Imryn

You would have to roll POW x 5 to cast the extension and then against your Air rune for the shield, but yes that's it. And you aren't mixing RP sources because the Extension doesn't come from any RP pool. Of course you would have to pass both rolls, and if you failed one then only one spell would cast so you could waste your Extension matrix if the shield failed to cast. I understand where you are coming from about recharging the matrix at any temple, and as a GM I would probably rule the way you think, but the RAW doesn't support it. See below

There is another huge benefit from creating a spell matrix for extension. Anyone can use it. So if your party consists of five players they can each sac a single point of POW to contribute to an extension 5 matrix and then share it around between them.

@PhilHibbs Well an extension matrix wouldn't be tied to any one RP pool because it is created with raw POW, and you make a POW check to cast a rune spell from a matrix as well, so there is nothing there that ties the enchanted extension to any particular RP pool or deity. The description (RQG 335) does say "Once used, the user must take the item back to the proper temple to be recharged with a successful Worship ceremony." but for common rune spells any temple can be the proper temple.

Why not create a spell matrix for extension? One time permanent POW sac for a reusable extension that doesn't lock out RP seems like a good deal to me.

I think singing is probably a part of a bronze age persons general life, not just religious ceremonies - I'm thinking work songs and chants and just general entertainment.

I noticed the discrepancies as well, but assumed that it was a deliberate mechanism to steer starter adventurers into developing a more rounded range of skills.

I think for the same reason it is an underwhelming reward for DI, it is also not worth a heroquest. But yes, that would also be a way to get the training. The 0% skill idea is very good, I will do it that way. I am starting to think that I am not going to get any traction with this unless I make it more powerful.

Have you seen the "egregious munchkinnery" thread?

enchantments are rune magic spells, learnt and used in exactly the same way as common and special rune magic spells. Regardless, this evidently wasn't one of the intended uses for Wyter's.

The Wyter casts the Matrix Creation Enchantment and Extension 5 and Shield 10 and creates the Link spell condition to activate both spells simultaneously. The Wyter also sacrifices an additional 1 point of POW per 5 worships it wishes to target. As per RQG P249 The POW sacrificed for the enchantment does not have to be provided entirely by the enchanter; if the enchanter sacrifices at least 1 point of their own POW, others can voluntarily contribute to the sacrifice, with no limit. So the Wyter has to sacrifice 1 point for the enchantment, and 1 point per 5 targets, and the rest can come from the worshipers.

PBI = Poor Bloody Infantry

I think a lot of this is going to be dependent on the Wyter. The rules say that the priest can order it around but I don't think it as simple as the priest says "do" and the Wyter "does". They have told us that Wyters have POW and CHA that scales with the size of the community, but they haven't ruled out other characteristics, and all three of the examples in RQB have far more than just POW and CHA. The Wyter will have a personality and it will represent the type of community it serves. A Wyter that serves a peaceful farming community will not want to use its abilities for these sort of war like purposes and will resist the priests orders. Conflict between the priest and the Wyter will probably be mirrored in the community causing all sorts of problems. On the other hand, the Wyter serving a mercenary company will probably be well on board with this type of thing.

Nope. RQG P287: ..A wyter may cast spirit magic or Rune spells on any member of its community when directed to by its priest. The wyter may even simultaneously cast the same spell on multiple members of the community by spending additional points of POW. Each point of POW spent lets the wyter cast the spell on an additional five members of the community. The only additional cost is the 1 point of POW per 5 worshipers. To make myself completely clear - the writers have explicitly created a way of generating POW out of thin air. They will probably change that at some point, but for the moment it is there.

I think this is why the PBI still exists in Glorantha. With magic being so common and so powerful it never made much sense that people would sign up to be infantry. This is a real equalizer for professional soldiers.

