Free INT - Sorcery

[Shiningbrow]

16 hours ago, davecake said:

Well, not according to the rules. But the spell creation rules for sorcery are so extremely vague, who knows if it’s not perfectly ok to just invent a version of a spell changed to be more to your liking? 

??? Not according to which rules, precisely?

[davecake]

50 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Not according to which rules, precisely

The Enhance INT spell description. Was that not obvious?

[PhilHibbs]

26 minutes ago, davecake said:

The Enhance INT spell description. Was that not obvious?

The spell list is not exhaustive, and the existence of one spell with a particular rune does not preclude the same effect being achievable with other runes.

[David Scott]

 

29 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

The spell list is not exhaustive

adding to Phil's statement, the section is clearly called

Quote

Sample Sorcery Spells

and then goes on to state

Quote

This section lists and describes a sample of spells that might be known by sorcerers in the Dragon Pass area.

 

29 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

and the existence of one spell with a particular rune does not preclude the same effect being achievable with other runes.

Enhance INT is Fire and Summon - Summon calls a specific manifestation of a rune. Fire being the rune of INT, but it could IMO just as easily be Moon for Magic, and then cyclic. Or even the Magic rune and command. As it stands you can always use Water or Earth as they are Fire's minor runes, so a version specifically based on those perhaps with harmony to decrease the minor rune cost.

[Lordabdul]

13 hours ago, David Scott said:

perhaps with harmony to decrease the minor rune cost

What do you mean here?

[Shiningbrow]

14 hours ago, davecake said:

The Enhance INT spell description. Was that not obvious?

What the above said, but just clarifying that an example spell isn't a "rule". Hence why I questioned it. 

Personally, I think the Man Rune would be appropriate..

[davecake]

And my answer to all of this was in my very next sentence - yes, they are only sample spells and many more exist, but I think the idea that therefore spells exist that are exactly the same as existing spells except changed slightly to be more convenient to players, while it is not ruled out explicitly, I regard that as a flaw in the rules, which are incomplete and poorly defined where they should not be. 

I do not think the intent of the rules is that you can essentially directly reproduce a spell by creating a new one edited for your convenience, and I assume that the sample spells are basically showing you ‘standard’ spells for an effect. So Enhance INT will basically be the best enhancing INT spell you can make, Boon of Kargan Tor the best damage enhancing spell, etc. 

And yes, you can cast a spell using other runes (the minor elemental runes, for example), taking a major disadvantage for doing so, and as that possibility is already covered by the rules, so you should not be able to just make a spell that bypasses that limit, even if it isn’t explicitly ruled out.

That doesn’t mean you can’t make a spell that produces a similar effect, but it’s probably going to be a bit worse. 

My issue here is with the worldbuilding consequences - increasing Free INT is such a significant effect for the limits of sorcerous power, and so it seems obvious that sorcerers with ready access to it will be notably more powerful than those that don’t. Cultures with Fire sorcery as common will be more powerful magically, cultures with multiple Elemental Runic associations (like the Rokari) will encourage Fire sorcery, elemental focussed schools that do not have access to it will be notable weaker (such the Darkness focussed Black Arkat cult or Spolite sorcerers , or the Air focussed Orgethites). None of these things appear to be true in Gloranthan lore up to now. 

A possible alternative is that there is another spell that is clearly inferior to Enhance INT, but that still allows enhancing Free INT, and more widely accessible to other sorcerers who have not mastered the Fire rune. I’d suggest a spell that only enhances Free INT for purposes of sorcery casting limits, but does not actually increase INT for other purposes, such as skill rolls and memorization, perhaps a spell that focussed magical perception but not mundane. 

 

[davecake]

And yes, an example spell is a ‘rule’, as all spell descriptions are. The word ‘sample’ just indicates that the spell list is not intended to be exhaustive. 

[davecake]

18 hours ago, David Scott said:

Fire being the rune of INT, but it could IMO just as easily be Moon for Magic,

For a similar but not identical effect, sure. Moon tends to be associated with POW not INT of course. 

 

18 hours ago, David Scott said:

As it stands you can always use Water or Earth as they are Fire's minor runes, so a version specifically based on those perhaps with harmony to decrease the minor rune cost.

The theoretical version seems weird - it’s both a spell only created deliberately to get around another rule, and it’s not actually that big an advantage generally, as it requires mastering an extra rune, and if you are that intent on reducing the casting of that one spell, why not just learn Fire? So it seems of very marginal use unless you have already mastered Harmony or already know other Harmony spells. 

