Example of Multiple Combatants

[Sumath]

Right, so in summary, looking at the RQG rulebook this is what becomes clear:

• Statement of Intent only appears on one page (192), there is no entry for it in the Index, and there is no mention of any penalty for changing SoI. There is also no penalty for it listed in the table on p193. Effectively, SoI no longer has a bearing upon SRs in RQ (or at least RQG RAW).
• What we do have is being able to do multiple activities when not engaged (p.195) with a 5 SR modifier for readying a new weapon or spell.
• Or of doing multiple activities when engaged in melee, either attacking and parrying/dodging OR casting spells and  parrying/dodging (also p.195). 
• A free hand is required to cast Spirit Magic or Sorcery, but not Rune Magic (p. 194), so juggling weapons becomes a crucial part of combat, unless you house rule otherwise.

[Russ Massey]

8 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

 

I don't think sheathing a sword, which is necessary for spell casting, can be done simultaneously with spell casting. Personally I don't make people put their weapons away to cast spells, but that's my house rule.

I've never stopped people cast spells while holding things either. Sheathing your sword before casting Fireblade would seem to be a bad move IMO.

[Sumath]

2 hours ago, Russ Massey said:

I've never stopped people cast spells while holding things either. Sheathing your sword before casting Fireblade would seem to be a bad move IMO.

This is definitely one for house ruling upon. The RQG rules are very clear that a free hand is required - although it does say this is not the case for weapon buffs like Bladesharp etc. 

Some GMs will decide that is far too finicky, with characters having to put weapons down or sheathe them every time they cast magic, and lots of time being wasted on axe juggling. Others may decide that it's a tactical constraint that forces characters to think more about when they cast spells and whether it's sensible to walk around with drawn weapons all the time.

Personally, I'm undecided at present. My campaign doesn't kick off until later this year and I'll see what my players think before committing one way or another. I might start with that RAW and drop it if it becomes a pain.

[Akhôrahil]

6 hours ago, Russ Massey said:

I've never stopped people cast spells while holding things either. Sheathing your sword before casting Fireblade would seem to be a bad move IMO.

Casting a spell on your weapon is an explicit exception. You can (probably must) hold it for that.

I'm personally unclear on why you can cast a spell on your sword while holding it, but need to sheathe it before you can cast a spell on yourself...

Edited September 9, 2019 by Akhôrahil

[Akhôrahil]

4 hours ago, Sumath said:

This is definitely one for house ruling upon. The RQG rules are very clear that a free hand is required - although it does say this is not the case for weapon buffs like Bladesharp etc. 

Some GMs will decide that is far too finicky, with characters having to put weapons down or sheathe them every time they cast magic, and lots of time being wasted on axe juggling. Others may decide that it's a tactical constraint that forces characters to think more about when they cast spells and whether it's sensible to walk around with drawn weapons all the time.

Personally, I'm undecided at present. My campaign doesn't kick off until later this year and I'll see what my players think before committing one way or another. I might start with that RAW and drop it if it becomes a pain.

Yeah, I've thought about this as well. It seems pretty rough (and yet another in the long row of arguments for two-handed weapons) that you need to spend 10 (!) SRs to sheathe and then draw a weapon to get a spell in, while you could supposedly just take one hand off of your two-handed sword for more or less free to cast (although it has a very serious downside in that you can't parry at all during the spellcasting SRs in the situation).

I would probably allow a character to simply spend an addition 5 SR in order to cast when both hands are occupied - it might be argued that you could simply hold your sword by the shield-hand momentarily while you cast.

[PhilHibbs]

57 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Casting a spell on your weapon is an explicit exception. You can (probably must) hold it for that.

I'm personally unclear on why you can cast a spell on your sword while holding it, but need to sheathe it before you can cast a spell on yourself...

Seems clear to me. You can't cast a spell while holding something, unless that thing is a) the target of the touch spell, b) the focus for the casting of the spell, or c) an item being used to augment the spell casting chance. You could put all your spell foci on your sword, I suppose, but I don't think that a healing spell focus on a literal death rune is a great idea.

Edited September 9, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Joerg]

10 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Seems clear to me. You can't cast a spell while holding something, unless that thing is a) the target of the touch spell, b) the focus for the casting of the spell, or c) an item being used to augment the spell casting chance. You could put all your spell foci on your sword, I suppose, but I don't think that a healing spell focus on a literal death rune is a great idea.

