RQ3 Sorcery House Rules

[Lordabdul]

12 hours ago, GAZZA said:

As far as CHA making more sense than INT for spirit magic - eh, fair enough. I mean, you couldn't have based it on CHA in RQ3, since CHA wasn't a thing (and APP -> CHA is not a mere name change, though unfortunately that seems to have been overlooked for Tusk Riders... but that is an argument that I seem to be alone in).

CHA for Tusk Riders wasn't overlooked. You can disagree with the authors' reasoning, or intent, or whatever, but Jeff explained in the past that it was very much on purpose: Tusk Riders have no charisma, only lead others from brute force and intimidation, and (indeed because of their poor CHA) only get magic from a couple of their own deities, and not from anything else. So in some way, what might have been changed is that between RQ2 and RQG, Tusk Riders stopped using Spirit Magic and started using their deity's magic more (see below).

To me the problem with CHA (and APP for that matter) is that it's unclear if it's meant to be your Charisma in general, for anybody and anything in Glorantha, or just your Charisma with your own species. The CHA stat alone can't model, say, Aldryami being charismatic to each other, but being utterly off-putting for humans (high CHA among their species, low CHA against humans). And of course I'm not sure how that relates to spirits (do spirits even care about species-specific charisma?). That should have been explained a bit better in the rules IMHO.

11 hours ago, Crel said:

Does anyone know what Tusk Rider CHA was in RQ2? I'm wondering if there's some "edition-itis" at play, if RQ2 CHA equals RQ3 APP equals RQG CHA.

Tusk Riders in RQ2 (p100) had 1D6 CHA and 3D6 INT already (and 1D6 APP in RQ3), which is why there's been this theory that somehow the magic limits had been changed without thinking of the repercussions. Like I said, Jeff denied this. The Tusk Riders in the RQ2 rulebook only have 4 points of Spirit Magic (despite having high INT) so in some ways the stereotypical Tusk Rider hasn't changed. However, if you look at the Tusk Riders in, say, Borderlands (p64), then yeah they've been severely nerfed (their leader has 14 points of Spirit Magic, the others have an average of 8 points or so). However, I get the feeling that the nerfing of their Spirit Magic has been replaced in RQG with more Rune Magic. The RQG Bestiary gives them pretty gnarly Rune Magic, whereas they pretty much have none in both RQ2 and Borderlands. So they might in fact have been beefed up overall! I wonder if this move from Tusk Riders using Spirit Magic to Tusk Riders using Rune Magic has anything to do with more work having been done in the meantime on Tusk Rider societies and cults (they might have been generic roaming monsters at first, but got expanded upon later?).

I didn't do a deep enough dive in the stats to really measure all this and I leave that exercise for people with stronger opinions on the matter  

11 hours ago, GAZZA said:

Oops, yes, I did mean RQG. Sorry about that. I'm not saying that having a high INT isn't useful in RQG for non-sorcerers - but, if you use a point based system (which I do for my campaign) it is no longer as attractive as it was in RQ3 (where it was a limit on spirit magic skills too). I've had a couple of players in my campaign go with INT 8, and while I wouldn't necessarily advocate that, it's playable. (Again, assuming you're not a sorcerer). Even INT 9 is enough to avoid any penalties in RQG I believe.

That's fine with me. Frankly, INT isn't any less of a dump stat as, say, CON. One is used for memory/logic tests, resisting Fast-Talk, sorcery, etc. The other is for encumbrance, resisting poison, etc. And of course both affect some secondary characteristics and skill category modifiers. I don't see why INT 8 or 9 should be avoided anymore than any other stat at 8 or 9.

11 hours ago, GAZZA said:

No Free INT for sorcery isn't a hill I'd care to die on, it's not really that big a deal anymore than the RQ3 core sorcery rules were

I frankly don't understand the general dislike for the Free INT limits. It's fine as far as I'm concerned, it does model aspects of the setting, and does make sense to me. There are other ways to model the same principle of mental limits on magic, but I don't think Free INT is necessarily worse than any other. I probably wouldn't want a manipulation limit based on the skill level of the spell... to draw again a parallel with music, my ability to improvise new parts on a song isn't based on my knowledge of the song: it's based on my general mastery of the instrument and of music theory. So at least between those 2 mechanics, I prefer Free INT. If the mastery of Runes and Techniques was a percentage score instead of all-or-nothing, I could see the manipulation limit be based on that.

My only problem with Free INT is that it's a mechanic that ultimately doesn't matter as much as it was supposed to: many people won't use the "roll stats in order" method of character creation (because, frankly, it sucks big time), so most people will dump as many points as possible in INT if they want to play a sorcerer. Depending on the character creation method, everybody will get as close as possible to 18, and lo and behold, all sorcerers have pretty much the same Free INT score, give or take a couple points. The only difference will be how much spells they keep memorized vs keep in objects and grimoires, which maybe is an OK enough mechanic but it feels, I don't know, a bit flat...

