PhilHibbs

On 3/7/2023 at 9:59 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

I respectfully disagree.  The Extension spell does say specifically otherwise: "any temporal Rune spell".  Any means any.  Nor does it say "with the same rune and rune points as the spell you are extending".

Sure, if you want to go with rules literalism, if that works for your group, then great. Other approaches to gaming in Glorantha are available.

On 3/7/2023 at 9:59 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Arguably, you may have to make two rolls against different runes to succeed.  We haven't bothered with that level of detail.

I agree, I'd never ask a player to make two rolls to cast a spell with Extension. It kind of goes against the "rules literalism" philosophy, but no approach should be driven by blinkered absolutism.

On 3/12/2023 at 1:15 PM, soltakss said:

For me, life is too short to bother with "This Extension comes from Ernalda so I cannot use it on a Uleria spell", or "I cannot use Orlanthi and Storm Bull Shield together".

A spell is a spell is a spell in my opinion. So, I can use Ernalda's Extension to make an Aldrya spell last longer, or use 2 Runepoints from Ernalda and 3 from Aldrya to cast Extension 5. It makes the game simpler for me, with less crunchy and annoying rules. 

Entirely reasonable. Same conclusion as "rules literalism" but different reasoning to get there.

On 3/7/2023 at 9:40 PM, radmonger said:

People don't grant spells, cults do.

On 3/8/2023 at 10:01 AM, Scotty said:

Gods do.

Sorcery is something you learn. Spirit magic is something you have. Rune magic is something that you are.

You become the deity, you become a manifestation of that entity in the middle world. Can you be two things at once? Maybe. That could be an illumination power. Or it could be something that you heroquest to be able to do, find or follow a myth where the two deities worked together to achieve something. I'd say it isn't available to starting characters, but that's a choice, and is getting into Gloranthan cosmology rather than the more simple RuneQuest rules mechanics. It is entirely reasonable to take a rules literal approach and just play the game.

11 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Perhaps a slight rephrasing - could they Hallucinate that they'd been Teleported there, and then be there?

I wouldn't say that they could hallucinate having been teleported, any more than they could hallucinate being healed, becoming illuminated, or having Flight or Bear's Strength or Become Giant cast on them. It's not a Wish spell.

Just think how many points of illusion you would need to truly hallucinate being in a different city. The entire city within your eyesight and earshot would have to be illusionary, that's millions of points of spell. Maybe if you did have Hallucinate 1,000,000 then that would be powerful enough to warp reality so far that the universe decides that it's just easier to pop the caster over there than to run all that simulation. If you want to try it, start saving up those Rune Points and tell me how it went!

15 hours ago, Geoff R Evil said:

I also add the rule the Eurmal cannot self delude itself via this hallucinogenic spell about anything it has not previously experienced….never seen acid, cannot hallucinate about it.

To a certain extent... but I would say that they can inadvertently experience things. They may have seen acid, but not know what it does, so if they hallucinate it then they can find out that it burns.

15 hours ago, Geoff R Evil said:

on the hole question - where someone said you cannot destroy via a creative illusion, I think that maybe true of illusions, but this is self delusion in a way that affects the world for you, so if I believe there is a hole there, there is! What I am doing is creating air where there was rock, displacement not destruction.

thoughts?

Of course it's impossible, but we're talking about tricksters here. Doing the impossible is part of their job. I'd say it's a coin toss whether it's real or not, and they test it beforehand then they don't really believe it so it isn't real. They have to run at that hole full tilt to find out. And yes, I know belief isn't relevant to illusions, but comedy is relevant to trickster magic so that trumps the ruling.

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Could a Hallucinate create a real enchantment that works for everyone? Eg, the Eurmali Hallucinates an enchantment for a Heal Body spell, and then can cast that spell on someone else?

They might believe it worked...

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Or Hallucinate a spirit that can cast spells?

They might believe the spirit spell was cast...

Of course a spirit might just appear totally coincidentally to the casting of the spell. And it might not be entirely helpful...

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Could they Hallucinate being in another city, and then be teleported there?

They'd just see the city around themselves for the duration. Maybe if they didn't intend to teleport then they might get teleported, if it's funny.

I love the idea of hallucinating a pillow strapped to the troll's club though. The inevitable argument with the GM is the best bit, "It's not real for the troll so it can't feel the softening of the blow therefore it isn't softened", "But it's real for me so it has to be softened..." Damned munchkins, don't you just hate 'em!

