Sorcery: Ward Against Weapons

[GAZZA]

In previous versions of RQ the equivalent of this spell (Neutralise Damage) could protect even against critical hits - is this still the case? The wording not only implies it can still do this, but also that it can stop virtually anything that damages the body, which would seem to include such things as Poison, Thunderbolt, Sunspear, and (more mundanely) Disruption. Was that all intentional?

[Akhôrahil]

7 minutes ago, GAZZA said:

In previous versions of RQ the equivalent of this spell (Neutralise Damage) could protect even against critical hits - is this still the case? The wording not only implies it can still do this, but also that it can stop virtually anything that damages the body, which would seem to include such things as Poison, Thunderbolt, Sunspear, and (more mundanely) Disruption. Was that all intentional?

As this is not phrased as armor, it definitely seems like it should work against crits.

The crit will tend to be a lot of damage though, and as such might be hard to resist.

It seems silly and unintentional that "Ward Against Weapons" would protect you against offensive magic as well, but as written, it does. However, I would argue specifically the following against it: the spell is Death + Dispel. Weapons (and at a stretch, natural weapons) might all count as Death, but to stop a Thunderbolt or Sunspear, you should need Air + Dispel or Fire + Dispel, otherwise it's just incoherent. It stands to reason that an analogous spell could be designed for those, though. 

(I would even be inclined to say that a Fire[weapon] wouldn't be stopped by the ward, but this is corner case rulings.)

[GAZZA]

I am inclined to agree that being able to stop things like Poison is a bit silly; not as convinced about efficacy versus Thunderbolt or Sunspear as those are (minimally) affected by normal armour.

As far as decent crit protection goes, I would imagine the old tactic of matrices helps: make a matrix with 18 intensity split however you like between duration and strength, and then add your own free int worth when you cast the spell; it might not save you against the Bat but 18-20 odd will stop at least a few critical hits. Maybe only from missile fire, but given that those are the ones that can't be parried, that's not nothing.

(I am of course assuming any decent sorcerer has 18 INT and keeps all of that free by stashing his spell knowledge in spirits or matrices).

Edited February 21, 2020 by GAZZA

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, GAZZA said:

In previous versions of RQ the equivalent of this spell (Neutralise Damage) could protect even against critical hits - is this still the case? 

One of my players has WAW, so we use the following two rules interacting together:

• A critical success ignores armor and does maximum special damage plus damage bonus. (page 200)
• The total damage done to a protected creature or object must overcome the strength of the spell using the resistance table. If the damage overcomes the spell’s strength, then the full force of the damage affects the target. The target’s armor then absorbs as much of the damage as it can. (page 401)

So a broadsword would do maximum special damage (1D8+1 so  2D8+2 = 18) vs the Spell strength (my player normally use 12 points), so it's 12 vs 18 so normal 80% chance of getting through. If it succeeds then it ignores armour, but any other magical protection counts first as usual.
Just as with the rest of the game, criticals can be very lethal. As a sorcerer, the character has very basic armour and so avoids combat, casting this on other party members with a duration of  4. It's very useful in combat as long as there are no criticals. A special will on average do 11 points, so 45%, while a normal hit does about 6, so 20%. Overall it's a very handy spell, your milage from it may of course vary.

[David Scott]

 

2 hours ago, GAZZA said:

which would seem to include such things as Poison,

No, it has to reach the body. It's a Ward against Weapons, poison needs a delivery system to get to the skin. For example a Wolf Spider's bite does 1D6+1D4 + poison, so the poison happens only if the damage passes the spell. 

2 hours ago, GAZZA said:

Thunderbolt,

No. "Neither armor nor spells that protect against physical damage are effective against this spell, though Countermagic works." It's a magical not physical attack.

2 hours ago, GAZZA said:

Sunspear,

Yes. "Only the target’s thinnest armor protects against this damage; spells are ineffective". It's a physical not magical attack.

2 hours ago, GAZZA said:

and (more mundanely) Disruption.

No. "This spell damages the target’s body...This damage is not absorbed by armor." It's a magical not physical attack. (there was an an argument for yes, but then it's POW vs POW, then roll damage, then D3 damage vs the spell strength. Fortunately we realised It's a magical not physical attack.)

