RQG One-use Rune magic

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Remind me - With One-use Rune Magic, after casting do you loose the spell as well as the associated Rune points, or is it just the Rune points? 
 

So in other words will characters be needing to sacrifice Power again to regain the spell after casting? 

[David Scott]

On 2/6/2020 at 12:35 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Remind me - With One-use Rune Magic, after casting do you loose the spell as well as the associated Rune points, or is it just the Rune points? 

Only the rune points

Quote

So in other words will characters be needing to sacrifice Power again to regain the spell after casting? 

Spell is kept, rune points lost permanently

Note this has been edited to reflect the correct answer per One-use Rune Spells in the Q&A.

Edited November 16, 2021 by David Scott
edited to reflect the correct answer

[Pheres]

Thanks David Scott, i have missed this part...

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

Both - See RQG page 316.

Yes.

Thanks David 

[Shiningbrow]

12 hours ago, David Scott said:

Both - See RQG page 316.

Confused...

I just re-read it, and it says nothing about losing the spell, only the RPs. So, you could keep burning through your RPs with the same spell. (Unless there's another section elsewhere).

[Akhôrahil]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Confused...

I just re-read it, and it says nothing about losing the spell, only the RPs. So, you could keep burning through your RPs with the same spell. (Unless there's another section elsewhere).

p. 316: "The Rune points used to cast spells designated as “one-use” in
either the Rune spell descriptions or in the cult descriptions
cannot be replenished. The player reduces the total Rune
points on the adventurer sheet by the cost of the spell."

It says nothing about losing spells, and as far as I can tell, there's nothing in the rules about losing spell access when your Rune Points drop permanently.

[Kloster]

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Confused...

I just re-read it, and it says nothing about losing the spell, only the RPs. So, you could keep burning through your RPs with the same spell. (Unless there's another section elsewhere).

This is exactly how I understood it: You loose the RP, but not the knowledge of the spell.

[PhilHibbs]

My conclusion is that the rules do not say one way or the other. They do say that the RP are lost, but they do not say if a one-use spell can only actually be used once. There's an implication from the game term, you could argue that one-use should mean "one use".

Spell Trading implies this more strict reading:

Quote

• The original “owners” of the spells can still cast
  them after trading them, provided that the spell
  was not a one-use spell and that all other requirements
  for the spell (Rune points, cult status, etc.)
  are still met.

If one-use spell only meant "you lose the RP but can cast it as many times as you want" then that paragraph's caveat would not apply. OTOH this may just be inherited language that has not been updated to reflect the consequences of an RP system.

Edited February 7, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Ah! It’s not just me then. The wording is not clear on one-use spells.

I suspect David Scott is right, but maybe this should be added to the core rules question thread?

 

[French Desperate WindChild]

5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Confused...

I just re-read it, and it says nothing about losing the spell, only the RPs. So, you could keep burning through your RPs with the same spell. (Unless there's another section elsewhere).

Agree

Maybe a question for official rule but one-use spell seems to me "sacrifice for one use" and you sacrifice power not knowledge (well sometimes you may sacrifice knowledge, but I don't think so for just standard spells)

[Joerg]

Asked in another way, if my non-Chalanan healer sacrifices for three single-use applications of Resurrection, does this mean that these 9 rune points cannot be used intermediately for other spells?

[Akhôrahil]

23 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Asked in another way, if my non-Chalanan healer sacrifices for three single-use applications of Resurrection, does this mean that these 9 rune points cannot be used intermediately for other spells?

I think that is misapplying the rules. You don't sacrifice for the use - you sacrifice POW for Rune Points and you learn spell. Then when you cast the spell, you spend the Rune Points permanently. 

Permanent loss of Rune Points means that you can know more spells than your amount of Rune points would indicate, but this is hardly a problem for the game.

[French Desperate WindChild]

34 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I think that is misapplying the rules. You don't sacrifice for the use - you sacrifice POW for Rune Points and you learn spell. Then when you cast the spell, you spend the Rune Points permanently. 

Permanent loss of Rune Points means that you can know more spells than your amount of Rune points would indicate, but this is hardly a problem for the game.

Yes you explain my thought better than me

[Shiningbrow]

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

Asked in another way, if my non-Chalanan healer sacrifices for three single-use applications of Resurrection, does this mean that these 9 rune points cannot be used intermediately for other spells?

Actually I like this idea.

Do all 3/9 points still count against the CHA limit?

[g33k]

On 2/7/2020 at 2:21 AM, PhilHibbs said:

... There's an implication from the game term, you could argue that one-use should mean "one use"...

You could argue that, yes.

I will allege that in fact you should argue that!

It is, after all, what the words say:  the obvious meaning.  Do we really need the rulebook to say that "one use" means "one use" ??!?

Is there ANY supporting language -- anywhere in the RQG rules -- for another interpretation?

 

On 2/7/2020 at 2:21 AM, PhilHibbs said:

... Spell Trading implies this more strict reading:

If one-use spell only meant "you lose the RP but can cast it as many times as you want" then that paragraph's caveat would not apply ...

Oh!

Look!

Some other "supporting language," just like I asked for!

Annnnd... it supports that obvious, common-sensical interpretation that the words DO mean what they seem to mean.

Really, I see absolutely ZERO sign of this "alternative facts" interpretation -- there are no FACTS there, only wishful whole-cloth invention.

You get ONE USE of a "one use" spell.

 

one

use

 

===

 Who let all these munchkins out of the "egregious munchkinry" thread, anyhow???

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Really, I see absolutely ZERO sign of this "alternative facts" interpretation -- there are no FACTS there, only wishful whole-cloth invention.

