The Problem Rune Spells (and a quick-fix for most)

[Shiningbrow]

Just now, Akhôrahil said:

I believe I have the rules on my side, here:

"A victim of Befuddle may not attack, cast an offensive spell, sound the alarm, and so on."

Since it specifically mentions offensive spells, defensive ones are fine by implication. Dispelling the Befuddle would be allowed. The idea seems to be that you can't do active stuff that requires initiative, but that defending yourself - with arms and magic - is fine. 

That's not what I meant. I mean, the victim of a Befuddle shouldn't realise they've been Befuddled, so shouldn't have any reason to want to cast a Dispel. 

Personally, I'm not sure I'd allow even a Protection spell either.

Also remember... If Befuddle is on an enTranced warrior, they can't do anything non-sword related anyway.

[Akhôrahil]

1 minute ago, Shiningbrow said:

That's not what I meant. I mean, the victim of a Befuddle shouldn't realise they've been Befuddled, so shouldn't have any reason to want to cast a Dispel. 

Personally, I'm not sure I'd allow even a Protection spell either.

Also remember... If Befuddle is on an enTranced warrior, they can't do anything non-sword related anyway.

All of these would count as house rules, IMO. Sword Trance doesn't work like that by rules text, and defensive spells are implicitly allowed.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Shiningbrow]

8 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

All of these would count as house rules, IMO. Sword Trance doesn't work like that by rules text, and defensive spells are implicitly allowed.

I'm curious as to what you think a Befuddle does then... It'd be a pretty pissed player of I Befuddled an enemy, and the GM said, "Well, they know they've been Befuddled, so they cast Dispel".

As for the Sword Trance, the RQ:G lacks the further details that has, apparently, been supplied elsewhere that says the Trance is indeed a trance...

[Akhôrahil]

10 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'm curious as to what you think a Befuddle does then... It'd be a pretty pissed player of I Befuddled an enemy, and the GM said, "Well, they know they've been Befuddled, so they cast Dispel".

See the quoted text. You can defend, including non-offensive magic (dispelling bad effects on yourself is definitely non-offensive). You can't take attack or take personal initiative.

I would expect a person to cast the dispel, but might raise an eyebrow if the T-Rex does it (although the T-Rex is likely to just shake it off instead).

10 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

As for the Sword Trance, the RQ:G lacks the further details that has, apparently, been supplied elsewhere that says the Trance is indeed a trance...

Please quote where it stops all spellcasting, including in self-defence. This seems unlikely.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Shiningbrow]

8 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

You can't take attack or take personal initiative.

I'd say that choosing to Dispel counts as "take personal initiative".

 

8 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Please quote where it stops all spellcasting, including in self-defence. This seems unlikely.

The updated/errataed version is basically this from Bestiary (obviously, as per appropriate weapon, although you can parry with melee weapons):

Arrow Trance 1 Point

Self, Temporal, Nonstackable

This allows the user to merge their consciousness with their bow, doubling their bow skill rating. The user enters a trance in which the only things that exist are bow and targets. The user moves only to get a clear shot or find another target.

The user can use no other weapon and cannot parry nor use the bow as a club. Even if engaged in melee, the user will fire an arrow at their opponent. While entranced, the user may cast only bow-related magic (Multimissile, Speedart, etc.) to the exclusion of all other magic, including healing (except that the user can heal their elf bow if it is damaged).

If the battle ends before the spell expires, the user will stand at rest and wait for new targets.

This is not a Berserker spell; the user knows who their friends and enemies are.

[Akhôrahil]

1 minute ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'd say that choosing to Dispel counts as "take personal initiative".

You're just making things up now. Only offensive magic is stopped by the rules text!

Run it any way you like, of course, but it's not how the spell works by the rules.

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The updated/errataed version is basically this from Bestiary (obviously, as per appropriate weapon, although you can parry with melee weapons):

Arrow Trance

Where is this errata text found?

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

You're just making things up now. Only offensive magic is stopped by the rules text!

No, it's taking the actual meanings of the words (both individually and in combination), and then applying them to the specific context.