[Akhôrahil]

Lightning gets affected by WAW, too, at least by RAW (don't think that makes sense, personally, but hey).

(I'm also unclear whether Shield stops any damage from Lightning. On the one hand, it says that armor doesn't work, and Shield provides (magical) armor. On the other, it explicitly says that spells that "defend against physical attacks" work. So now I'm totally confused. Is it just physical armor that doesn't work?)

Edited February 21, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Tindalos]

44 minutes ago, David Scott said:

No, it has to reach the body. It's a Ward against Weapons, poison needs a delivery system to get to the skin. For example a Wolf Spider's bite does 1D6+1D4 + poison, so the poison happens only if the damage passes the spell. 

No. "Neither armor nor spells that protect against physical damage are effective against this spell, though Countermagic works." It's a magical not physical attack.

Yes. "Only the target’s thinnest armor protects against this damage; spells are ineffective". It's a physical not magical attack.

No. "This spell damages the target’s body...This damage is not absorbed by armor." It's a magical not physical attack. (there was an an argument for yes, but then it's POW vs POW, then roll damage, then D3 damage vs the spell strength. Fortunately we realised It's a magical not physical attack.)

I think the problem is then that Ward Against Weapons never specifies that it only applies to physical attacks.

It may be intended to do so, the name suggests so, but the spell never actually qualifies what it defends against, only referring to damage.

And if we rely on the idea that "Oh, obviously it's only weapons that would be affected" then we get into other problems. Do shields bypass a ward against weapons when used offensively? It's not a weapon by nature. Would it protect against being trampled by a chariot? Is it intent that matters? Is a rock which is throne a weapon, but a rock falling off a mountain not one?

[Akhôrahil]

4 minutes ago, Tindalos said:

And if we rely on the idea that "Oh, obviously it's only weapons that would be affected" then we get into other problems. Do shields bypass a ward against weapons when used offensively? It's not a weapon by nature. Would it protect against being trampled by a chariot? Is it intent that matters? Is a rock which is throne a weapon, but a rock falling off a mountain not one?

Also, what about natural weapons? I don't think a lion's bite carries the Death Rune (the way you can probably argue that any man-made actual weapon does), so you might need Ward Against Beast (Beast + Dispel) for that.

[Tindalos]

1 minute ago, Akhôrahil said:

Also, what about natural weapons? I don't think a lion's bite carries the Death Rune (the way you can probably argue that any man-made actual weapon does), so you might need Ward Against Beast (Beast + Dispel) for that.

And then there's Sever Spirit. Sure it probably won't save your life if unsuccessful, but since it "acts as a sword" maybe a case could be made about the ward protecting against the damage of an unsuccessful casting.

[Akhôrahil]

Just now, Tindalos said:

And then there's Sever Spirit. Sure it probably won't save your life if unsuccessful, but since it "acts as a sword" maybe a case could be made about the ward protecting against the damage of an unsuccessful casting.

And it would only be natural if a spell based on Death + Dispel could affect Death Rune attacks.

[French Desperate WindChild]

there are two things :

1) the runes

here we dispel the death. So attack by another rune than death should be a variant of this spell

2) the name of the spell

then the name: here we ward the weapons, so death by another thing than weapon should be a variant of this spell

 

I m ok to say there are some precision about spell creation but let's follow the intent of the mechanics more than the sentence

[David Scott]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Also, what about natural weapons?

Yes.

Quote

I don't think a lion's bite carries the Death Rune (the way you can probably argue that any man-made actual weapon does)

You've clearly never watched any nature programmes about lions 🙂

Remember that everything in Glorantha is made of runes, they are its building blocks. Everything likely contains a bit of every rune. Lion's teeth and claw undoubtably contain some iota of Death rune.

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

so you might need Ward Against Beast (Beast + Dispel) for that.

Sure. It's likely that there are vast swathes of spells yet to be discovered. Ward against Beasts would likely keep an area around you free from all kinds of beasts. Ideal for a grain silo. Would probably work on SIZ.

2 hours ago, Tindalos said:

And if we rely on the idea that "Oh, obviously it's only weapons that would be affected" then we get into other problems. Do shields bypass a ward against weapons when used offensively? It's not a weapon by nature.

Yes. the game has a shield skill for offensive use.