9 minutes ago, Darius West said:

In most games this sort of behavior is called an "exploit", which is performed by "power gamers", and yes, they specifically exploit the rules to turn their children into superheroes.  In Glorantha they were called the God Learners, and they are likely going to make a philosophical resurgence during the Hero Wars given that their secrets are now known again.

Okay, fair point, it could happen, my point was it's not the only way that such a myth could exist in Glorantha.

I have seen it argued that "this myth doesn't exist, because it isn't in any of Greg's writings, therefore someone in 1600s Glorantha would have to invent/discover it". I assumed that that was what was happening here.

All my replies are based entirely on the current wording of the spell, except where otherwise indicated. Maybe that's right.

Going back to the RQ3 spell for inspiration, it would be clear that if this iteration is simply an attempt to recreate that within the new mechanics, i.e. there is no Multispell, then you have to allow the caster to put the protective spells on afterwards.

Was it intentional to open this up to anyone casting spells on it? Maybe not.

It clearly was intentional to open it up to attack spells, using the Damage Resistance model from the original. Should that also open up ambiguous is-it-attack-or-isn't-it spells like Fanaticism?

Should touch spells like healing be allowed? Particularly, could you send in your shock troops who get cut down by the defenders, then Heal Body on the defenders' Protective Circle to get all your guys back into the fight? I'm really not sure that that is what the spell is supposed to be for!

12 hours ago, Zalain said:

HOW I INTERPRETATE PROTECTIVE CIRCLE:

you can launch protective spells to it, but just know if enemy comes inside, will be protected too.

I don't think that people entering after the spells are cast will get protected.

12 hours ago, Zalain said:

You can launch attack spells to it, but just know if any ally comes inside, will be damaged too JUST ONCE... (if goes out and comes in again, will be damaged again).

Yes.

12 hours ago, Zalain said:

You can launch heal spells and anyone inside will be healed.

Ooh that's a good one. I'm not entirely convinced that instant spells are replicated, but there's nothing in the wording to say that they aren't.

12 hours ago, Zalain said:

You can launch demoralize, fanatism, berserk, and who go inside the circle will be affected too, but who leaves it wont be affected more.

Not convinced, see first point. I think only "attack spells" are triggered on people entering, whatever that means!

12 hours ago, Zalain said:

You can launch animate dead, and all corpses inside will follow your orders, but would fall if leave the circle.

Another great idea!

12 hours ago, Zalain said:

what i forbid to my players is create a protection circle over their helmet and the area moves where the helmets go. No. the circle must be as big as the area you want to cover. if you cast it to your helmet, only will affect your head.

Absolutely.

On 3/4/2023 at 11:34 PM, whitelaughter said:

When this edition was launched, Runequest was 40 years old. The window for rules modifications closed a generation ago. "It's not a bug, it's a feature" is the only way to go now.

I just re-read Protective Circle in RQ3 and what you're saying makes no sense at all.

39 years ago, spells on a Protective Circle could only be cast simultaneously by the same sorcerer using Multispell, and only three specific defensive spells could be applied. Enemies and allies couldn't pile extra spells on top of it. So this spell - which people are arguing can be stacked on by anyone - is a change made only a few years ago. Claiming that this is "a bug, not a feature" due to history is clearly incorrect, because (if it is indeed possible, and the line "only the caster can stack additional spells on a circle" is simply missing) it's new in the latest edition.

14 hours ago, g33k said:

I agree mostly with Bill, here.  But I'd add that Heroquesting is inherently dangerous, always.

Anyone foolish enough to invent "Orlanth goes to buy milk" (for their young children to HQ on), will experience a spike of strange and dangerous stuff happening on trips to market, or to the farmer selling milk, or etc...

Dangerous things were going to happen anyway, it's a dangerous world. Uncles will teach the "Orlanth bargains with Uralda" myth in order to help them deal with those dangers when they happen whilst going to buy milk.

And the myth wasn't "invented" to turn the kids into superheroes whilst fetching milk. The myth was passed down since before Time, or maybe it was discovered generations ago whilst doing some other quest during the foundation of the settlements that became Sartar.

12 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

When this edition was launched, Runequest was 40 years old. The window for rules modifications closed a generation ago. "It's not a bug, it's a feature" is the only way to go now.

Sorcery as a rules mechanic didn't exist 40 years ago, and sorcery 30 years ago was substantially different to the current edition so I don't think that that argument holds water.

