True Sword and Fire Blade

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Given that both spells have been around for decades, and no doubt people have used that combination for decades.

For that reason I would not be surprised if we don't get a clarification. It's up to us, they can't and don't want to clarify everything. That's just part of the Chaosium/RQ ethos.

[Stephen L]

15 hours ago, g33k said:

(that is, a Fireblade'd weapon no longer does "normal" damage, so there is nothing to be doubled by the "True <weapon>")

 

14 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Truesword "doubles the normal damage done by the weapon".

Fire Blade is not "normal".

 

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The "normal weapon damage" line is just icing on the cake.

 

6 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Truesword doubles the weapon’s normal damage.

I realise I am out voted by this, but I am somewhat bemused, as it seems quite clear to me…

Fire blade: (p144 red book of magic)

Quote

Cast on any edged weapon or spear, this spell changes the weapon’s damage to be 3D6.

So Bob when casts fire blade on his 1D8+1 sword, that damage is now not 1D8+1 it is changed to 3D6.

If he specials: (page 203, RuneQuest in Glorantha).

Quote

An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage

We’ve already had a clarification that fire blade can special

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/cha4034-the-red-book-of-magic/cha4032-the-red-book-of-magic-qa/cha4032-red-book-of-magic-chapter-03-spirit-magic-spells-qa/#Fireblade

I think it’s quite clear that the normal damage is now 3D6, so a special is 6D6.   Now if you want to, for balance, say its 3D6 + 1D8 + 1, that’s fine, but that’s seems (to me) to playing word games.

True Sword: (p100 red book of magic)

Quote

Cast on a specified melee weapon, this spell doubles the weapon’s normal damage.

So why, can a Fire Blade double normal damage for a special, but not for True Sword?

Fortunately (for him), the Lunar Bob’s up against, has seen this all before, casts a disruption on Bob, whose concentration slips and the fire blade goes out.  Bob swears, as he's not got many magic points left for healing (or indeed many spell options, as, even with a Cha of 12, the fire-blade takes a big chunk of his spirit magic quota). 

[PhilHibbs]

12 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

I realise I am out voted by this, but I am somewhat bemused, as it seems quite clear to me…

This isn't a democracy, your group can play the game how you want. I absolutely understand the big numbers ethos, it's a very Sandy Petersen way of gaming.

12 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

So why, can a Fire Blade double normal damage for a special, but not for True Sword?

Because a special is hitting a vital location, or a weak spot, or a lucky swing, not a magical spell interaction case. They are different because they are different. No-one is saying "Fireblade is immune to all numerical alteration". You get damage bonus as well, so clearly the damage can be increased by mundane means.

[Joerg]

33 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

Fire blade: (p144 red book of magic)

Can be cast on any edged weapon and turns it into a fireblade, using the same attack skill (and probably also parry skill), but changing the nature of the weapon.

 

33 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

So Bob when casts fire blade on his 1D8+1 sword, that damage is now not 1D8+1 it is changed to 3D6.

And the sword blade now is a fire blade.  Handles like a sword, but has exchanged its sword-ness (the edge) for being fiery.

 

33 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

I think it’s quite clear that the normal damage is now 3D6, so a special is 6D6.   Now if you want to, for balance, say its 3D6 + 1D8 + 1, that’s fine, but that’s seems (to me) to playing word games.

Special success refers to the weapon, as a general term. Truesoword refers to the weapon being  a sword, which means a weapon doing its damage with an edge.

 

33 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

So why, can a Fire Blade double normal damage for a special, but not for True Sword?

See above. The special magic of the True Sword is severing, not burning.

 

33 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

Fortunately (for him), the Lunar Bob’s up against, has seen this all before, casts a disruption on Bob, whose concentration slips and the fire blade goes out. 

Unless Bon manages his INTx3 roll (regardless whether his POW was overcome or not, having that POW vs POW struggle already is the distraction, as would be spirit combat).

 

 

Does Fireblade add to the gift Humakt gave to a specific sword? Is that gift transferred from the bladed weapon to its temporary form as tangible fire?

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Joerg

[Shiningbrow]

54 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

For that reason I would not be surprised if we don't get a clarification. It's up to us, they can't and don't want to clarify everything. That's just part of the Chaosium/RQ ethos.

However....

Firespear specifically states incompatible with Fireblade, Bladesharp, and True (weapon).

Flamesword specifically states incompatible with Fireblade, Bladesharp and True (weapon).

Bludgeon specifically states incompatible with Fireblade.

Fireblade specifically states incompatible with Bladesharp.

 

True (weapon), however, does not list any such incompatibilities.

What I see from the above is - no Runic firey spells plus spirit firey spells (naturally) or other Rune spells And you can't have two Spirit magic spells affecting the weapon. But, there's no mention of any incompatibilities with True (weapon) and Bladesharp (presumably, that would simply mean you'd double and then add the +damage).