The book specifically mentions some examples, but leaves the catch-all of "personal initiative", thus allowing for re-active actions, but not pro-active.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Where is this errata text found?

Jason's Q&A, may not technically count as "errata" but rather "designer/editor's opinion".

[Akhôrahil]

4 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Jason's Q&A, may not technically count as "errata" but rather "designer/editor's opinion".

Agree - "I treat them the same" is something like two steps removed from actual errata text. It's merely an expression of personal preference.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Want to know of something else that's abusive? You can Spell Trade basically without limits within your party, allowing it to put rune points into "batteries" and have access to enormously much more Rune Points than their CHA limit. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't have hundreds of points of one-use Rune Spells after a bit, and that everyone in the party should be able to cast everyone else's Rune Magic.

Most people would rule that you can't get the RP back until the recipient has used the spell. Whilst this is not made explicitly clear, neither is the opposite interpretation.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Shiningbrow]

3 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Agree - "I treat them the same" is something like two steps removed from actual errata text. It's merely an expression of personal preference.

This will most likely be in GaGoG.

[Shiningbrow]

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

Most people would rule that you can't get the RP back until the recipient has used the spell. Whilst this is not made explicitly clear, neither is the opposite interpretation.

 

It's an incredibly generous GM that would allow anyone, anytime to pick up any spell someone wanted.

Even within a party of adventurers, it's a bit meta-gamey to share your God's personal power around willy-nilly. Especially any 3 point or above spells.

[PhilHibbs]

7 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Agree - "I treat them the same" is something like two steps removed from actual errata text. It's merely an expression of personal preference.

I see it as the same as Extension, which was clarified in Rune Fixes. The RP are tied up until the spell ends.

[Akhôrahil]

7 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

This will most likely be in GaGoG.

That's quite possible. At that point, it will be a rules change.

[Akhôrahil]

12 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Most people would rule that you can't get the RP back until the recipient has used the spell. Whilst this is not made explicitly clear, neither is the opposite interpretation.

It is explicit in the spell text — "The Rune points used to trade a Rune spell can be replenished in the regular fashion" — but that text predates the Extension-based erratum, so it's open to interpretation.

It should be noted that neither Spell Trading nor the traded spell is an ongoing spell though, so you would have to extend the Rune Point regain rule even further (or more likely, just re-write the Spell Trading text) in order to cover for this situation. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Shiningbrow]

8 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

That's quite possible. At that point, it will be a rules change.

And then we can have more threads about how we don't like/agree with the rules 😛

(FTR, I haven't been able to play with the new system except briefly to introduce a few players to RQ, and they didn't have these big spells. So, I don't know just how game-changing they are... Thus, I'm staying out of that particular argument, and just pointing out other options)

[Austin]

26 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

38 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Most people would rule that you can't get the RP back until the recipient has used the spell. Whilst this is not made explicitly clear, neither is the opposite interpretation.

It is explicit in the spell text — "The Rune points used to trade a Rune spell can be replenished in the regular fashion" — but that text predates the Extension-based erratum, so it's open to interpretation.

In my game, the line I cut was that my Merchant player can't get the RP spent back until the spell he cast would end. I didn't want a player's RP to be contingent on when a non-player character cast the traded magic. YGMV. At least this way, Extension/trade cheese is less viable.

The biggest balancing factor in my game is the difficulty of trading for special Rune magic. I've played this beyond the text's example—which honestly makes it seem pretty trivial—and make it so that most traded spells are common. Given the ease of trading, I don't see why people in the setting wouldn't be up for it, at least for minor magic. Plus, having a stockpile of different Divination spells gives a variety of player tools.

[Akhôrahil]

1 minute ago, Crel said:

In my game, the line I cut was that my Merchant player can't get the RP spent back until the spell he cast would end. I didn't want a player's RP to be contingent on when a non-player character cast the traded magic. YGMV. At least this way, Extension/trade cheese is less viable.