[David Scott]

7 hours ago, lordabdul said:

What do you mean here?

Making it a three rune spell, water, summon, harmony instead of Fire summon. The idea being that harmony makes it possible to use water instead of fire.

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

What the above said, but just clarifying that an example spell isn't a "rule". Hence why I questioned it. 

Personally, I think the Man Rune would be appropriate..

Then use man then, I believe there are many ways of producing the same effect. It would be the school or cult that determines which one.

2 hours ago, davecake said:

why not just learn Fire? So it seems of very marginal use unless you have already mastered Harmony or already know other Harmony spells. 

Depends on your school. You might be a member of a school that prohibits the use of the fire rune. 

[Shiningbrow]

3 hours ago, davecake said:

I think the idea that therefore spells exist that are exactly the same as existing spells except changed slightly to be more convenient to players, while it is not ruled out explicitly, I regard that as a flaw in the rules, which are incomplete and poorly defined where they should not be. 

There are numerous flaws in the rules. I think that looking for the flaw in this one is excessive.

 

3 hours ago, davecake said:

I assume that the sample spells are basically showing you ‘standard’ spells for an effect. So Enhance INT will basically be the best enhancing INT spell you can make, Boon of Kargan Tor the best damage enhancing spell, etc. 

And I disagree with that bit about being the "best" spell you can make. As a simple (non-numerical) example, tweaking Logician so that it can be cast on other people, and also to make it a Passive spell, especially since Enhance INT Is both Touch and Passive*. The decision to make Logician more annoying seems to be merely arbitrary, and changeable. If that's changeable, then so would any other spell. And, thus, up to GM fiat...

..and, IMHO, if a GM ruled that I couldn't make Logician both Passive and Touch because of "I said so", I presume there'd be other rules that they'd also arbitrarily incorporate that would make playing with them very frustrating, and not worth the time and effort.

(*FYI, the other mind affecting spells - Logical Clarity, Solace of the Logical Mind and Total Recall are all Passive and Ranged spells. I'd also presume there are other versions of Enhance INT that are both Active and Self only).

4 hours ago, davecake said:

My issue here is with the worldbuilding consequences - increasing Free INT is such a significant effect for the limits of sorcerous power, and so it seems obvious that sorcerers with ready access to it will be notably more powerful than those that don’t. Cultures with Fire sorcery as common will be more powerful magically, cultures with multiple Elemental Runic associations (like the Rokari) will encourage Fire sorcery, elemental focussed schools that do not have access to it will be notable weaker (such the Darkness focussed Black Arkat cult or Spolite sorcerers , or the Air focussed Orgethites). None of these things appear to be true in Gloranthan lore up to now. 

Possibly because there's not much stopping a sorcerer from getting the Fire Rune, or from augmenting their people in other ways... Fire is nice for the INT, but Water gives Enhance DEX, and Air gives Enhance STR - both pretty potent abilities to give to lots of your people. And, really, while Enhance INT will increase your INT maybe by 4* (if you're lucky, 6 points, the additional intensity you're throwing out is only a couple of points to most spells (especially those spells that call for multiple points of Intensity to increase the effect - such as Enhance INT and BoKT), and so won't have that big of an effect.

 

 

[metcalph]

18 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

As a simple (non-numerical) example, tweaking Logician so that it can be cast on other people, and also to make it a Passive spell, especially since Enhance INT Is both Touch and Passive*.

In terms of gloranthan metaphysics, I doubt that a tweaked Logician will be as effective (ie reduced effectiveness rather than cannot happen) for non-Lore spells.  That's because Logician is apparently derived on the Malkioni concept of a mental unity with the One Mind (c.f Neo-Platonism) whereas weapon skills, trickery etc would be rather inferior knowledge polluted by the physicality of gross matter etc.  

Likewise using Logician as a basis to teach or enhance the skill to others would not be as effective as one might expect.  That's because to learn sorcery, one has to have experienced the One Mind as opposed whereas someone who has no experience with the study of sorcery would be all to confused as to what's being imparted.