I'm thinking about taking some ideas from WFRP and adding "unstable sorcery", where you can somewhat "push" yourself past your Free INT, but at the danger of losing control and blowing yourself up (or some other consequence on... of course... a sorcery fumble table!). For you skill-loving people out there, I'm thinking of basing this on a skill (whether it's Meditate, or some new skill), where you have to roll under that skill with a penalty based on how many points past your Free INT you want to go. I'm not sure yet if it's a one-time roll, or a "roll every turn during casting" mechanic... the latter is more fiddly (more rolls) but would let sorcerers choose between one big dangerous push (10 MPs over Free INT in a round!) or a steady over time (10 MPs over Free INT over the course of 10 rounds, 1 MP per round). This would go well with the trope of sorcerers focusing intensely on their magic, sweat rolling down the temples, nose bleeding, veins popping, etc.... has anybody done something along those lines yet?

Edited July 15, 2020 by lordabdul

[Ian Absentia]

11 hours ago, Crel said:

Does anyone know what Tusk Rider CHA was in RQ2? I'm wondering if there's some "edition-itis" at play, if RQ2 CHA equals RQ3 APP equals RQG CHA.

c. 1978-79 (monochrome and color covers both) Tusk Riders had a CHA of 1D6.  However, low CHA didn't have the same limiting effect on Rune Magic that it does in the current rules -- it was all about the POW.

!i!

[Edit: As @lordabdul suggests above, the current explanation for the collision between Tusk Riders and Rune Magic hasn't been entirely satisfying, but they do get to do more with what they have.]

Edited July 15, 2020 by Ian Absentia

[Lordabdul]

8 minutes ago, Ian Absentia said:

As @lordabdul suggests above, the current explanation for the collision between Tusk Riders and Rune Magic is less than satisfying

It's decently satisfying to me    It makes them less of a generic roaming monster that uses the same spells as everyone else, and more of a unique thing in Glorantha, with their own fucked up magic, their own horrible deities, their own inwards-looking society, etc.  I think they're a lot more interesting that way.  YMMV

Edited July 15, 2020 by lordabdul

[Ian Absentia]

Just now, lordabdul said:

It's decently satisfying to me  

I edited my earlier edit at about the same time you posted your response.  I think we're in agreement. 😃  Which still isn't to say that there weren't some oversights in the generational translation of stats from one edition to the next and the unintended consequences of how they interact with the rules.  Sometimes it works out, though.

!i!

[PhilHibbs]

15 hours ago, GAZZA said:

Free INT was still in Sandy's system, it was perhaps a little less important, but it was still there.

3 hours ago, Glorion said:

Free INT as a limit on manipulation was the whole problem with the RQ3 system, so as far as I'm concerned if Free INT is used for something else, might be OK.

In Sandy's, I think the only role that Free INT played was that it added to your Presence which limited the overall number of spell points that you could maintain at any given time (there is no Duration, just a total points limit on spells maintained). As a beginning sorcerer, this probably accounted for about half your points, so Free INT is a fairly big deal. As you take more vows, it becomes less dominant but still is a big chunk.

Edited July 15, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Shiningbrow]

8 hours ago, lordabdul said:

. I don't see why INT 8 or 9 should be avoided anymore than any other stat at 8 or 9.

Because INT is a lot harder to raise than your other stats, and affects almost all of the skill categories (often at double the other stats). And unlike POW, it has no downside.

Personally, I'd be inclined to put some caps in based on low scores. We already do for STR & DEX - weapons. (Yea, I'm more simulation-ist).

[Lordabdul]

9 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Because INT is a lot harder to raise than your other stats

True. I didn't mention it, but the idea that you can't raise INT is, to me, totally wrong. It seems like an artifact of its time, some misguided and classicist idea of "intelligence" back when people thought IQ tests meant anything. I haven't formulated any house rules yet, but I will definitely allow raising INT (at least to some degree, like DEX, or maybe with no limit, I'm not sure yet).

Edited July 16, 2020 by lordabdul

[Shiningbrow]

4 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

True. I didn't mention it, but I think that the idea that you can't raise INT seems, to me, like an artifact of its time, some misguided and classicist idea of "intelligence" back when people thought IQ tests meant anything. I haven't formulated any house rules yet, but I will definitely allow raising INT (at least to some degree, like DEX, or maybe with no limit, I'm not sure yet).

Yeah, I thought about writing that in at the time.

 

Related to this is people's perplexity at the Enhance INT spell... It was always in RQ3, but not clearly easily available. Now it's specifically around, and easy for at least 1 cult to get their hands on... What's the problem here? If you have it at max (with max easy** munchkinnerry, then you'll have an INT if 27... for a short time).

 

For me, the real question is what will be the effects of Enhance POW?