There's always the inside of your shield for extra foci. But then you really want your allied spirit to cast those Heal 6 for you, as you will most likely be incapacitated in that situation when you need it the most. In case of Heal, I think that "touch" doesn't mean "with the blade" unless that blade happens to hold your allied spirit.

BTW, is healing magic Life/Fertility-based, or is it Harmony-based?

 

[Akhôrahil]

20 minutes ago, Joerg said:

BTW, is healing magic Life/Fertility-based, or is it Harmony-based?

Frequently either, and sometimes with Earth there as well (and also Any for Heal Wound).

[PhilHibbs]

56 minutes ago, Joerg said:

There's always the inside of your shield for extra foci. But then you really want your allied spirit to cast those Heal 6 for you, as you will most likely be incapacitated in that situation when you need it the most. In case of Heal, I think that "touch" doesn't mean "with the blade" unless that blade happens to hold your allied spirit.

BTW, is healing magic Life/Fertility-based, or is it Harmony-based?

 

For Spirit Magic, it is not defined. There's no rule that says that you can't have a Healing spell focus on a sword, or that you can't just put all your foci on the inside of your shield, or tattoo them all on your right forearm. It just seems like gamesmanship (dare I say, munchkinnery?) to me.

[Sumath]

I've always felt it was unrealistic when I'd see RQ character descriptions where they had a focus for one spell carved on a tablet around their neck, another on a bracelet, another in a tattoo etc. Who would remember which one was where? From a practical perspective it makes perfect sense to put all of your foci in one place, so you can see them at a glance. The inside of a shield is an ideal place, as is the back of your hand.

Nobody wears fob watches anymore, we all wear them on our wrists. Equally, Gloranthans would put their foci somewhere sensible.

[Bill the barbarian]

46 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

For Spirit Magic, it is not defined. There's no rule that says that you can't have a Healing spell focus on a sword, or that you can't just put all your foci on the inside of your shield, or tattoo them all on your right forearm. It just seems like gamesmanship (dare I say, munchkinnery?) to me.

It pays to be a munchkin. It allows like to recognize like!

 

[PhilHibbs]

Spell foci have been the subject of several heated threads in the past!

[Bill the barbarian]

10 minutes ago, Sumath said:

I've always felt it was unrealistic when I'd see RQ character descriptions where they had a focus for one spell carved on a tablet around their neck, another on a bracelet, another in a tattoo etc. Who would remember which one was where? From a practical perspective it makes perfect sense to put all of your foci in one place, so you can see them at a glance. The inside of a shield is an ideal place, as is the back of your hand.

Nobody wears fob watches anymore, we all wear them on our wrists. Equally, Gloranthans would put their foci somewhere sensible.

Sorry Sumath, but you are showing your age. These days when I point at my wrist the youngsters look at me confused, not realizing that means. The ones who deign to talk to a strange old fogey will remove their earbuds and say, “Huh?"

Once dialogue has been successfully established, snd the reason for my incredibly rude interruption to their moment has been established a cell phone will appear and the time to the minute given.

Cheers

[Sumath]

20 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Sorry Sumath, but you are showing your age.

You don't have to tell me. Even the policemen look like teenagers these days.

20 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

a cell phone will appear and the time to the minute given.

Yeah, but do any of them remember when Star Wars movies were actually something to look forward to?

I'll wear my fogey status like a badge of honour, safe in the knowledge that everything was so much better in the 'good old days'. Probably.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Sumath

[Bill the barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Sumath said:

You don't have to tell me. Even the policemen look like teenagers these days.

 

And when that young Doctor (my gods, is he/she out of high school) asks if we are all right today....

[Sumath]

Back on topic though, a single item with all of your spell foci engraved on it would be the Gloranthan equivalent of an iPhone. Everyone would want one. They just wouldn't spend all day staring at it.

[Bill the barbarian]

Just now, Sumath said:

Back on topic though, a single item with all of your spell foci engraved on it would be the Gloranthan equivalent of an iPhone. Everyone would want one. They just wouldn't spend all day staring at it.

Smooth segue!

[Brootse]

19 hours ago, Sumath said:

 I'm assuming that dropping a sword (as opposed to sheathing one) takes no time. The downside of that is that someone else can potentially pick it up in combat.

The wording isn't 100% clear, but it seems to imply that dropping a weapon and drawing a new one is only one action, and only if you resheath your weapon it takes two actions to change weapons.

