Jump to content

PhilHibbs

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2,916
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by PhilHibbs

  1. Attract Magic (p.391) says this: So here we have a similar question, what is "the intensity" of the other spell? Sum of all the intensities The sum of all the intensities except for the base 1 point in each that is only counted once The strength intensity The highest intensity
  2. It could be interpreted that way, I suppose. I think would not, but it does sound interesting. I think Strength is simpler.
  3. Any of these flavour interpretations are all equally possible given the spell description, as long as they don't have significant game-mechanical consequences, and I don't think that's a bad thing. YGWV.
  4. And bear in mind that I'm just typing as I think, none of this is thought through and balanced. I actually prefer the idea that the dead air hangs around and is at best unpleasant to breathe, at worst you have to move out of it in order to breathe, until the breeze moves it around and breaks it up and mixes fresh air into it. A similar spell for water might kill the water, leaving it grey and stuffy with no buoyancy. It would mix and spread out as well, and while the spell is active, fresh water washed into it would be drained.
  5. Why? The spell destroys air in an area. Air moves. There's no shortage of it. Where's the nightmare? Sure, if you crank the spell up to billions of points of strength and duration then you could empty the entire Middle Air, that's a nightmare, but you could say the same about any spell will billions of points in it.
  6. Sure, why not? Yes, while the spell is active, air flows in and is absorbed and that's where the ongoing MP gain comes from. Water would also flow in and be absorbed, so there would be some cool CGI going on at the edges. Once the spell is no longer active (the caster stops concentrating) and becomes passive maintaining any MPs over the sorcerer's POW, the air rushes in and so would the water in a similar spell.
  7. It's also interesting to note that each of the manipulations is referred to as "intensity". Nowhere in the rules (CMIIW) does it mention adding up the intensity components of a sorcery spell to get a "total intensity". The manipulation limit on Free INT just limits the points added, the base 1 point in all three does not contribute to this. The rule that the base spell counts for 1 intensity even though each of the three components all have a base intensity of 1 (potentially implying a base spell intensity of 3) is never mentioned either.
  8. Where does it say that? The section "Boosting Spells" in Sorcery does not mention either.
  9. I agree with the recent, deleted, question on the Q&A thread. The older Q&A here (search "sorcery") says: In RQ3, "Intensity" referred to a portion of the spell, the portion that increases the core effect of the spell. RQG calls this "Strength". "Intensity" is now the total of all the manipulations plus the base 1 point. The contention is that the rule paraphrased as "Countermagic is matched against the Intensity" has been carried over, which now means that the total of all the manipulations is used, rather than just the manipulation that makes the spell more potent.
  10. Which of these is more scary: Darth Vader force-choking someone, and Darth Vader shooting someone? You really don't see a difference between those two? I mean I get the logical "they're both dead, so no difference" side of it, but I imagine Spock saying that to Bones, who then has a fit about Vulcans and their lack of emotion. There's a definite emotional side to someone choking to death gasping for air.
  11. I think so. I'm not entirely sure why, but there's something disturbing and rather psychopathic about suffocating people. And I don't literally worship the air as a god. You're right, that was a little provocative of me.
  12. Getting back to the original problem - if he uses it on people, people that Orlanthi (assuming that's whom he is among) care even fractionally about, he's in trouble. If he uses it on monsters, not so much. "You took the air away from a Broo? Good on you, don't want that filth sucking in and tainting Umath's body!" So you're not taking his toys away, he still has a powerful tool in the box (that you can moderate with countermagic and dispel and reflection), but you're limiting the times he gets to play with them and dominate the whole game. One time in my RQ3 game, the party sorcerer
  13. I suspect that the problem stems from the fact that this is not evident in the rules. I can kind of understand someone who looked at the spell list, thought that looks awesome in an rpg-murder-hobo-way and didn't see the down side of it. I can also see how that is very naive and how they should have foreseen that an entire kingdom of air-worshippers would take a dim view of it.
  14. Dispel Magic and Dismiss Magic have to act against the total spell Intensity, which is how many points of manipulation are applied (plus one for the basic spell, I guess). Note that this is not the sum of the Duration, Strength, and Range components as you get 1 of each for the first point of spell. So Strength 2 Range 2 Duration 2 is a 4 Intensity spell (1,1,1 is the base, with three manipulations applied). Countermagic... I'll have to look that up... Can't find it. No idea if it's the Strength of the spell or the Intensity.
  15. If the sorcerer does not increase the intensity at all then a 1-point dispel or dismiss magic will work. Any increase in range, duration, or strength will make it harder to dispel, but also increases the time taken to cast. The mechanics for resisting sorcery are a bit of a mess. Some spells say that you match the strength of the spell against the POW of the target. Some do not, but it has been clarified that the general magic rule of resisting POW vs POW also applies to sorcery, so I guess Steal Breath needs a POW vs POW. It's just that some other spells use Spell Strength vs POW, so you
  16. Thunderbolt, or maybe Lightning, hitting a Shield spell? Multimissile, Bless Woad
  17. Yes, I hope that this is essentially the third volume of the GoGaG. Having all the spells spread out through two books would suck. I mean, if they don't take up a ton of space then maybe it's worth having them there as well but I think separate is best.
  18. I just replaced the images, I've recalculated them taking into account the earth's orbital eccentricity so that the solstices and equinoxes line up. Valid for 1966 and 1968, other years might vary slightly.
  19. Southern Hemisphere, Non-Leap Year: Southern Hemisphere, Leap Year:
  20. I have edited the top post for a fully accurate correspondence to the equinoxes and solstices, taking into account the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. The two years, leap and non-leap, were chosen to represent the average Glorantha fan*. Southern hemisphere done and added to the 6th post in the thread. This is all UTC. So if you were born in a very different time zone, you might want to figure out what time you were born and convert that to UTC. Or just shift it in your head by the proportion of a day that your zone differs by. Counterclockwise for east of UK, clockwise for west. I thi
  21. Ok I've done some research* and here's the fixed version. I will post the images in the other thread. * I asked on stackexchange and someone gave me the code
  22. It shows the seasonal correspondence, maybe what kind of weather you can expect. And you can figure out where your birthday would fall in the Gloranthan calendar. Also it's prrrdy.
  23. Which is exactly why I wrote what I did. Maybe it does need some kind of prefacing text encouraging the GM to fill in the blanks where something is merely referenced as a name, an extra line in the introduction.
  24. I suppose I could fake the orbital eccentricity by just coding in the four cardinal dates and doing a linear squash to fit the days in between into the quadrants. I'd hard code two years, one leap and one normal.
×
×
  • Create New...