Jump to content

Dismiss & Dispel Magic


Akhôrahil

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Unlikely, at least i have not seen it used very often. countermagic once in a blue moon, shield never. The choice is always the character or the sword, and character wins every time.

Ah, you reason that the sword isn’t protected by a person’s Shield spell? Is this explicit in the rules? I mean, it makes some sense, and even more so when you consider a Woad spell.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Problem with that is do you go with Countermagic or Protection. Or, better yet, do I cast Countermagic, or hack with the sword anyway

Lol, don't forget spirit screen is also included in the triad of exclusion. Yeah, the magic system is always a bit scissors/paper/stone, and that is a good thing imo.

Edited by Darius West
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Unlikely, at least i have not seen it used very often. countermagic once in a blue moon, shield never. The choice is always the character or the sword, and character wins every time.

Except if the sword has a bound spirit (or is an allied spirit), it is protected by the character shield or countermagic.

56 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

For a Fireblade. The best tactic for Fireblade is the one I first seen in the Cradle scenario where the second rankers cast Fireblade on the spears of the Yelmalio templars int he first row.

Agreed. I have also seen a dagger with a fireblade matrix, some MP in a matrix and a condition that it activates automatically when drawn. In that case, no roll (it is an automatic spell). By the way, it was RQ3, but with RQG, you also would get rid of the 'active spell' problem, because you are not the one that casts, so are not the one that has to maintain.

25 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Yes, Bladesharp only affects the weapon its cast on, why would it be different for Shield.

As I have understood, in order to affect an items you have on someone, you need to win POW vs POW except if the object has a spirit bound in it. So, for me, countermagic or shield protects said objects. Protection is a different matter, because it acts as armor and your armor does not (usually) protects the objects you carry. But, for me, you can cast protection specifically on the sword, which would gain AP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Except if the sword has a bound spirit (or is an allied spirit), it is protected by the character shield or countermagic.

No.

 

18 minutes ago, Kloster said:

As I have understood, in order to affect an items you have on someone, you need to win POW vs POW except if the object has a spirit bound in it.

No, nothing in Dismiss or Dispel says there is a POW vs POW roll. The target is the spell not the person.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

No, nothing in Dismiss or Dispel says there is a POW vs POW roll. The target is the spell not the person.

Almost - you can either target a known (or guessed) spell, or cast the Dispel ”blindly” against the weapon to dispel whatever is there. But the latter use doesn’t allow a POW roll anyway, any more than targeting a PC the same way, as (presumably) there’s no POW vs. POW roll here in the first place.

It does protect against hostile spells against the weapon, though, like Dullblade or Crack, that now require POW vs. POW when you have a spirit in it.

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

It does protect against hostile spells against the weapon, though, like Dullblade or Crack, that now require POW vs. POW when you have a spirit in it.

Exactly. The difference is the target. Is it the object as in the case of Dullblade or Crack, or the magic present on the object.

11 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

or cast the Dispel ”blindly” against the weapon to dispel whatever is there.

The mechanics for this are written on RQG p260 under Dispel Magic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godlearner said:

No, nothing in Dismiss or Dispel says there is a POW vs POW roll. The target is the spell not the person.

RQG p 244: An adventurer’s POW is used to resist spells cast against them. A target always resists a spell unless that target voluntarily and knowingly accepts the spell. To find out if a spell was successfully cast against a resisting target, compare on the resistance table the caster’s POW vs. the target’s POW.

No need to add it to every spells. If the spell is on a person, you should roll. At least, we always understood it that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

RQG p 244: An adventurer’s POW is used to resist spells cast against them. A target always resists a spell unless that target voluntarily and knowingly accepts the spell. To find out if a spell was successfully cast against a resisting target, compare on the resistance table the caster’s POW vs. the target’s POW.

No need to add it to every spells. If the spell is on a person, you should roll. At least, we always understood it that way.

My personal view is that the rules technically say this, but that it makes no sense and that I ignore it. Targeting a spell doesn't allow for POW vs. POW, and "targeting" a person just means that it will auto-target a spell on that person instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Well Of Daliath appears to cover this in the Magic section, e.g. with a Dullblade example:

Broo is in front of an adventurer

The Broo casts dullblade on the adventurer’s sword (no spirit, nothing else than a sword)

Is there a Broo POW versus adventurer’s POW roll?

Unless the adventurer has some form of magic up that the GM interprets as includes the sword (Shield for example) No.

This the whole point of Dullblade.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steve said:

And the magic is on the person, and part of that person.

