Godlearner

4 hours ago, Steve said:

And the magic is on the person, and part of that person.

I would disagree. What if the spell is cast by another person? What if that other person is dead and the spell is still around. Unless the spell is active, that link is gone as soon as the spell is cast.

6 hours ago, Kloster said:

A target always resists a spell unless that target voluntarily and knowingly accepts the spell.

The target of a Dismiss is the magic, not the person.

39 minutes ago, Kränted Powers said:

How do you award players for good roleplaying? or good ideas?

Do not need to. Some people are good roleplayers and some are not. Why punish people for skills that their characters have and they do not. If they have a good idea then they will have an easier time of getting things done.

9 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

It does protect against hostile spells against the weapon, though, like Dullblade or Crack, that now require POW vs. POW when you have a spirit in it.

Exactly. The difference is the target. Is it the object as in the case of Dullblade or Crack, or the magic present on the object.

11 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

or cast the Dispel ”blindly” against the weapon to dispel whatever is there.

The mechanics for this are written on RQG p260 under Dispel Magic. 

17 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Except if the sword has a bound spirit (or is an allied spirit), it is protected by the character shield or countermagic.

No.

18 minutes ago, Kloster said:

As I have understood, in order to affect an items you have on someone, you need to win POW vs POW except if the object has a spirit bound in it.

No, nothing in Dismiss or Dispel says there is a POW vs POW roll. The target is the spell not the person.

13 minutes ago, Darius West said:

And that's why Humakti (like everybody) need to invest in countermagic.

Problem with that is do you go with Countermagic or Protection. Or, better yet, do I cast Countermagic, or hack with the sword anyway

9 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Ah, you reason that the sword isn’t protected by a person’s Shield spell? Is this explicit in the rules?

Yes, Bladesharp only affects the weapon its cast on, why would it be different for Shield.

2 hours ago, Kloster said:

Fireblade + Truesword is most probably protected by several level of shield or countermagic

Unlikely, at least i have not seen it used very often. countermagic once in a blue moon, shield never. The choice is always the character or the sword, and character wins every time.

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Disruption spam is nice as well, as even one point of damage requires a concentration check.

For a Fireblade. The best tactic for Fireblade is the one I first seen in the Cradle scenario where the second rankers cast Fireblade on the spears of the Yelmalio templars int he first row.

1 hour ago, Kränted Powers said:

And your system?

box-ticking

7 hours ago, David Scott said:

Dispel Magic is cheaper, but less common

Exactly, Dismiss Magic is more common and is a good use for a lot of cults which may not have such effective combat magic as Humakti.

“Quantity has a quality all its own."

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

As to how to take down a humakti

Dismiss magic is available to most cults. I see someone's sword glowing like there is no tomorrow, I blast it.

Enchanted lead gains the hardness of bronze

39 minutes ago, Alex said:

Apparently these days we also have 'customary Tricksters', where the community more generally has a broader acceptance

I am talking about player characters. 🤪

19 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

The spell is OP enough already

As a rule of thumb, unless there is an Orlanthi around to take responsibility for the Trickster, I would kill them ASAP. Save a lot of pain later on.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

So you can't parry with a hallucinary sword.

Hmm, I would say you could.

7 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

now you're one rune point poorer and not a single point of actual damage richer

Yeah, except you can continue casting Disrupt every round and take out every weapon your opponent has, while you friends prevent them from getting to you.  Try that against the Players and see how they like it.

6 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

It'd take several round

Multispell

12 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

It would make it OP, at least in my opinion. I can easialy see characters use it to target oponents weapons and armor.

Add a point or two of Multispell and ...... blah

2 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

I don't see any reason why it can't affect inanimate objects or objects without POW/MP

It would make it OP, at least in my opinion. I can easialy see characters use it to target oponents weapons and armor.

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Have those of you who have read it been able to make all the connections?

LOL, he actually wrote the whole thing using Gloranthan names and did a Find/Replace afterwards. Misses Zorak Zoran in one place 😂 and had to correct it after the release.

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

If John Boyle himself is here, please chime in! 😄

I do not know if he has an account here, but I will pass it along. 

12 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I see absolutely nothing in RAW for you to be able to make that claim!

It says specifically that you need a resistance roll to overcome. If there is no POW (or magic points) there is no roll. You can not cast it at a table or a door, therefore in RQG, you cannot sact it on a skeleton.

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Again, I think you're looking at this from a Godlearner perspective.

Have you looked at my name? Anything I say is from a Godlearner perspective.

We are talking about sorcery which has been stated does not depend on Gods or Spirits. And, we are talking about learning sorcery from cults which were spread around by the Godlearners during the peak of their power. I do not think there is anything else to say. The arguments are in the thread and people can choose what they want to think from that.

1 hour ago, Dragon said:

Another spell exists which specifically includes a Resistance Roll against something with 0 MP.

Except Disrupt does not single out Skeletons and Turn Undead does, which makes it an exception and not the rule.

Having sadi that, I can easialy see that they carried over Turn Undead from the prior edition and did not realize that skeletons no longer have magic points.

18 minutes ago, Dragon said:

And Turn Undead as previously stated could not be cast on Skeletons.

Except that Turn Undead says specifically that it can be used on Skeletons.

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

you make a connection to the source

The source is the same, the path to it is different. Personally, I view Runes as the source and Techniques as the means. A God, a spirit or a sorcery spell (the structure you create then casting a sorcery spell) is the catalist for the power you call forth. Sorcery cuts out the 'middle man', of course since the sorcery spells are not pre complied (sorry for IT terminology 🤪 ) they take more time to learn and cast.