And enchantments can be cast on people. RQG P249 Anything material can be enchanted: such as one or more hit locations of a creature (if it has material form) or inanimate objects (up to 25 SIZ points per point of POW used in the enchantment). There is no limit on the number of enchantments performable on an object. Even a place can be enchanted: intruders might activate one or more spells; a magician might have stored magic points or spells at a certain location—a dryad’s grove, a hero’s tomb, a temple’s inner sanctum, or an isolated mountain shrine. To enchant an area, thing, or creature, the enchanter must inscribe the Runes of the enchantment on, in, or around the thing to be enchanted. The symbols need not be visible, but they must be made of or from some real substance. Enchanters usually inscribe the Runes in as permanent a fashion as possible: if the symbols are destroyed, the enchantment is also destroyed.

Its right there in the RQG description on P286 ..The wyter can cast any Rune spell or spirit magic spell known by its priest (assuming the priest is within range of the wyter). A wyter spends points of its characteristic POW instead of Rune points when casting Rune spells, with a chance of success equal to its CHA×5. As long as the priest knows the necessary enchantment rune spells the Wyter can cast them.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying it won't work? I am not proposing making a matrix that allows the wyters special ability to be used by the worshipers. The wyter is using its special ability to apply the matrix to additional worshipers, but the matrix that's being applyed only consists of normal rune spells.

I am now considering creating a new spell "etch bones" to inscribe the runes for the enchantment directly on the worshipers skeleton

An enchantment can be cast on any materiel object, including on people "Anything material can be enchanted: such as one or more hit locations of a creature (if it has material form) or inanimate objects (up to 25 SIZ points per point of POW used in the enchantment). There is no limit on the number of enchantments performable on an object. Even a place can be enchanted: intruders might activate one or more spells; a magician might have stored magic points or spells at a certain location—a dryad’s grove, a hero’s tomb, a temple’s inner sanctum, or an isolated mountain shrine. To enchant an area, thing, or creature, the enchanter must inscribe the Runes of the enchantment on, in, or around the thing to be enchanted. The symbols need not be visible, but they must be made of or from some real substance. Enchanters usually inscribe the Runes in as permanent a fashion as possible: if the symbols are destroyed, the enchantment is also destroyed." So, tattoos or brands or something but what the hey!

Has anyone considered using the enchantment rules to get those uber shield spells that were mentioned back on page one of the thread? RQG P249 has the following to say about enchantments: The POW sacrificed for the enchantment does not have to be provided entirely by the enchanter; if the enchanter sacrifices at least 1 point of their own POW, others can voluntarily contribute to the sacrifice, with no limit. To create an enchanted item to give us an extended shield 10 we would need; Extension 5, Shield 10, and a Link spell condition. That’s 16 points of POW. For the Wyter to make 5 of them we need another 1 point, so 17 points in total. The Wyter must sacrifice 1 point, but the rest can come from worshipers. The interesting thing is the way this scales up. Create 5 items – 17 points POW, 10 items – 18 points POW, 15 items – 19 points POW, 20 items – 20 points POW No matter how many are made the Wyter only has to sacrifice 1 point of POW. The cost goes up if you want to make the shield bigger, but in every case the cost per item scales the same way. If I want to create a 100 point shield with extension 5 it should be pretty much impossible, but wait! If I use my friendly Wyter to create 200 of them it would only cost 146 POW, only one point of which has to come from the Wyter! And the items are reusable! And can be added too at a later date! This must be wrong! What have I missed? OK, I can already see one problem – the points for the Wyter multiplying the items are not necessarily part of the enchantment so a cruel and unfeeling GM might rule that they all have to come from the Wyter. That rules the 100 point shield out, but for the 10 point shield the Wyter sacs 1 point for the enchantment plus 1 point per 5 items. To make 20 the Wyter sacs 5 points and the 20 lucky worshipers sac 1 point each (16 for the enchantment and 4 go back to the Wyter). If you make it a 20 point shield the cost to the Wyter is the same and the cost to the worshipers is 2 each, and the Wyter gets 10 points back for 5 points spent. There must be something else I am missing!