Quote

Would it protect against being trampled by a chariot? Is it intent that matters?

Yes, it's physical damage. However there's a point when the damage is so high that it will break through. With a herd of stampeding bison, one will get you. 

Quote

Is a rock which is throne a weapon,

Yes.

Quote

but a rock falling off a mountain not one?

Depending on the size of the rock it likely doesn't matter. I can think of few reasons why I would have this happening in a game. It's not a random event I would choose to include, however if it was part of a storytelling element that would be different and someone / something likely caused it.

The sorcerer in our game often uses the spell, we boil it down to physical or magical damage. In a stampede he survived three attacks before escaping. The cattle were rolling badly, their hooves are certainly weapons (check for nature programmes of herbivores kicking things). At your table you may decide differently, in the heat of the moment we go with the flow and MGF, we don't stop to debate rules.

Edited February 21, 2020 by David Scott

[Dragon]

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Lightning gets affected by WAW, too, at least by RAW (don't think that makes sense, personally, but hey).

(I'm also unclear whether Shield stops any damage from Lightning. On the one hand, it says that armor doesn't work, and Shield provides (magical) armor. On the other, it explicitly says that spells that "defend against physical attacks" work. So now I'm totally confused. Is it just physical armor that doesn't work?)

I always viewed that as physical armor doesn't help, including 'magical' armor like enchanted iron. Magical armor from spells does. So Shield and Protect and similar spells (e.g. Shield of Darkness) will reduce damage from Lightning. Woad does reduce damage from Lightning. IMHO.

[GAZZA]

To be clear I'm not saying that I don't find these rulings reasonable. But they're not really obvious from the text. Could possibly use some clarification.

[Akhôrahil]

9 hours ago, GAZZA said:

To be clear I'm not saying that I don't find these rulings reasonable. But they're not really obvious from the text. Could possibly use some clarification.

I think basically by RAW, Ward Against Weapons works against all damage, unless the source of damage specifically forbids it. Even silly stuff like stopping Poison damage and Disrupt spells. And (perhaps the most stupid) falling damage. It's called Ward Against Weapons, but what it does is Stop Damage.

After this, you may very reasonably decide you don't like the RAW.

Then, we can also reason about what's sensible. Personally, I'd be inclined to say definitely weapons, almost certainly improvised objects used as weapons, possibly natural weapons, probably not Fire[weapon] (but this is just my preference), definitely not attacks with other runes like Lightning, Sunspear and Thunderbolt (the reason I don't want it to work against Fire[weapon] is that the whole point is that the attack is transformed into an elemental attack for good and ill).

Oh yeah, and that it works against Sever Spirit for funsies. 🙂

Edited February 22, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

There's an implication in both the name and the text that it only affects the kinds of damage that armour would normally stop. That's my interpretation. And yes it works against critical hits, even though those bypass all armour. It's still the same kind of damage.

Although I kind of like the idea of it working against Sever Spirit. Not sure what number you would use. Maybe "Your current general HP". That might be a bit generous to the Ward spell though.

Edited February 24, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[PhilHibbs]

On 2/21/2020 at 2:05 PM, David Scott said:

Sure. It's likely that there are vast swathes of spells yet to be discovered.

Do you think that spells are discovered, rather than created?

[David Scott]

2 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Do you think that spells are discovered, rather than created?

In world I think there are a few approaches. Such as discovered in hidden grimoires, lost to all. Created by trial and error research, mixing runic techniques and invocations, god given (LM, IO, Busarian, etc) It would also depend on the sorcerers point of view - cause or effect first. (Personally I just make them up (or my players do)). 

[Akhôrahil]

I'll give you another thing to think about. Fireblade: "This damage cannot be magically resisted".

Does this mean that Ward Against Weapons doesn't work (a literal reading would indicate that the damage indeed cannot be resisted), or merely that Fireblade isn't affected by Countermagic?

[Mirza]

You should actually quote the entire sentence, not merely a snippet Akhorahil. "This damage cannot be magically resisted because it is real physical damage from the heat of the fire." Like it's disingenuous to argue that a section out of context gives Fireblade carte blanche against all magic forever.