Which means - either Chaosium forgot to add it, or they have no issues with it.

Again, given these spells have both been around for decades, and there's no corrections in the Well of Daliath, I'd take it to mean they are compatible, and thus the Fireblade damage gets doubled.

[Scotty]

This is an at your table call. At my table when a Humakt initiate using Fireblade, wanted to use Truesword, I said the Truesword supplants the Fireblade as Humakt is a sword-wielding death god (even if he does teach Fireblade). His godly deathness, trumps the fire aspect of spirit magic. If for example, a Yelm initiate using Fireblade on a spear wanted to cast truespear as well, I'd say sure Yelm is the premier fire god. 

Note that this has now been superseded:

No. True (weapon) doubles the weapon’s normal damage (RBM 100), Fireblade replaces the normal damage done by the weapon (RBM 114). The (weapon) would either just not work or more likely would knockdown the Fireblade.

Edited October 31, 2022 by Scotty
updated answer

[HreshtIronBorne]

1 hour ago, Stephen L said:

We’ve already had a clarification that fire blade can special

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/cha4034-the-red-book-of-magic/cha4032-the-red-book-of-magic-qa/cha4032-red-book-of-magic-chapter-03-spirit-magic-spells-qa/#Fireblade

I think it’s quite clear that the normal damage is now 3D6, so a special is 6D6.   Now if you want to, for balance, say its 3D6 + 1D8 + 1, that’s fine, but that’s seems (to me) to playing word games.

True Sword: (p100 red book of magic)

Quote

Cast on a specified melee weapon, this spell doubles the weapon’s normal damage.

So why, can a Fire Blade double normal damage for a special, but not for True Sword?

Fortunately (for him), the Lunar Bob’s up against, has seen this all before, casts a disruption on Bob, whose concentration slips and the fire blade goes out.  Bob swears, as he's not got many magic points left for healing (or indeed many spell options, as, even with a Cha of 12, the fire-blade takes a big chunk of his spirit magic quota). 

I was referring to the possibility of applying True Sword to Fire Blade by applying to "normal" broadsword damage. 

 

Our table has always allowed Truesword to act like regular damage for specials and crits. True broadswords swing for 2d8+2, special for 4d8+4 and crit for 36, all plus DB of course. A Fireblade with Truesword in our Glorantha do 6d6 on a swing and 12d6 on a special.

 

We like BEEG NOMBER. Honestly, we probably should not have started our roleplaying career with stormbringer. Lol. Nothing like rolling a fistful of dice!

Edited January 11, 2022 by HreshtIronBorne
Details

[Stephen L]

16 hours ago, Richard S. said:

Fireblade is perfectly compatible with Truesword, so RAW yes, you can have a 6D6 weapon for the low cost of 1 RP and 4 MP.

49 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I absolutely understand the big numbers ethos, it's a very Sandy Petersen way of gamin

Our game is a small numbers game, so big things happen when someone spends their rune points, I’m happy it being a game changer.

Also, they don’t have Magic points on tap.  Less than half have any magic storage, and the two that do, they’re less than 10 points.

And even a good average CHA of 12 means they have to be very selective about the spells that they have (and I don’t think anyone has filled their quota).

So actually 1 runepoint 4 MP is a big thing for my players.

[Stephen L]

8 minutes ago, Scotty said:

This is an at your table call. At my table when a Humakt initiate using Fireblade, wanted to use Truesword, I said the Truesword supplants the Fireblade as Humakt is a sword-wielding death god (even if he does teach Fireblade). His godly deathness, trumps the fire aspect of spirit magic. If for example, a Yelm initiate using Fireblade on a spear wanted to cast truespear as well, I'd say sure Yelm is the premier fire god. 

Thanks Scotty,

That not only clarifies the rules for me, but also gives a couple of play examples of how they can be applied in a game, which is great.

[French Desperate WindChild]

36 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

We like BEEG NOMBER. Honestly, we probably should not have started our roleplaying career with stormbringer. Lol. Nothing like rolling a fistful of dice!

I don't like it and I am right

You like it and You are right

 

the big issue is if in one table, people discover after sessions and investment, that some like it and some dislike it. Seems to me that some "values" must be defined at the beginning (fight adventure or not only or few fight adventure, big numbers or not big numbers, pc mortality or not, etc...) to align everybody

 

[HreshtIronBorne]

29 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

the big issue is if in one table, people discover after sessions and investment, that some like it and some dislike it. Seems to me that some "values" must be defined at the beginning (fight adventure or not only or few fight adventure, big numbers or not big numbers, pc mortality or not, etc...) to align everybody

This is something I completely agree with. I have been struggling to try and get a feel for this with a group I am hoping to introduce to RQ. Definitely a good conversation for a "Session Zero".  

 

My apologies if this is off-topic. 