What makes this a little tricky is that it's easy to define the spell's duration, but that a lot of spell have permanent, indeterminate or very long effects that go outside Duration. Bless Crops, for instance, affects next harvest, but the duration is instant. Healing spells are normally instant, but in one way you on forever - you're permanently healed.

Spell Trading is another such instant spell. It happens, once, and then its effect (but not its duration) is of indeterminate length.

In some cases, it's hard even to tell why one spell has a duration and another is instant - compare Bless Pregnancy with Bless Animal, for instance, both spells which affect a pregnancy but where one has a very long duration and the other is instant. 

[Dissolv]

7 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

However, since your other players buff the crap out of the Storm Bull,band there is no talk of any need to buff up the Humakti (In a normal battle), that proves the SB is weaker

I definitely would not infer that, certainly not from such limited evidence.  They just have a history of more chaotic "big bad fights" due to the nature of the campaign.  The duels and undead encounters that they have had were very manageable without the party trying to build "Voltron".  Zombies and skeletons are well within the power of the party to deal with individually.

The last encounter with Lunars for example,  the Humakti lasted several strike ranks before finding himself Mindblasted out of the fight.   So the Lunars definitely felt that he was more of a priority target, which made him the very first to get dropped.   Hooray for more powerful.  Circumstances matter though, and no one had any time to get prepped in that particular fight.  From a "cold" start even the most powerful characters are vulnerable.  Note that this is the exact circumstance where the players have to choose if they burn Rune points on Shield or not.  If they do, they are great for the fight.  But can they do that for every fight that they come across?  There was a horde of Scorpion men to deal with after the Lunars in this situation - the party's true target, and no chance to go rest up anywhere, so even MP spent were gone.   Thinking back on it, that was the fight that one of the Storm Bulls (there are two) managed to fumble three times, so he didn't exactly cover himself in glory either. 

Similarly, after the big Broo cave fight that I referenced earlier, they were summoned to the Heroquest "the Hill of Gold", and had to deal with prepared and ready Yelmalio worshipers.  Not the same day, but before RP recovery was possible.  There is just a limit to the number of times that the PC's can pre-buff to their maximum extent, and they also need to decide between spreading the love around versus trying to empower a single one of their party.  

It is worth noting that the Storm Bull followers have little to no responsibilities other than to fight Chaos, so are normally at full RP for those occasions.   They even sponge off the other players in the winter phase.  The Humakti is constantly called upon to fight duels, lead battles and raids, act as champion, fight Undead, fight rivals, fight Chaos, etc.  Storm Bull followers are thematically much closer to the murder-hobo archetype, and this is tolerated because they do the one job that no one wants to do. 

[Dissolv]

7 hours ago, Crel said:

I'd also like to note a spell which I'm in constant battle to avoid being unbalancing in my game: Spell Trading

I like that Issaries has that kind of power if given enough strategic time to build up.  Note that he needs an extended period of peace and also ideally travel to different cultures to get the maximum build up though.

Peace is needed because if everyone is burning through their RP's in a big "Red Moon and White Bear" type situation, the trading opportunities drop to nil.  Travelogue type adventures are necessary because you want to encounter the broadest spectrum of cults, and maximize your trading opportunties with them, which means markets, building friendly relations with exotic tribes, proving your faithfulness/worthiness to them, etc. 

FWIW I also tend to give Lhankor Mhy a lot of plot perks at the higher end play as well.  Issaries comes with its own power -- and don't forget the ultimate power of cold hard cash.

Lhankhor Mhy on the other hand I always feel needs a bit of something or other to really be a top tier cult, and it kind of should be, for a certain style of play.  Has anyone had a player run with one since the sorcery inclusion? 

[Akhôrahil]

4 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

Meanwhile, Lhankor Mhy:

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

I like that Issaries has that kind of power if given enough strategic time to build up.  Note that he needs an extended period of peace and also ideally travel to different cultures to get the maximum build up though.

Peace is needed because if everyone is burning through their RP's in a big "Red Moon and White Bear" type situation, the trading opportunities drop to nil.  Travelogue type adventures are necessary because you want to encounter the broadest spectrum of cults, and maximize your trading opportunties with them, which means markets, building friendly relations with exotic tribes, proving your faithfulness/worthiness to them, etc. 