Anyway it's clear that it's Countermagic that the game's talking about not providing resistance from Fireblade since it's physical fire and heat that's doing the damage, if you have a spell that provides protection from the flames and heat of the weapon like oh say Protection, then yes it applies. But again it isn't carte blanche against all magic forever, the description's just making it known that Fireblade creates actual flames to do the damage unlike say Disruption's damage which isn't from a physical medium such as fire, and can consequently be Countermagicked.

As for Ward Against Weapons, even if it's read narrowly as Ward Against *Weapons* (my preference), then yes it still covers Fireblade's damage, as Fireblade replaces the damage of the weapon completely, it might be on fire but it's still a weapon. Fireblade however makes it more likely for the damage to get through Ward from the on average higher damage than the base weapon in most circumstances, if you're trying to kill an ancient Brithini Zzaburi with a Firebladed Dagger, then maybe you should be rethinking your approach there.

[gochie]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2020 at 11:43 AM, Akhôrahil said:

I'll give you another thing to think about. Fireblade: "This damage cannot be magically resisted".

Does this mean that Ward Against Weapons doesn't work (a literal reading would indicate that the damage indeed cannot be resisted), or merely that Fireblade isn't affected by Countermagic?

It indicates that the fire acts like natural fire. So protection vs magic won't help, but physical protection will. If you have a spell that protects vs spells in general it won't work, but magic that protects vs fire will.

[gochie]

I think the spell is supposed to be obvious, and is intended to protect against traditional "physical" attacks, like weapons. The complications stem from the world that is Glorantha, having everything made of unique runes, and other existing spells defending vs specific runes.

At what point does a weapon become something else, or something else becomes a weapon?

[Mirza]

@gochie I think it's intent, when someone intends to use a rock as a weapon, then it becomes one. Perhaps there is a myth from the Green Age of "How the first weapon was made", and that by picking up said rock you're repeating that myth unintentionally, and making the rock into a weapon.

If we want to stick to an exclusively Sorcery perspective, maybe by picking up and intending to use a rock as a weapon, then the wielder's Death Rune imprints upon the rock temporarily making it a weapon. Or maybe the argument is that the Death Rune is latent in all things, just inactive, and usage activates it. Either of these sound like they make enough sense that a Sorcerer might argue them like a combination of the ancient Rabbis did about their own theories about God's Truth in the Talmud, and Greek philosophers.

I like the idea that Malkioni Sorcerer's are constantly arguing about their own ideas of how the physics of their own Sorcery works, like it clearly works, but how. It's one part Talmudic scholarship, and one part Greek philosophical schools. And that there are long competing schools of physics, and bitter rivalries within each sect of Malkionism about this, never mind competing theories of physics from other sects of Malkionism.

[gochie]

11 minutes ago, Mirza said:

@gochie I think it's intent, when someone intends to use a rock as a weapon, then it becomes one. Perhaps there is a myth from the Green Age of "How the first weapon was made", and that by picking up said rock you're repeating that myth unintentionally, and making the rock into a weapon.

If we want to stick to an exclusively Sorcery perspective, maybe by picking up and intending to use a rock as a weapon, then the wielder's Death Rune imprints upon the rock temporarily making it a weapon. Or maybe the argument is that the Death Rune is latent in all things, just inactive, and usage activates it. Either of these sound like they make enough sense that a Sorcerer might argue them like a combination of the ancient Rabbis did about their own theories about God's Truth in the Talmud, and Greek philosophers.

I like the idea that Malkioni Sorcerer's are constantly arguing about their own ideas of how the physics of their own Sorcery works, like it clearly works, but how. It's one part Talmudic scholarship, and one part Greek philosophical schools. And that there are long competing schools of physics, and bitter rivalries within each sect of Malkionism about this, never mind competing theories of physics from other sects of Malkionism.

It's a nice start, but wouldn't fire/lightning/any magic used with the intent to kill also become a weapon, and thus "Death"? 

[Mirza]

6 minutes ago, gochie said:

It's a nice start, but wouldn't fire/lightning/any magic used with the intent to kill also become a weapon, and thus "Death"? 

I mean there are probably limitations to the spell itself that make it work only against physical weapons, rather than being the all encompassing Death Dispel spell for things you can be attacked with, it's more interesting that way to me. I imagine Ward Against Attacks, is something that's many times harder if not impossible to cast, and also doesn't allow for philosophical arguments about what is the nature of a weapon.