You get ONE USE of a "one use" spell.

The main rules are on p. 316, and give us absolutely no reason to think you forget the spell. You don't think that's the kind of thing they would have mentioned?

The only reason it's called one-use is because that's the old name, that now doesn't fit so well. The text in Spell Trading is just yet another example of cut&paste poor rules editing. 

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

Who let all these munchkins out of the "egregious munchkinry" thread, anyhow???

You're aware that the Egregious Munchkinnery thread is one if the longest threads on the board???

So, I'd suggest it's more of a "who let the non-munchkins in here?"

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

The main rules are on p. 316, and give us absolutely no reason to think you forget the spell. You don't think that's the kind of thing they would have mentioned?

The only reason it's called one-use is because that's the old name, that now doesn't fit so well. The text in Spell Trading is just yet another example of cut&paste poor rules editing. 

It's called "one use."  I will just say, flat-out, that this is the obvious way to understand the intent of the rules; no -- I do NOTthink they need to "mention" that one use means one use.

Barring some language in the rules to express some other intent -- which does not exist -- I can only presume that "one use" means "one use."

To turn your own rhetorical question around:  the rules give us absolutely no reason to think you get multiple uses.  You don't think that's the kind of thing they would have mentioned?

I think the author(s) presumed adventurers would gain one use of the spell (note the similar presumption (now explicitly clarified) that all "... Trance" spells would be taken by the players to have trance effects, not just be pretty names).

The associated mechanics show the RP's supporting that spell go away after one use.

Spell trading has specific language in support of this.

I only see that people don't like the obvious& plain-sense interpretation of the RAW language, and are making the unsupported claim that it's "leftover" from cut&paste of prior editions.

To reiterate:  all the language & all the mechanics that I can find supports "one use = one use."  No language that I can find supports "one use = keep the spell forever, just like other Rune spells."

[Akhôrahil]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

To turn your own rhetorical question around:  the rules give us absolutely no reason to think you get multiple uses.  You don't think that's the kind of thing they would have mentioned?

No, because that's the standard rule. Any exceptions to the standard rules need to be mentioned. There are no such rules.

It's pretty obvious to me that it's only called "one use" in order to maintain backwards compatibility. Otherwise it would likely have been called "limited", "restrictive" or something like that.

You're reading in things that just aren't there.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[g33k]

4 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

No, because that's the standard rule. Any exceptions to the standard rules need to be mentioned. There are no such rules.

You mean, no rules other than establishing a separate category of Rune Spell called "one use"? 

And calling out an exceptional case in  Spell Trading?

No such rules other than those...

Do you really need a statement that "you only get one use of a One Use rune spell" ?

I think we're just going to have to YGWV to disagree, until/unless clarification is forthcoming from Chaosium (and even then of course, Everybody'sGWV, so we can each run our game to our preferred standards (regardless of jackbooted thuggery crushing our creative souls)  🤣  ).

 

[Akhôrahil]

There is no rules text. How is this not enough?!

If you like, ”one use” can be read as referring to the rune points, which you don’t get back.

But even this doesn’t really matter, because there is no rules text!

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Lordabdul]

LOL.  I mean, sure, I agree that RQG has several occurrences of "copy/pasting" from RQ2 without an appropriate editing pass, but this argument is ridiculous. The spell is one-use, that's it. It's pretty clear to me. You have a nicely clever interpretation there, @Akhôrahil, but that interpretation belongs indeed to the Egregious Munchkinery thread.

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

If you like, ”one use” can be read as referring to the rune points, which you don’t get back.

This actually makes sense! And is what some people are thinking.

 

However, what's significantly worse for this issue is that it's old RQ hands having this argument, because the book doesn't clarify things. They dedicated an entire section (albeit rather short), without actually making this clear. So, for people new to the game*, this would lead to confusion! All it takes is one sentence.... 

(*how about those new to RPGs???)

[Austin]

FWIW, @Akhôrahil's reading has been my reading until this post arose, and I read Spell Trading as an exception. At the very least, I too feel it's reasonable to assume the spell knowledge retain/loss text should be in the one-use definition.

22 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

However, what's significantly worse for this issue is that it's old RQ hands having this argument, because the book doesn't clarify things. They dedicated an entire section (albeit rather short), without actually making this clear. So, for people new to the game*, this would lead to confusion!

I think I am this example. (I'm not super new to RQ, but RQG is the only edition I've GM'd, and we never really used divine magic in my previous RQ3 game.)

[French Desperate WindChild]

19 hours ago, g33k said:

I only see that people don't like the obvious& plain-sense interpretation of the RAW language, and are making the unsupported claim that it's "leftover" from cut&paste of prior editions.

sometimes, what is seen or obvious for one is different what is seen or obvious for the other

My interpretation was not because I don't like ( in fact I don't care) but because I tried to understand the choice of the rune points pool system. The pool means to me the power connection you have with the god, when the spell knowledge is a prayer you learned.

I interpret that , If you pray your god for a "one use" prayer, you sacrifice a part of your connection with the god. And there is no reason (in my interpretation) that you forgot a prayer.

That's for me the big difference with the previous rules, when there was not "one" connection with the god, just a number of uses for each spell.

The new rules are better in the approach of the link between the god and the follower (even if it gives, again,  more and more powers for new character, too much for me)

but ok, let'say one use is one use

Does that mean that you can use this spell one time... for ever ?  Or can you learn again the spell , then one use = several uses ?

the three options can been explained from a RP perspective.

My understanding of "one use" was obvious until the question was asked. Now I doubt ...