 

 

(** easy meaning not including HQs or other divine gifts/intervention)

[GAZZA]

Honestly if you just used INT as the limit for manipulation I don't think there would be any issue. But Free INT is just silly - to riff off another example, sure, you can argue that your knowledge of the song doesn't help you to improvise, but knowing lots of songs does not impede it. If anything, the more songs you know, the easier it is to improvise.

Of course that analogy was not intended to be perfect and should not be attacked as if it were, but of all the things to keep from RQ3 sorcery I honestly don't know why Free INT was considered a sacred cow.

And I'm not going to wade further into the Tusk Rider point; suffice to say that I disagree with the reasoning and leave it at that, MGWV.

[Kloster]

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Related to this is people's perplexity at the Enhance INT spell... It was always in RQ3, but not clearly easily available. Now it's specifically around, and easy for at least 1 cult to get their hands on... What's the problem here? If you have it at max (with max easy** munchkinnerry, then you'll have an INT if 27... for a short time).

In fact, it was not. There was no enhance spell for INT and POW (Magic Book p46).

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

What's the problem here?

No problemo, Baby.

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

For me, the real question is what will be the effects of Enhance POW?

Just have the effect of a , let's say, 23 POW. More MP, easier resistance to magic, some category modifiers changed and faster magic points recovery.

[Lordabdul]

11 hours ago, GAZZA said:

Honestly if you just used INT as the limit for manipulation I don't think there would be any issue. But Free INT is just silly - to riff off another example, sure, you can argue that your knowledge of the song doesn't help you to improvise, but knowing lots of songs does not impede it. If anything, the more songs you know, the easier it is to improvise.

Of course that analogy was not intended to be perfect and should not be attacked as if it were, but of all the things to keep from RQ3 sorcery I honestly don't know why Free INT was considered a sacred cow.

Yeah good points. It's easy to separate the 2 limits (number of memorized spells and amount of manipulation) and make them both equal to INT-minus-Spirit-Magic (or just INT if you don't believe in magical corruption)... but I don't know if that makes sorcerers too powerful? Has anybody actually tried that?

But then, as I argued in my big comment above, that would make this limit even less relevant since all sorcerers would have pretty much the same limits. You might as well just say "both limits are 18 and that's it"... which is why IMHO the main viable alternative to Free INT is to give scores to Runes and Techniques. Or, maybe, something based on the total number of spell skill points (measuring your overall mastery of magic by counting "how many songs you've ever learned").

Quote

And I'm not going to wade further into the Tusk Rider point; suffice to say that I disagree with the reasoning and leave it at that, MGWV.

For my own education and understanding of the rules and setting, I'm still curious to know more about this topic... hit me up in a PM if you feel like sharing! (I have no strong opinion either way so you won't be exposed to any push back from me, I'm just listening )

Edited July 16, 2020 by lordabdul

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Yeah good points. It's easy to separate the 2 limits (number of memorized spells and amount of manipulation) and make them both equal to INT-minus-Spirit-Magic (or just INT if you don't believe in magical corruption)... but I don't know if that makes sorcerers too powerful? Has anybody actually tried that?

I agree with you, but as a sorceror player in RQ3 and RQG since more than 25 years, I think the sorcerors are already very powerful (and most of my sorcerors were hybrid ones with use of spirit magic and sorcery). Removing this limit can be unbalancing. It should be counterbalanced by something else.

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

But then, as I argued in my big comment above, that would make this limit even less relevant since all sorcerers would have pretty much the same limits.

Yes, true. It is better to have some differences.

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

You might as well just say "both limits are 18 and that's it"... which is why IMHO the main viable alternative to Free INT is to give scores to Runes and Techniques.

This is one of the reason why I have asked this very question to Jeff in the RQ design thread.

[Shiningbrow]

On 7/16/2020 at 5:54 PM, Kloster said:

In fact, it was not. There was no enhance spell for INT and POW (Magic Book p46).

Ummm... Obviously I mis-remembered (or ignored 😛

[Shiningbrow]

On 7/16/2020 at 5:54 PM, Kloster said:

faster magic points recover

But does your fake POW regenerate MPs?

The others were somewhat obvious.

(Not letting me double quote. )

[Kloster]

9 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

But does your fake POW regenerate MPs?

The others were somewhat obvious.

(Not letting me double quote. )

For me, yes, if duration is sufficient. For me POW is POW, whether from spell or nature. I treat them the same.

[PhilHibbs]

12 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

But does your fake POW regenerate MPs?

Fake POW? There's no such thing. Magic isn't "fake", this ins't "RuneQuest: Penn & Teller in Glorantha". Bladesharp and Disruption aren't fake damage.

Edited July 18, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[soltakss]

On 7/12/2020 at 8:52 PM, PhilHibbs said:

On 7/12/2020 at 4:40 PM, MJ Sadique said:

No man, you are very far from the count, NOW we are at RuneQuest 7 ... SEVEN, officially named RQ-G because it's a fork from RQ2 as much as RQ3.

Officially, this is "the fourth Chaosium edition" of RuneQuest.

Oh, please, no, don't open that can of worms again!