Kloster

No, those are spirit magic, so don't stack. I would do this only for stackable rune spells known from 2 cults.

Yes. And T1 was "The village of Hommlet", first part of "Temple of the Elemental Evil" (T1-4).

T1?

I had the opposite problem: My co-players hated when my GM began to use successfully MY tactics. Good.

Don't forget that if you use Sing or Chant to augment a spellcasting, it is instant and will not make the spell longer to cast. Meditation is a different story.

In that case, I would say that if you cast, say, a Shield 2, known by Orlanth cult and powered by 2RP of the Orlanth Rune pool, and then the following round you cast a Shield 3, known through Storm Bull and powered by 3 RP taken from the SB Rune pool, yes you would gain a Shield 5. As a GM, I would accept it.

Completely agree here.

I would say yes. But that means 2 separate casting, 1 for the Orlanth Shield spell with Orlanth RP, and then 1 for the Storm Bull Shield spell with Storm Bull RP. You can not in my opinion cast a 2 point Shield by using 1 RP from each pool, even if you know the spell from both cults.

As their own Arkati sorceror is already engaged in his own spellcasting, they protect him by bashing everything in sight.

Hello Jeff, In previous iterations of RQ, spell boosting by using extra MP was possible only offensively, to bypass defensive magic. RQ3 words were "When it is cast, additional magic points can be added to any spell in order to help it overcome defensive magic". According to Scotty and Well of Daliath, MP spent to boost spells also count now to help non-instant spells to resist dispel/dismiss. My question is: "Why the change"? Regards (and thanks for the work and the time you spend with us).

Easy: They are casting a spell (remember, magic is visible, so you see crackling energy and the like), and they don't do anything else during the round. Why not? You may loose some shots, but is is safer because you improve your chance of hitting a caster. At the very least, somebody that meditates during a combat is either a fool or someone that is preparing for a spell, so should be a likely target. This is why the 'Statement of Intent' phase of the combat round is so important. Your "I shoot at somebody who looks like they are casting a spell" is a perfectly valid option. I would phrase it differently, but I agree.

Thanks for the idea. Not quite because with transform 'Substance' to 'Substance', the resultant substance is real, and said cognac has helped us greet people in our wilderness camp, buy information and 'distract' guards, among others. Not only does it tasted like cognac, but it was the right stuff, with all the side effects (happiness, drunkenness,...).

Completely true. In fact, this is true whatever the kind of magic. If you see a big guy with death rune incanting for more than 1 round, you can bet this will be a sword trance with more than 10MP, which is not good either. When you have an opportunity to stop that, you do it. I completely agree here. True, the look and feel will be different, but any spell, whether Spirit, Runic or Sorcerous, that takes more than 1 round will be powerful and will have big effects. If done in combat, it is logical to try to interrupt the caster. Not doing it is a folly.

In Shadowrun, the rule was 'hit the mage'. The rule is here about the same: If you discover somebody that is preparing something that you think will destroy you, you put everything you have on him before he hits.

Now that I have time to think about it, that means that if I wanted to recreate my character, it would be better to use the lunar school of sorcery: He was a lunar officer, after all, not a vizier, nor a magi. I still wonder how to convert some spells, as his most used spell was 'change water to whisky' (in fact, change water to cognac, as I am french and my old GM didn't drank whisky).

My dead tree RQ2 stuff is 150 km away and I haven't purchased the pdf, so I can't check. But from memory, it seems correct. Yes. On that part, RQ3 was more descriptive and RQG more quick to the result. This is part of the changes I like going from RQ3 to RQG. Even if I don't like the rationale (I prefer INT for having spells kept in memory), it works, and this is what I explain to players. Up to now, it worked, so I am ok.

Now that you remember me, same (it was soooo long ago).

Luckily (?), I have no current playing group, so I don't have this problem, as we have up to this time played as RAW as we can, if only to check what was convenient for us. Ditto!! Thanks David and all others, even (and especially) if we don't always agreed.

Agreed. I was just saying it is not clear that it allows to resist dispel or dismiss. This is why I proposed a clarification to avoid the ambiguity, as it seems I am not the only one to have misunderstood what was intended to be understood. I have no problem conceptually either. The problems I see are twofold: - That means the GM has to track for every spells cast how many MP have been used for boosting, as we don't know at time of casting if somebody will try to dispel it.. - Spells cast by shamans (under certain conditions) and certain type of sorcerors are becoming impossible to dispel They can easily be boosted by 20 or 30 MP AND have a long duration. This is why I said I will probably not allow it when I GM (when I am not the GM, I am not the one who decides).

Yes, I am. But what I wanted to say is that the cost of the object AND the work of the enchanter are extra. And for me, the enchanter can request what he wants (money, service, ...). And I agree with you, this should be expensive, as enchanters are scarce. Of course, if you are doing enchants for yourself or your buddies, you don't care about that part. Completely agree here. The fact I am defending it is possible and there should be a market (but not a stock exchange) does not mean it is socially or culturally acceptable. As we discussed earlier, for Lunars or Kralori, maybe, for others, much less. Yes, this was how (mechanically) spirit spells were taught by cults in RQ3. Now, Priests and Rune Lords can teach the spell they know, that's it. In our RQ3 campaigns, we ruled that this spell was mandatory to become priest.

I don't, but this a subject for another thread. It would be off topic here.

Except that p248 only speaks of the offensive use, in order to 'overcome a Countermagic or Shield spell, or other magical defenses'. This is why I proposed to change the ruling p 248 to 'This is typically done to overcome a Countermagic or Shield spell, or other magical defenses. The boosting MP count both to pierce magical protection and to resist dispel/dismiss'. This would avoid any ambiguity like the one we are discussing now (again), but would not avoid having people houseruling it, if only to avoid the bookkeeping.

I have not said 'someone that frees you in exchange of POW' but 'thanking somebody for purchasing you with the sole goal to free you'. The guy buys you, then frees you without asking anything in exchange (One of my character already did it in an old RQ3 campaign). Then, you thank him by giving POW to an enchant he is just performing.

like 'thanking somebody for purchasing you with the sole goal to free you'?

Thanks Nick. This is the perfect answer to the question I have asked. I hear your warning (not related to this case because I have clearly explained I just want to recreate my old character with the new rules, not play it). I have already done it and I had much fun.