Actually now I think about it it was only 39 years ago so I was technically correct but only by a sliver!

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

I think that there is a danger of making what qualifies as Heroquesting too mundane.  I mean, if we follow the advice of the HQ rules we can invent "Orlanth goes to buy milk" myth, and send our children off on it every couple of days.

There also needs to be a separation between HQing and what happens at Sacred Time in every village in Glorantha.  Those are passion plays.  A passion play with lethal consequences can be a HQ, but the most powerful and least ambivalent HQs are those that take place on the Hero Plane.

I disagree, I think it's a continuum. Everything that happens in the middle world is an echo of what happened in the God Time. Building up Heroquesting to be this big crazy thing is what's scared people off it for decades.

3 minutes ago, Ochoa said:

Another question.
Will there be a digital release before the hard copy goes on sale?

No. Simultaneous release.

11 hours ago, Erol of Backford said:

If you kill a creature with armoring enchantments on its body possibly made by another, long since past away, assume the enchantments were permanent, could you not skin the creature and wear its skin as armor, assuming the enchantments were not destroyed? We always played that enchantments were permanent and not linked to the person who made them?

There is nothing that says that the enchantment goes away on death. The active binding holding the spirit goes, but the enchantment remains. Same for all other enchantments, they last until damage or decay breaks them.

The character creation stuff... is that just more details in the same vein as the existing cult skills, or anything more disruptive?

In other words... when I come to update my character creation spreadsheet, is there anything that might be a challenge to fit into the existing scheme?

19 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Hope I did not wound anyone 😢 

Of course not. I'm roleplaying being a munchkin. I'll just conveniently forget to mark that wound on my character sheet!

9 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

you don't propose the same logic : both spells target anything, not anyone 🙂

and as it is instant I, as a GM (before firing you from my table 😛 ) would say that if anything is accepted by rules (not imo) it is instant so it is not for the next opponents who will enter after you cast the sepll

I said I'm not sure, I just didn't say it twice. I hate redundantly repeating things repetitively over and over and over! And it's every munchkin's right to be inconsistent, and deny any inconsistency.

Spell Trading just got a boost in the Q&A, the word "priest" has been replaced with "initiate", so that opens up a lot more opportunities.

The wording is still there about the Earth and Nomad cults requiring a high priest to be present at the negotiations, so Vishi isn't going to trade much with Harmast, but he can now trade with Vasana and most of the other pregens.

Which book is Humakt in?

Odd that this has not yet even been mentioned on the RuneQuest forum.

6 hours ago, Joerg said:

Slightly unexpected name, though: "Cults of RuneQuest" rather than "Cults of Glorantha".

I thought that as well, but as it's game-system specific it makes sense to highlight that. I think it works for brand identity as well. More people know what "RuneQuest" is than "Glorantha".

Is Fanaticism an attack spell?

If it is not an attack spell, then when you put up your Protective Circle, an enemy can cast it to make you, your allies, their mounts, familiars, and bound spirits all fanatical. That might not be ideal, especially if your healers are all in the circle.

If it is an attack spell, then the enemy can throw it on your Protective Circle so that when they charge in to attack your magical unit, they all get Fanaticism on them. And I think it's widely accepted that you can choose not to resist a spell cast on you.

Or is it conditional? Is it up to the recipient whether they treat it as an attack or not? If so then the people in the circle can treat it as an attack and therefore it doesn't even affect them (as they are not entering the circle from outside), and the casters have to charge in, resist it, and hope it overcomes them. I don't think you can both choose to treat it as an attack spell, and then choose not to resist it! Maybe if you are illuminated...

Has the enemy cast a Protective Circle? Lunar invaders, maybe?

Cast "Arouse Passion" on the circle, and choose "Loyalty (Sartar)". Or "Hate (their general)".

And then argue with the GM that it's not an attack spell...

9 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

Protective Circle is self balancing because it can be used both to aid and hurt. Use it to aid your friends? Enemies can use it to hurt you. Use it to hurt your enemies? They can use it to boost themselves.

Any boost they cast (if indeed anyone can cast spells on it - there's nothing in the spell description to stop it, but it does seem a little odd) will boost you as well as them. And they can't use it to hurt you unless you are outside it and come inside.

Maybe there should be some way to put a user condition on the spell so only friendlies can cast onto it.

Here's a contrast-enhanced version of that image:

Some ideas are just so abusive that they needed to go into a different thread...