[PhilHibbs]

I've come up with character concepts based on certain assumptions, played them in a game for a while, and then taken the same character into another game and found that the GM absolutely won't allow the concept to work at all. Yes, that's one of the problems with the loose approach that RuneQuest takes.

[Akhôrahil]

By the way, does anyone else think it’s weird that you get Special damage from Fireblade but not from Firearrow? It’s yet another one of those things that doesn’t seem to have a logical structure and you just have to memorize the particular rulings.

[Joerg]

1 minute ago, Akhôrahil said:

By the way, does anyone else think it’s weird that you get Special damage from Fireblade but not from Firearrow? It’s yet another one of those things that doesn’t seem to have a logical structure and you just have to memorize the particular rulings.

That's because a fireblade has substance that can impale or slash (the price for that being that it is an active spell).

In RQ, all missiles use the impale special damage (ok, thrown boulders or furniture don't, but they aren't susceptible to this spell). A fire-arrow disappears after inflicting its normal damage because all of its mass has been transformed into fire on releasing the missile.

[Godlearner]

All I know is that in our games, Dismiss Magic gets used a lot, especially when fighting and Fireblades and True (weapons) start getting cast.

[Dragon]

8 hours ago, Joerg said:

Unless Bon manages his INTx3 roll (regardless whether his POW was overcome or not, having that POW vs POW struggle already is the distraction, as would be spirit combat).

Your explanation 'having that POW vs POW struggle' is definitely not RAW. Spirit Combat is specifically called out. Taking magical damage is specifically called out. Having the enemy casting a Disrupt that fails to overcome your POW is definitely not called out. Maybe if the Disrupt comes from your friend it is a 'something unexpected happen'. Sure, if you are overcome with a non-damaging spell, that could be 'unexpected'. But successfully resisting a spell in a Gloranthan battle cast by an enemy you perceive? No, happens all the time.

Here is the quote from RQG: RiG page 247: "Such spells require the concentration of the caster to remain in effect for their full duration. If the caster tries to throw another spell, is attacked in spirit combat, takes physical or magical damage, or has something unexpected happen, then the caster must make a concentration roll (INT×3
as a percentage) or the effects of the spell cease and the spell must be recast for the effect to again apply."

If the designers had agreed with you it would say (emphasis added): "Such spells require the concentration of the caster to remain in effect for their full duration. If the caster tries to throw another spell, is attacked in spirit combat, takes physical damage, must resist a magical spell, or has something unexpected happen, then the caster must make a concentration roll (INT×3 as a percentage) or the effects of the spell cease and the spell must be recast for the effect to again apply."

[Joerg]

12 minutes ago, Dragon said:

Your explanation 'having that POW vs POW struggle' is definitely not RAW.

 

The RAW also say

Quote

Spell casters trying to maintain an active spell are limited to a movement rate of 4 meters per melee round and they can do no fighting.

Emphasis mine, which clearly doesn't apply to Fireblade:

Quote

Though it is an Active spell, the caster can still move and attack normally. 

So no concentration rolls for attacking. There is nothing about parrying with Fireblade held active, and even less about parrying with the firebladed weapon. Which looks to me like an excellent tactic against natural weapon attacks, especially failed ones, provided the fireblade falters only after damage is taken and the concentration roll failed.

There are a few things you cannot do while maintaining a Fireblade, one of these is control your mount in battle. Given the restriction for Fireblade use in mounted combat comes up twice before, I wonder why that wasn't repeated here.

My reasoning is that the added stress between concentrating and being in a melee may up the distraction level for things that nearly affect you. But yes, this is a variant reading of the rules.

A very pedestrian spell, although the Black Horse Troop might manage mounted charges with Fireblade on for most of a unit. Hippogriff riders are fine, too, as they can use the autopilot mode of their sapient mount. The few dominant riders might have their mount cast it while moving normally, but letting someone else maintain your Fireblade might be as dangerous to yourself as to your opponents..

One other thing I miss from the Fireblade description is the equivalent of the dropped oil lamp table when fighting among potentially incendiary material.

And any wound caused by Fireblade should count as cauterized. No bleeding...

[Dragon]

51 minutes ago, Joerg said:

There are a few things you cannot do while maintaining a Fireblade, one of these is control your mount in battle. Given the restriction for Fireblade use in mounted combat comes up twice before, I wonder why that wasn't repeated here.

Good question, but it is answered already by the following paragraphs. That concentration roll only applies to Riding mounts. It is overridden for Cavalry and War mounts. 

My emphasis in bold, from RiG page 167: 

"   When an adventurer is riding an animal untrained for battle, the player must roll the adventurer’s Ride skill or less every melee round and at any time the mount is injured. If the roll is unsuccessful, the adventurer must spend the next melee round calming the animal by making a Ride roll, to the exclusion of all else. If the adventurer does not attend to
their mount, or fails the roll, the animal bolts away from the excitement. If this happens, refer to the rules in the Ride skill description for unexpected actions by the animal.
Controlling an animal during battle requires concentration. 

