Active sorcery spells

[Zalain]

Hello all,

i think sorcery in RQG has been misstreated.

 

There are some spells that the sorcerer wont be able to use on himself because they are active, as for example:

-Dampen damage (if he is concentrated in enemy´s weapon, he cant fight against it)

-Neutralize armor (if he is concentrated in his own weapon, he cant fight against the enemy)

-Dissapear (if he is concentrated in the spells, he cant move freely, just slowly)

-Conflagration (what sense has to be "active", if the summoned fire is steady?)

-Animate dead (the sorcerer only would be able to animate a single dead).

 

Of course, i engourage to my sorcereres (3 of my 6 players are sorcery users) to create new or modify known spells.

 

Did i miss something? or simply those spells arent designed for self use?

 

thank you in advance for your answers

 

 

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

There are some spells that the sorcerer wont be able to use on himself because they are active, as for example:

-Dampen damage (if he is concentrated in enemy´s weapon, he cant fight against it)

Yes, you target the enemy's weapon on behalf of another.

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

-Neutralize armor (if he is concentrated in his own weapon, he cant fight against the enemy)

This is not an active spell.

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

-Dissapear (if he is concentrated in the spells, he cant move freely, just slowly)

I think this fine as you'll be moving slowly so as not to be heard by others.

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

-Conflagration (what sense has to be "active", if the summoned fire is steady?)

If there is no burnable material, it's active. If it sets fire to something, use the fire rules (see the Q&A)

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

Animate dead (the sorcerer only would be able to animate a single dead).

Yes, I had a player who created an enchantment to use with this for 1 or 2 POW it was permanent (See Create Zomebie & Skelleton in the Bestiary)

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

Of course, i engourage to my sorcereres (3 of my 6 players are sorcery users) to create new or modify known spells.

I did the same with my players.

[French Desperate WindChild]

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

Dampen damage (if he is concentrated in enemy´s weapon, he cant fight against it)

he can but he must be smart enough (int * 3 to do something else than maintaining the spell active)

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

Conflagration (what sense has to be "active", if the summoned fire is steady?)

that is not only summoning a fire, that's maintaining the fire (and the dammage)

if it is instant, it means you start a fire. If there is water, or just no fuel, there is no more fire.  As it is temporal, it means you maintain the fire

 

from my perspective having limitations is not an issue : a sorcerer is a scholar before everything, and some may learn weapon but know they have to choose between concentration on themselves and action. Some fighters may know sorcery, but they know that good fighters must concentrate on the opponent more than on themselve

Edited May 23, 2023 by French Desperate WindChild

[Shiningbrow]

I just created a spell which I think I'll call Split Mind (sort of similar to Solace of Logical Mind), in which X points of Intensity splits your concentration (puts a bit on maintaining X spells) while the main part of your concentration is focussed on other things (eg, movement, casting other spells, etc). Each split allows for 1 spell requiring concentration.

[Kloster]

58 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I just created a spell which I think I'll call Split Mind (sort of similar to Solace of Logical Mind), in which X points of Intensity splits your concentration (puts a bit on maintaining X spells) while the main part of your concentration is focussed on other things (eg, movement, casting other spells, etc). Each split allows for 1 spell requiring concentration.

Interesting idea. Would you share it, please.

[Shiningbrow]

24 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Interesting idea. Would you share it, please.

Ummm... yeah, that's about it....

Truth, Command, (?Fire?)

I haven't figured out how many Intensity per split... probably just 3, maybe 4. It's Active, so the first split is used up just maintaining that, however it now allows for normal movement and other activity without the need for a roll (unless injured).

Concentration rolls only required if one gets injured, and even then it's per split mind (if the first roll for the Split Mind spell holds).

I'd also allow some enchantments or even rare crystals to do the same (sort of like an Active Spell Storing crystal... 1D4? 1D6??).

[Kloster]

Thanks. I would use 4 intensity per split, to stay on line with the other spells. Very useful and powerful, but as you need 2 splits (i.e. intensity 5) to begin being useful, not too much. And I think fire fits well.

[Zalain]

19 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Truth, Command, (?Fire?)

Its a great idea, but i would use the Separate technique instead of command, making the spell more difficult to learn/use.

 

23 hours ago, David Scott said:

Yes, I had a player who created an enchantment to use with this for 1 or 2 POW it was permanent (See Create Zomebie & Skelleton in the Bestiary)

So your player created a sorcery spell based on a runic spell? thinking its a great idea too, i imagine that the runes and techniques are same than Animate dead? But shouldnt the character know in any way those Runic spells? or at least be able to study them (any other character in the group who have them?)

 

23 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

that is not only summoning a fire, that's maintaining the fire (and the dammage)

if it is instant, it means you start a fire. If there is water, or just no fuel, there is no more fire.  As it is temporal, it means you maintain the fire

Good point: Need to concentrate to maintain it where is no fuel. If he loses concentration, the fire expires, but if he concentrates again, the fire burns up again?? (until the spell duration, of course)

One of my players has conflagration spell: wants to make it passive, to maintain the fire without being concentrate. i told him INTx4 difficult, because its a "small" change for that spell. He had another idea to change the spell making able of moving the flame, and i told him to be INTx3, maybe X2. Because create a fireball (like D&D spell) would be a X1

Other of the sorcerers (the one who knows the Dampen damage) wants to make it passive, and i told him INTx4 of difficulty too, because i thought its a logical change which i dont understand isnt in the spell description, like neutralize armor (for example).