I would be open to removing all restrictions for the right and left hand weapons when learning the skill. I don't think it should be particularly common for characters to have learned a dual wield skill, so I threw up some roadblocks but to be honest the rarity of trainers is probably restrictive enough. The DI route to get the skill is expensive and probably nobody would even consider it until they had RL DI available, and even then its underwhelming as a DI reward. Using the existing RAW for two weapons the second attack takes place at the combined SR of both attacks i.e. the attacks are happening in sequence. Using my house rule the attacks with both weapons take place simultaneously, at their own SR. This allows a character using a dual wield skill to potentially make more attacks per round than a character using two weapons in RAW. As has been pointed out to me this is a minor benefit, and I think it does not make the skill significantly more powerful. I have some ideas that would make it more powerful, but at the moment I am trying to get a basic framework for learning it in place

I am pretty sure that ANY learning of a left hand weapon skill when the character already has a right hand skill for it would meet your definition of "using a sub par skill". Yet characters still manage to learn left hand skills. If you have 90% RH dagger and want to learn LH dagger, even if you pay for training and spend 2 years in a salle you can only get to 75% so it will STILL be subpar and therefore ineligible for a tick. Obviously there is some leeway. Obviously you don't think my ideas deserve it. Moving on ... No skill is replaced. The existing skills and RAW stands and can be used at any time by the players choice. My house rule extends two weapon fighting without affecting the RAW in any way. I think your final paragraph sums up your opinion - "dual wield is already overpowered". Bias detected, feedback disregarded.

All character development amounts to "skill tick hunting". Every rule that has "you must have xx% in this skill and that skill" encourages "skill tick hunting". It is fundamentally built into the game system. It is hardly fair to criticise my house rule for this when almost every single official rule is guilty of exactly the same flaw. If you want to talk about the concept of "level" go and re-read the requirements for Rune Lords and Rune Priests. Required to have multiple skills at 90% plus right? The benefits of dual wielding are (deliberately) not that great. I wanted something that added breadth, depth, and flavour to the existing rules, not a tool for power gamers. If you think it needs more power please say so. How about having every second attack be undefendable with parry - the attacks are so fast that the parrying weapon is out of position? I could easily work something like that in, but I thought it would be too powerful.

There is only one advantage, yes. See my reply to @Joerg about obtaining the skill. Your skill isn't reduced, you still have your existing skills and can choose to use them as per the RAW rules whenever you want. I imagine that while training up a newly obtained dual wield skill a player will only use it enough to get a skill check, and only against weaker opponents, and then revert to RAW two weapon use. Or even use two weapons enough to get a skill check for the left handed weapon then use a shield. The high number of attacks at high skill levels is optional, just as splitting attacks with a single weapon is. It is simply another tool that is not available to someone who has not trained a dual wielding skill. You don't specifically mention it, but would you also be happier with the rule if the required % to learn it was lower? Starting the skill with a lower % requirement for both weapons would mean that the character was levelling the skill up at an earlier point in their career, against weaker enemies.

I didn't add any special abilities to the dual wielding skill (apart from the potential to make more split attacks) because I didn't want it to be over-powered. I wanted the driving force behind a player getting it to be role play based and not power gaming based. I agree that it is a pretty poor gift for a successful DI - that is there as an alternative to finding a trainer, and i intend finding a trainer to be the primary route. Any other route to learning the skill that a GM wants to come up with would also be acceptable. When fighting an opponent with over 100% skill the excess over 100 would be subtracted from the skill of the dual wielder. The dual wielder always has the choice to not use the dual wield skill and revert to the RAW two weapons rules. On the whole a character who has trained in dual wielding will be at a disadvantage in skill % against an opponent who has trained in a single weapon skill. Not that big a disadvantage though, because you can only get a max of one skill check per session so the dual wielder can potentially get 3 checks per session (one for each weapon and one for the dual wield skill) whereas the single weapon user can only get one. Overall, am I right in thinking that your main feedback is that getting 90% in the two weapons before learning dual wielding is too restrictive? Would reducing the requirement to 70% be better, or even lower?