P. 194: Changing weapons involves dropping a weapon in hand and drawing another. Resheathing a sword and then drawing an axe, for example, is two actions and would take 10 strike ranks.

And you don't have to resheath or drop your weapon to get a hand free, you could also grab the weapon with your shield hand, and the rules don't specify it taking any time, only that readying and resheathing takes time.

[Sumath]

44 minutes ago, Brootse said:

The wording isn't 100% clear, but it seems to imply that dropping a weapon and drawing a new one is only one action, and only if you resheath your weapon it takes two actions to change weapons.

Yes, agreed, and I'll be rewording the example to reflect this shortly.

[Sumath]

Okay, here's a question I'd like people's opinions on.

If someone casts a passive spell, say Protection 3, and they succeed in the casting roll (i.e. POWx5), but then take damage between the SR they begin casting (e.g. SR 3) and the one it takes effect on (SR 5), what happens? An INT roll of some kind, but what if that fails?

They would lose the spell because even though it's passive the caster still needs to concentrate upon it until it takes effect.

But would they also lose the magic points since they have succeeded in the original casting roll and committed the MPs?

[Brootse]

46 minutes ago, Sumath said:

Okay, here's a question I'd like people's opinions on.

If someone casts a passive spell, say Protection 3, and they succeed in the casting roll (i.e. POWx5), but then take damage between the SR they begin casting (e.g. SR 3) and the one it takes effect on (SR 5), what happens? An INT roll of some kind, but what if that fails?

They would lose the spell because even though it's passive the caster still needs to concentrate upon it until it takes effect.

But would they also lose the magic points since they have succeeded in the original casting roll and committed the MPs?

I've always made the characters roll for success only at the end, so if they lose concentration they haven't rolled the casting roll yet. And I've also ruled that the mps are also only used at the end.

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sumath said:

If someone casts a passive spell, say Protection 3, and they succeed in the casting roll (i.e. POWx5), but then take damage between the SR they begin casting (e.g. SR 3) and the one it takes effect on (SR 5), what happens? An INT roll of some kind, but what if that fails?

 

Quite tired from a crazy week @Sumath so I still have not as promised looked at your unedited download. I am looking forward to reading it this eve though.  

I seem to recall RQ3 doing it as lost spell but not magic points. again, I will look for that this eve. I feel I should (and want to) put in a little bit more than my 2 bolgs worth to your worthy effort, but alas, a little later.

Thanx

[Sumath]

9 hours ago, Brootse said:

I've always made the characters roll for success only at the end, so if they lose concentration they haven't rolled the casting roll yet. And I've also ruled that the mps are also only used at the end.

Interesting. The problem I can see with this would be Sorcery spells. A character might take two rounds to cast a spell and then at the end they fail the casting roll, so they've then wasted two rounds. I'd find that incredibly frustrating as a player, and Sorcery is frustrating enough already.

Whereas if they make the roll on the SR they start the spell, and fail, then they can always try again later in the round, move or do something else. From an action management viewpoint it seems more useful to make the success roll up front.

it also feels as if committing the strike ranks should equal committing the magic points, although I don't feel particularly strongly about that.

[trystero]

Round 4:

Quote

Bodran will expend a Rune Point to cast Heal Wound. He will use 6 magic points to restore his leg and total hit points by the same amount. His spell will take effect on SR 7.

Per the rule on p. 314 of the rulebook, "Rune magic spells always take effect at strike rank 1." I don't see any rule which suggests that using MP as part of a Rune spell casting affects the SR, so I believe Bodran's Heal Wound spell should take effect on SR 1, not SR 7.

I'm also in the camp of "make the roll for the spell when you've completed its casting time, rather than when you start it."

Edited June 4, 2020 by trystero

[Sumath]

2 minutes ago, trystero said:

Round 4:

Per the rule on p. 314 of the rulebook, "Rune magic spells always take effect at strike rank 1." I don't see any rule which suggests that using MP as part of a Rune spell casting affects the SR, so I believe Bodran's Heal Wound spell should take effect on SR 1, not SR 7.

I'm also in the camp of "make the roll for the spell when you've completed its casting time, rather than when you start it."

P.194, 'Magical Attacks and Strike Ranks' - "If more than one magic point is used to boost a Rune magic spell or otherwise increase its effects, 1 strike rank is added for each additional magic point after the first".

I need to amend the example though as I've currently got the spell going off on SR 7 but it should be SR 6.