23 hours ago, David Scott said:

This is not an active spell.

true, my fault!

[David Scott]

29 minutes ago, Zalain said:

So your player created a sorcery spell based on a runic spell? thinking its a great idea too, i imagine that the runes and techniques are same than Animate dead? But shouldnt the character know in any way those Runic spells? or at least be able to study them (any other character in the group who have them?)

No, they just used the spells as a guideline for POW

[French Desperate WindChild]

3 hours ago, Zalain said:

but if he concentrates again, the fire burns up again?? (until the spell duration, of course)

not for me, I see the spell with 2 phases :

phase 1:  start the fire (irl with a lighter, in glorantha roll the dices anf burn mp 😛 )

phase 2: fuel the fire (irl with wood, in glorantha with concentration)

if you have no more wood / concentration, the fire is extinguished. To burn it again, you need the lighter (aka cast the spell again)

 

3 hours ago, Zalain said:

One of my players has conflagration spell: wants to make it passive, to maintain the fire without being concentrate. i told him INTx4 difficult, because its a "small" change for that spell. He had another idea to change the spell making able of moving the flame, and i told him to be INTx3, maybe X2. Because create a fireball (like D&D spell) would be a X1

Other of the sorcerers (the one who knows the Dampen damage) wants to make it passive, and i told him INTx4 of difficulty too, because i thought its a logical change which i dont understand isnt in the spell description, like neutralize armor (for example).

for me this kind of changes (add movement, "add" passivity) is possible. However it means to "add" runes to the spell

active ==> passive ? add stasis and combine

stationary ==> move ? add movement and combine

 

but, in my opinion, it is not possible to "merge" passive and move attribute during a fight

I imagine it is possible to merge them if you decide a path but more something like a ritual, you-the sorcerer- have time to determine the path. And the "fireball" will follow the path, whether or not there is an opponent, an ally, or nobody. Smarter option (for me) would be to summon a salamander ^^

 

 

[Shiningbrow]

1 minute ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

for me this kind of changes (add movement, "add" passivity) is possible. However it means to "add" runes to the spell

active ==> passive ? add stasis and combine

I wouldn't take this route, largely because the distinction between Active and Passive spells hasn't been made that way.

No other spell has a Rune for this aspect of a spell.

[French Desperate WindChild]

4 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I wouldn't take this route, largely because the distinction between Active and Passive spells hasn't been made that way.

No other spell has a Rune for this aspect of a spell.

yes that's true there is no clear "these runes = passive".

I tried to demonstrate that when a spell is passive in the rules that 's because that is a temporary transformation that other may have without magic , when a spell is active if its effects are "imposible" without magic (like a fire without fuel) or because you must to adapt and change (follow the target, sequence of sounds, etc...)

However I did not succeed to convince myself totally so, I would cast a "logical shield" , by pronouncing the best formula we have:  "MGF" 😛

 

[soltakss]

On 5/23/2023 at 8:58 AM, Zalain said:

i think sorcery in RQG has been misstreated.

Personally, I don't bother with Sorcery in RQG, as a Player or GM, as, in my opinion, it is too complex, not interesting, and doesn't feel right.

[JRE]

Turning an active spell into a passive is a typical player request that I usually do not allow, except at a serious intensity penalty (double the points for effect), unless limited in some other way (Animate Undead turned into Animate Uncle Grimdark, so it only works on his corpse). But the discussions usually are fun. Usually adding also an extra rune, though that depends on the spell. 

Back from five months of extremely busy work, but still with some time for playing.

The split seems interesting, as I was considering dedicating Free INT to concentration as some secret sect technique to stack active spells.

[Godlearner]

On 5/29/2023 at 7:02 AM, soltakss said:

Personally, I don't bother with Sorcery in RQG, as a Player or GM, as, in my opinion, it is too complex, not interesting, and doesn't feel right.

Sorcery has been mistreated in all versions of RQ and its a shame.

[Zalain]

Hello again!

After discussing with my sorecerer players your answers... i (we) have a new question about active/pasive spells:

 

If a sorcerer make an active spell in other character (for example, disappear), but that character gets further than the spell range from the concentrated sorcerer, what would happen??

Would the spell remain active until the sorcerer keeps concentration despite of going further of the spell range?

Or

Would the spell stop as soon as the character leaves the spell range?

 

salutes and thank you in advance 

[French Desperate WindChild]

19 minutes ago, Zalain said:

Would the spell stop as soon as the character leaves the spell range?

the spell stops for me. And come back in the range is not enough, the sorcerer must cast again a new spell

However that doesn't mean the "target" cannot go far, if the sorcerer is able to follow and to maintain the spell.

That's the "good point" of the active spell, the range is centered on the sorcerer, not where the spell was cast

[JRE]

I agree. You should stack some INT in Range, depending on how you intend to use the spell, as leaving the range cancels the spell. That is also a way to escape a killing active spell, if you have the time or the speed.

[Zalain]

...And if you are in range but not in sight?

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Zalain said:

...And if you are in range but not in sight?

I'd allow the spell to continue, unless the active spell requires control like some kind of telekinesis, in which case the control would stop but the spell could continue in a "holding pattern".

Edited June 9, 2023 by PhilHibbs