I would disagree. What if the spell is cast by another person? What if that other person is dead and the spell is still around. Unless the spell is active, that link is gone as soon as the spell is cast.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve said:

Unless the adventurer has some form of magic up that the GM interprets as includes the sword (Shield for example) No.

That means I was wrong on the POW vs POW subject and right on the spell protection subject.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

I would disagree. What if the spell is cast by another person? What if that other person is dead and the spell is still around. Unless the spell is active, that link is gone as soon as the spell is cast.

I've now changed my opinion based on what I quoted from the Well Of Daliath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I wonder exactly how strictly this should be interpreted. Does a Shield protect your clothing from Ignite? Does it protect your armor from Vomit Acid?

It would protect as 'Protection' or 'Countermagic' would. Ignite is a spell, so the Countermagic would protect from the effects. For Vomit Acid, if you speak of the spell, it counts, if you speak of the Chaos ability, it shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kloster said:

It would protect as 'Protection' or 'Countermagic' would. Ignite is a spell, so the Countermagic would protect from the effects. For Vomit Acid, if you speak of the spell, it counts, if you speak of the Chaos ability, it shouldn't.

My point is that if Shield/Countermagic doesn't protect your sword, a piece of equipment you hold, would it protect stuff you wear?

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Does a Shield protect your clothing from Ignite? Does it protect your armor from Vomit Acid?

I would say that Shield would not protect against an Ignite on your clothing but would if it was targeted on your hair or fur.

Vomit Acid is different story. The Countermagic part of Shield would not protect, but the Protection part would reduce the damage, before the it is applied to armor (destroying it in the process) and then to the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Kloster said:

It would protect as 'Protection' or 'Countermagic' would. Ignite is a spell, so the Countermagic would protect from the effects. For Vomit Acid, if you speak of the spell, it counts, if you speak of the Chaos ability, it shouldn't.

Vomit Acid (Chaos Feature) vs Shield: My thought was that the acid strikes the person's Shield spell first, as though the Shield was magical armor. Once the Potency of the Acid exceeds that, it dissolves the armor at 1:1, then affects hit points of the person. So, in effect, Shield spell does protect the armor. Shield protects against the Shatter spell via its Countermagic effect instead, even if the targeted weapon has no spirit.

One odd quirk is that it appears Lightning vs Shield can have both the Countermagic and Protection apply. If a target has Shield 2, a Lightning 1 or 2 fails. A Lightning 3 inflicts 3d6 damage, which is reduced by four due to the Shield (as the spell specifies 'but spells that defend against physical attacks are effective').

** Added missing )

Edited by Dragon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

My point is that if Shield/Countermagic doesn't protect your sword, a piece of equipment you hold, would it protect stuff you wear?

For me, as I have already explained, it does protect your sword, so it also protect the stuff you wear.

50 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

I would say that Shield would not protect against an Ignite on your clothing

I think it does.

50 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

but would if it was targeted on your hair or fur.

Same.

46 minutes ago, Dragon said:

Vomit Acid (Chaos Feature) vs Shield: My thought was that the acid strikes the person's Shield spell first, as though the Shield was magical armor. Once the Potency of the Acid exceeds that, it dissolves the armor at 1:1, then affects hit points of the person. So, in effect, Shield spell does protect the armor.

I think you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I resolve this in my Glorantha is to require a caster targeting a spell have some way of viewing/detecting the spell (either be a shaman, or use soulsight or similar spells).  If the caster can view the spells they they can target the spell in which case there is no POW vrs POW roll - If the caster cannot view spells, the the target is the individual, and thus there will be a POW vrs POW.  This gives a distinct advantage to characters who can see spells, which I think is a good feature.

The next complication is when countermagic is used - this must be dispelled first if the dispel is cast at the target of the countermagic.  Thus if a bladesherp on a sword also had countermagic cast upon it, then even if the dispeller could see the countermagic they would have to dispel it first (or use extra MP to overcome the countermagic).  So far I've not had anyone use countermagic to protect a spell on an Item - but I try not to overuse dispel in the interest of MGF.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChrisJ said:

require a caster targeting a spell have some way of viewing/detecting the spell

I like the concept, in fact, the rules hint at this.  Problem:

There are darned few ways for anybody to identify spells to target.  (in RQG)

Soul Sight does not show spells.  Shamen do not see spells.  And many parties don't have shamen anyway.

You see some effect "oh, the mace is glowing, and there was a whoosh of Darkness when the troll cast something on himself", but no direct "He cast Bludgeon and Shield".  Most GMs sort of fudge it and let you make reasonable guesses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...