 

[Shiningbrow]

8 minutes ago, metcalph said:

In terms of gloranthan metaphysics, I doubt that a tweaked Logician will be as effective (ie reduced effectiveness rather than cannot happen) for non-Lore spells.  That's because Logician is apparently derived on the Malkioni concept of a mental unity with the One Mind (c.f Neo-Platonism) whereas weapon skills, trickery etc would be rather inferior knowledge polluted by the physicality of gross matter etc.  

Likewise using Logician as a basis to teach or enhance the skill to others would not be as effective as one might expect.  That's because to learn sorcery, one has to have experienced the One Mind as opposed whereas someone who has no experience with the study of sorcery would be all to confused as to what's being imparted.

 

I took Logician to be more of a melding with Lhankor Mhy....

I can understand the rest. Perhaps Intensity is 1 point/5% gain?? Or something???

[metcalph]

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I can understand the rest. Perhaps Intensity is 1 point/5% gain?? Or something???

That can work.  

[Godlearner]

9 hours ago, davecake said:

And my answer to all of this was in my very next sentence - yes, they are only sample spells and many more exist, but I think the idea that therefore spells exist that are exactly the same as existing spells except changed slightly to be more convenient to players, while it is not ruled out explicitly, I regard that as a flaw in the rules, which are incomplete and poorly defined where they should not be. 

<snip>

My issue here is with the worldbuilding consequences - increasing Free INT is such a significant effect for the limits of sorcerous power, and so it seems obvious that sorcerers with ready access to it will be notably more powerful than those that don’t.

I would agree on both points. The rules are incomplete, but its something that we can live with ... for now. Free INT as it is now, is a bad mechanic for the system as a whole. 

[Lordabdul]

9 hours ago, David Scott said:

Making it a three rune spell, water, summon, harmony instead of Fire summon. The idea being that harmony makes it possible to use water instead of fire.

Summon+Fire costs 2 points when mastered. Using that spell with Summon+Water costs 3 points because you're going through Water's minor rune. Devising an equivalent spell that uses Summon+Water+Harmony would cost 3 points when mastered, so the only improvement is that manipulation is +1 MP instead of +2 MP.... is that what you were after here?

Also, design-wise, did you suggest Harmony because, thematically, it helps "collaboration" between Water and Fire/Sky, and that's how you would justify creating that new spell? In which case, that's an interesting use of Harmony... worth keeping in my notes...

 

Quote

Then use man then, I believe there are many ways of producing the same effect. It would be the school or cult that determines which one.

I think that, by its free-form nature, sorcery will work better or worse depending on the GM and the players. I could see some groups going wide with many different ways to do things, while others will (ironically, given the nature of sorcery) have a much more strict and logical approach.

For example, I could imagine players creating new forms of Enhance INT with Dispel Beast (remove bestial instincts from your mind to only leave higher logic) or with Combine Truth Man (summon mathematical truths into you), or whatever else.... (the cool thing here being that you can roleplay these different spells in different ways, even if the mechanical effects are identical!).   But other players will brandish the rulebook and say "no, it clearly says INT is the characteristic of Fire/Sky therefore you can't affect one without the other! You're doing it wrong!".

Edited March 6, 2021 by lordabdul

[PhilHibbs]

Maybe the Fire/Summon version of Enhance INT is a really good one, and other versions give +1 per 5 strength. Or they need 3 Runes and thus more MP to get 1-per-4. Maybe there's a rare version out there somewhere that gives 1-per-3!

[Shiningbrow]

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maybe the Fire/Summon version of Enhance INT is a really good one, and other versions give +1 per 5 strength. Or they need 3 Runes and thus more MP to get 1-per-4. Maybe there's a rare version out there somewhere that gives 1-per-3!

You're sort of going in a direction that's been on my mind for a while.. Additives.

What if it's Summon Fire Man? (Don't fumble 😋)

If Summon Earth or Summon Fertility or Summon Plant can all increase your crops' output, what happens if you use all 3 Runes?

Can you use a Rune twice in a spell?

These, and other questions, won't get an official ruling for a long time to come...

[davecake]

On 3/6/2021 at 6:33 PM, Shiningbrow said:

Possibly because there's not much stopping a sorcerer from getting the Fire Rune, or from augmenting their people in other ways... Fire is nice for the INT, but Water gives Enhance DEX, and Air gives Enhance STR - both pretty potent abilities to give to lots of your people.