   An active spell such as Fireblade is impossible to maintain due to the concentration the spell needs.
   A cavalry animal is trained to remain under control in combat: Ride rolls are not needed and active spells can be maintained.
   A trained war animal fights for itself and the rider needs only to sit on the animal, so that Ride rolls are not necessary and active spells can be cast."

You will notice the same clarifications for cavalry and trained war animal in on page 220. Fireblade cast while riding cavalry mounts is just fine, RAW. So are other active spells. That is a good way to get around the MA 4 requirement for the non-Fireblade active spells. Have the mount do the movement.

That was why I didn't repeat that here, I figured that anyone who knew Fireblade and might try to use it in mounted combat would likely have at least a cavalry mount.

The main thing I get from those repeated mentions is: DON'T ride an untrained mount into actual combat. Untrained mounts bad, trained mounts good.

[Darius West]

Hehe, this ol' chestnut huh?  All those poor crestfallen Humakti who thought they could do 6d6 damage because they didn't read the fine print.  Trust me when I tell you that when you cast Truesword on your greatsword it will still do 4d8 (+bladesharp), plus you can stack it with Sword Trance (which is new, and will make a hero out of any zero).  if you have bladesharp 4, you still wind up with max damage of 36 on an ordinary hit.

[Dr. Devici]

On 1/11/2022 at 7:14 AM, Akhôrahil said:

By the way, does anyone else think it’s weird that you get Special damage from Fireblade but not from Firearrow? It’s yet another one of those things that doesn’t seem to have a logical structure and you just have to memorize the particular rulings.

I always read that as the arrow can't be stuck in the target and potentially cause further damage because it burns away after impact. I'd still allow a special hit to roll double damage on impact, but I guess it depends on what you interpret the doubled upfront damage as being caused by from a fictional perspective.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

On 1/18/2022 at 1:11 AM, Darius West said:

Hehe, this ol' chestnut huh?  All those poor crestfallen Humakti who thought they could do 6d6 damage because they didn't read the fine print.  Trust me when I tell you that when you cast Truesword on your greatsword it will still do 4d8 (+bladesharp), plus you can stack it with Sword Trance (which is new, and will make a hero out of any zero).  if you have bladesharp 4, you still wind up with max damage of 36 on an ordinary hit.

Don't forget Strength and an even larger Bladesharp

I will take over as GM shortly, and started to think about opponents for our PCs.  There's very little point giving them any armor at all.  O.k., Cuirbolli and a little Shield or Protection vs. arrows.  But nothing can really defend against our recent Sword of Humakt.

they will use a lot of Mobility and desperate fleeing...

[Shiningbrow]

8 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Don't forget Strength and an even larger Bladesharp

I will take over as GM shortly, and started to think about opponents for our PCs.  There's very little point giving them any armor at all.  O.k., Cuirbolli and a little Shield or Protection vs. arrows.  But nothing can really defend against our recent Sword of Humakt.

they will use a lot of Mobility and desperate fleeing...

 

Ah, for good old Stormbringer and Wardpacts...

Although, from the (very brief) description of Demons in the Bestiary, I see no reason why you couldn't incorporate them.

 

(Edit: actually, no real reason you couldn't just add that as a Spirit Power, so it wouldn't just be demons who could stuff up that Humakti... Or have it as a Heroquest power, just as there are HQ powers giving immunity to elements - including from fire - magical and mundane (to keep this remotely on topic 😁)

Edited January 22, 2022 by Shiningbrow

[Darius West]

18 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Don't forget Strength and an even larger Bladesharp

I will take over as GM shortly, and started to think about opponents for our PCs.  There's very little point giving them any armor at all.  O.k., Cuirbolli and a little Shield or Protection vs. arrows.  But nothing can really defend against our recent Sword of Humakt.

they will use a lot of Mobility and desperate fleeing...

 

Of course I agree.  Strength Spell is good for the extra damage.  I only said bladesharp 4 because it is the Humakti freebie staple from RQ1.

As to how to take down a humakti like this, I suggest a phalanx.  A tight grouped low frontage set of pikes that hit early and are likely to impale will make quick work of a 6d6 monster hitter.

[Zit]

On 1/10/2022 at 8:04 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Personally, I think the "normal damage" exception applies. Fireblade damage is not "normal weapon damage".

3D6 is the normal damage of a firebladed weapon.

However, In RQ2, things are clear in the spell's description : "it has no effect on Fireblade". OK, it's RQ2, not RQG.

[Godlearner]

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

As to how to take down a humakti

Dismiss magic is available to most cults. I see someone's sword glowing like there is no tomorrow, I blast it.