 POW gain checks per year. Admitted, they need to succeed at their Worship, but with 'base' skill and a Temple bonus and a High Holy Day (or Sacred Time) bonus and even maybe the chance to augment with their relevant high Rune affinity, they'll probably succeed most of the time. Of note, perhaps, is that if their POW is 2 (because of sacrifice for Enchant/Rune Point/Divine Intervention) they can't participate in Worship without passing out, since an Initiate needs to sac 2 MP for a valid Worship attempt, and if their POW is 1 they simply can't do it.

I think you're correct that this is the way the RAW pan out. Though 'having to sacrifice a cow' is a great excuse for a feast!

Which would mean Detection Blank won't be making an appearance in this version of the game. And would make (what I suspect will be quite common) Extended Shield a near-perfect stealth enhancer. Another unintended consequence, IMO.

With the advent of the RQG currency you don't need to go to a Shrine or a Temple, you need to be on Consecrated ground and make a Worship roll to regain Rune Points. Being at a Shrine or a Temple (or on Cult Holy Days) gives you a bonus to your Worship roll. As does expending additional Magic Points (and that last makes it easy to have a 100% chance of successful Worship). It's difficult to entirely stamp out worship within your slave population if they're from a heavily-Initiated culture like Sartar; Sanctify is available to any Initiate and if anyone's got a votive image at their home temple, they'll get a point to cast it in their quarters (even if they arrive in slavery having blown all their Rune Points and never get a chance to Worship) and then they can bootstrap their Rune Points by Worshipping. So preventing the slaves from setting up sacred spaces would be another facet of controlling them.

Okay, I'll try again. Detect Enemies: Target is the person whose enemies are being detected. Positive candidate: entity inside the area of effect who does, in fact, intend harm to the Target. Potential candidate: everyone inside the area of effect. We're talking about the first case 'general detection'. " ...gives the approximate direction and distance from the caster of any being intending to harm them..." Take the general query: "Is this group of folk I can see hostile to me specifically." The Target is the caster. If the 'first' Potential candidate is a Positive candidate with a Countermagic on them sufficient to block the spell, according to the 'only hostiles are even considered' interpretation, the spell is blocked, and because the caster knows only positive candidates' CM is even addressed, they know the 'first' potential candidate must be an enemy, and can infer therefore that the group they are facing bears them enmity. Making the fact that CM blocks Detect Enemies completely pointless. The same goes for the "are there enemies behind that door": maybe it's pointless for the Humakti to cast it because the ZZ Death Lord behind the door doesn't know the Humakti Target is even there; maybe it's pointless because the Death Lord has decided the Ernalda Initiate looks tastier. But I believe the intent is to detect Enemies. A ZZ berserker is the natural enemy of a Humakti, so the spell should trigger. And yay! The troll's Season-long Shield 5 stops it working. And boooo! the Humakti knows there's an enemy behind the door, rather than just someone with a Countermagic about which you know nothing of their intentions. Countermagic's cancelling of Detect Enemies should, IMO, result in ambiguity, not simply confirmation that the 'potential candidate' is a positively identified enemy, exactly as if they hadn't had Countermagic up. Detection Blank is for entirely different purposes and situations. And anyone casting Detect Enemy as a general query while there's a fight going on (without a very specific reason) is wasting magic points: the enemy are trying to do you harm already. Detect Enemies is (usually) for before the fight actually starts, to either detect the presence of unobserved attackers-to-be, or determine the intention of entities you can see who haven't actually tried to harm you yet, as far as you can tell. As it stands, the spell description is frankly shonky and needs significant clarification. If we hadn't come up with the idea of Detect Enemies blowing down CM, this wouldn't be an issue. You could cast it on a room full of simmering belligerence, and you'd get results of: Don't know (if there's a CM up on the subject of the spell that can bounce the Detect) Enemy (if the Detect is strong enough to beat a putative Countermagic and the subject is inclined to cause harm to the Target) Not inclined to kill the target today (if the detect beats any existing CM weight on a subject who is not inclined to cause harm to the Target) or has enough Detection Blank to stymie the Detect's MP boost. Because it just goes out there and checks on peoples' intent without being a way of disrupting magical defenses in a wide area, which I think we're all agreed is not the intent. Just say "No," to EMP-Detects. Detect Enemies should be useful (for example) to find out whether there are any blood enemies in a drinking establishment (in a neutral location, maybe) before entering, IMO. They don't know you're even in the settlement (if they'e there) but have a general, ongoing wish to cause you and your Clan harm. If any of the patrons of that establishment have enough magical defense to bounce the Detect, they should register as "unknown" (and I think should know their defenses got approached - they should also be able to infer something about the nature of the spell: it's either a Sorcery or a largely innocuous Spirit or Rune spell, because they didn't see the flashy cast). If they've got Detection Blank up enough to defeat the Detect, they don't register, whether they're ill-wishers or not.

Which makes the effect of Countermagic as blocking the Detect Enemies nugatory: by blocking the spell, it has announced that the target is an enemy. So, even if a big Detect Enemies doesn't knock down Countermagics, it would still make the 'counter detection' aspect of Countermagic almost entirely pointless, and doubly so if a strong 'first' Countermagic will knock down a weaker Detect Enemies. I do not believe this can be the actual intent. I strongly disagree with that assessment. Because it's entirely possible to be intent on harming "everyone in the adventurers' party". I'd submit that it's more likely that this is the case in most instances of ambush or combat than each enemy only and solely focusing their intent on the targets they're currently engaging. "When I've dropped this sucker, I'm going to stab the vitals of their friends too!" How deep into the motivation of the character does the spell look? Is each member a Lunar Kill Squad not wishing harm on all the Sartarite rebels they've managed to get the drop on, even if they're currently only planning on Madnessing one character?

Because some people seem to have missed it:

Given that "magic makes the world easier to negotiate because you have spells, but more dangerous because so do your foes," pretty much anyone will be at a disadvantage in the world if they don't have a decent selection of Spirit Magic.

While that might seem true, you could have an officer, a medic, a scrounger, the 'Grunt', a shooter, and maybe a mage. Other specialisms exist... An excellent source of inspiration for a 'squad-based' military game could be the Malazan Marines from Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen. Personalities make con games, not stats.

Aye. Good old Jove was a serial sexual predator, who got away with it because of Divine status and power.

Quite. Your word is your life. Unless it isn't, and you don't mind being thought of as an oathbreaker. How severe an oathbreaker you're considered is probably a function of both the 'reasonableness' of the oath and its context, and the attitude of the considerer towards oathtaking. Given the Sartarite attitude towards foreigners/enemies and the law, for example, I don't imagine there'd be much disapprobation from your community for breaking an oath made to a Lunar, especially under duress, and more fool the Lunar who didn't comprehend that the oath would be void as soon as the duress became inoperable.