FWIW I also tend to give Lhankor Mhy a lot of plot perks at the higher end play as well.  Issaries comes with its own power -- and don't forget the ultimate power of cold hard cash.

Lhankhor Mhy on the other hand I always feel needs a bit of something or other to really be a top tier cult, and it kind of should be, for a certain style of play.  Has anyone had a player run with one since the sorcery inclusion? 

I think we have had a Lhankor Mhy character in every game I've run for a good decade. He's a great cult - literate (never underestimate the value of being able to go to a library and look something up), and with spells like Analyze Magic, Clairvoyance, Knowledge, Mindread, Reconstruction, and Truespeak, he is pretty much the ultimate Investigator. Not to mention his sorcery spells like Geomancy, Reveal Rune, or Total Recall. Hercules Poirot and Sherlock Holmes can eat their heart out.

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

It is explicit in the spell text — "The Rune points used to trade a Rune spell can be replenished in the regular fashion" — but that text predates the Extension-based erratum, so it's open to interpretation.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I'd forgotten that.

[Lordabdul]

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

There's no reason why everyone shouldn't have hundreds of points of one-use Rune Spells after a bit, and that everyone in the party should be able to cast everyone else's Rune Magic.

It's limited by time -- you need time to replenish the RPs you traded, and over time you'll be spending those spells. It would take an extended period of peace to be able to build such an arsenal, but I guess it's possible. If it's a problem, I can suggest a house rule about the the Spell Trading roll to see if the spell fires in your hands: on a roll of 99 or 100, all your stored spells fire simultaneously!

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Since it specifically mentions offensive spells, defensive ones are fine by implication. Dispelling the Befuddle would be allowed.

It would be allowed but the victim would have to know that they're Befuddled in the first place... which they don't. They can shake it off but until then, I don't think they can realize what's happening to them. Arguably someone could tell them, but they could still misinterpret it because, well, they're Befuddled.

My problem with Befuddle is that I don't quite understand why it says "with deceit or clever misdirection, a Befuddled opponent might end up attacking their own party", when just before it said that a victim of Befuddle can't attack at all, even if attacked (they can only parry and defend). Am I missing something?

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Jason's Q&A, may not technically count as "errata" but rather "designer/editor's opinion".

Yep, but frankly I see no reason to ignore the obvious meaning of "trance", or the fact that it makes sense that all "<Weapon> Trance" spells behave similarly. So I'm playing that way too.

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Most people would rule that you can't get the RP back until the recipient has used the spell.

I understand the reasoning, but I don't think it's practical or desirable.

First, it's prone to in-world abuse... you could deplete an Issaries merchant from their RPs by "market ganging" them over the course of a few weeks/months, and making sure nobody uses the traded spells until that merchant's enemy has had a chance to ambush him. Issaries people would therefore have to be careful, only trading a couple RPs' worth of spells at a time... they wake up every market day, wondering "hey, do I have my RPs back?" before deciding if they can go sell more spells or not... and if not, they have to find another way to make money. That's way too unpredictable.

Second, it's prone to out-of-game tension between GM and players. The PC trades a spell with an NPC, and has to wait for the magnanimous GM to declare that, somehow, somewhere, the NPC has indeed used the spell, and the RPs can be replenished. How does the GM even do that? Do they make up a random time table?

I think it's way easier and makes more sense to rule that the RPs are spent while trading -- that's why there's a chance the spell fires off immediately. So in most cases you can replenish the RPs 15min after the trade, but if you traded a spell with an Extension, you can only replenish after the extended time. So basically like what @Crel said.

 

[Lordabdul]

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

he is pretty much the ultimate Investigator.

Yeah that's how I pitch Lhankor Mhy to my players. And since most of us are big Call of Cthulhu nerds and I tend to put some investigating in my adventures, these kinds of characters end up useful. But even when playing glorified dungeon crawls and skirmish adventures, all of these knowledge/identification/detection spells are useful for planning an infiltration, or getting the tactical advantage.