Neither of those have any meta effect, so they just don’t matter as much. Enhance INT makes you better at casting, say, Boon of Kargan Tor, which means a sorcerer with Enhance INT and Boon of Kargan Tor will be able to cast a more powerful damage enhancing spell. Or Dispel it. Or also cast better defences, summon bigger spirits, and just generally be able to cast better spells.  Hell, if Enhance STR or Enhance DEX was really good, the sorcerer with Enhance INT can probably cast more powerful versions of them. 

[davecake]

On 3/6/2021 at 5:11 PM, David Scott said:

I believe there are many ways of producing the same effect. It would be the school or cult that determines which one.

And I think the rules are vague enough that is a possible interpretation, but I don’t think the spell list is supposed to be read as ‘a list of effects you can produce using any runes you can come up with vague argument to justify’. 

[David Scott]

1 minute ago, davecake said:

And I think the rules are vague enough that is a possible interpretation, but I don’t think the spell list is supposed to be read as ‘a list of effects you can produce using any runes you can come up with vague argument to justify’.

It's what my players came up with. They designed their school and adapted five spells that suited its goals. There was little I didn't agree with. Works pretty well. Sadly I don't have their character sheets to list the schools and spells (boxed up from a move). IIRC there was a variant of Boon of Kargan Tor, Create skeleton, and a healing spell that always disfigured the target. 

[Godlearner]

4 minutes ago, davecake said:

And I think the rules are vague enough that is a possible interpretation, but I don’t think the spell list is supposed to be read as ‘a list of effects you can produce using any runes you can come up with vague argument to justify’. 

We all agree that the rules are vague, intentionally so at the moment, and I will take them as such which leaves the possibility for each sorcerer to modify the current spell list to fit a set of runes and techniques which he has mastered. The end result would be a similar spell with exactly the same result, but a different look to it.

[icebrand]

IMHO the sorcery rules on RQ:G are a straight downgrade from RQ3, and those were not very good to start with.

I use RQ3 raw for sorcery, with whatever handwaving i need to make the encounters deadlier (since sorcerers in that ruleset are not very deadly compared to other magic users), unless you like your sorcerers to be guys with high stats that hits for high damage, then all you need is MP crystals and high base INT, % casting is irrelevant.

Of course I don't allow sorcery for my PCs because, quoting me from the last time they asked "the magic system f***ing sucks and i would need to nerf the few useful broken spells so you would have a s***ty character overall".

 

Edited March 8, 2021 by icebrand

[Godlearner]

Quote

IMHO the sorcery rules on RQ:G are a straight downgrade from RQ3, and those were not very good to start with.

Absolutely. I tried many things to get it to work including Sandy's rules and others. That finally worked was getting rid of Free Int and limiting manipulations by the Sorcerous Arts /10 and Spell skill /5. Pretty much solved all issues without rewrite the book. Something similar can (and IMO should be) done as well.

[Lordabdul]

2 hours ago, davecake said:

And I think the rules are vague enough that is a possible interpretation, but I don’t think the spell list is supposed to be read as ‘a list of effects you can produce using any runes you can come up with vague argument to justify’. 

Not generally speaking, no, but by virtue of a free-form system that encourages player creation, and a list of Runes that's quite small and vague, there will inevitably be some type of effects that allow more interpretations than others. It's what I said earlier: some groups will embrace it, and some others will have a more strict and literal approach. My guess is that the former group will have more fun or, at least, less frustrations than the latter, but that's probably my own bias.

For instance, I think we can all agree that any kind of illusion spell will have to include the Illusion Rune. But "Create Taste", in the rulebook, uses Water, for instance. I can totally see someone arguing for another version that uses the Darkness Rune instead, on account of its affinity to the stomach and (one could extrapolate) the entire digestive system. Trolls like experiencing lots of tastes after all. The two spells might differ quite a bit in their in-world effects, with the Water-based one being "lighter" and giving more "fresh" sensations, while the Darkness-based one is heavier on your throat and stomach, and may even give you gas if you want to get silly. Some groups will get a lot of mileage from these kinds of differences: maybe a bunch of good laughs, or maybe the cornerstone of an insane plan to sneak into the chieftain's hall.

 

2 hours ago, Godlearner said:

That finally worked was getting rid of Free Int and limiting manipulations by the Sorcerous Arts /10 and Spell skill /5. Pretty much solved all issues without rewrite the book. Something similar can (and IMO should be) done as well.

What's "Sorcerous Arts"?

Edited March 8, 2021 by lordabdul