Jump to content

New design notes - Sorcery!


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Yes. But it is also deliberately not being tested using people who have strong preconceived notions what they want or don't want to see in a sorcery rules (or any other rules). Just people who want to play with it and give me objective feedback (such as "hey we found that the sorcerer's ability to cause damage in combat was way greater/way less than anyone else in the party - even though she specialized in combat magic").

Actually, that's great.  I'm looking forward to seeing this in its finalized form.  Thank you for some of the examples you've been sharing today! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Experience checks are not automatic whenever a success is achieved - it must involve a real risk or challenge, or result in roleplaying opportunities. The ability to award or deny an experience check

As an avid player of Ars Magica and Mage, I certainly was influenced by them. But I'm rejecting using free-form sorcery (at least for mainstream sorcery as represented in the core rules) for a variety

In all honesty no, I'm not proposing favorite mechanics in a vacuum. I propose what I would like to see given the way I'd like to imagine Malkioni sorcerers given my limited knowledge and appreciacion

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

If you are playing a Lunar you need to know the day of the week.

that's the only reason why I'm always hesitated playing with Lunars, especially priests. For the others, you can play without knowing every season's holy day.

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

 Greg, David, and myself - we've always kept a game calendar.

ok, but what about other players, that is we, the people you are making the game for ? How many of us want to keep track of the days to be able to play a sorcerer ? How many new players, who are no Glorantha-geeks ? But I may be an exception, I don't even use RW calendars :P.

On the other hand, you play-tested it, I did not, so if nobody complained about that, I'll assume that it works fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, I'm still just trying to wrap my noggin around the idea of Lhankor Mhy having sorcery. :) Old dogs, new tricks....

I think it's important for everyone to recall that Jeff's guiding theme has always been to hew to RQ2 generally in writing RQ4, and with Sorcery he's working (as far as RQ2 is concerned) ex nihilo; the "original" version of Sorcery was RQ3.  For that matter though, I wouldn't say that this version as briefly describe is much at all like RQ3.

First, this is much simpler and more approachable for new players than the many-fiddly-bits gearfest that was RQ3 sorcery.  I believe that was a big goal to make sorcery a playable choice.

I like the core focus around the 4 abilities and their relationships to the runes/elements.  Very much the opposite of RQ3's genericized system which was a little more D&D'ish "pick whatever spells your DM will let you have" thing.

I like that sorcerers are forced as they grow in power to make meaningful strategic choices about their character.   From what I understand, they're really constrained to either becoming master manipulators of only an element or two, OR being able to only do a few things to several different elements.  That's inherently more interesting, as well as putting a brake on the (RQ3's-nearly-unlimited) power curve for sorcerers.

I like the explicit connection to the Brithini, the caste system (which always felt afterthought-y in other previous discussions), and the concept of Vows.  This ties the system more fundamentally to the world.  It makes sorcery (as Malkionism has always been described) a traditionalist system: constrain yourself to the codes laid down ages past, and you can be more powerful.   

I like that Spirit magic isn't banned to casters, it's just strongly incentivized not to have it.  It fixes (for me) a dichotomy in the source material that said that Western cultures had these castes, but (in RQ3) seemed to imply that trivial sorcery was everyone's gig, which really then conflicted with the role spirit magic played in the game-ecology.  In this case it would be typical for Westerners to maybe still have some spirit magic, leaving Sorcery to those for whom it's appropriate for their caste.

I like that casters will care about the calendar.  I know this is Glorantha, and analogies aren't perfect, but it 'feels right' to me in a way that sort of recalls the IRL Arabic/Persian golden age of astronomy/math.

I think this approach also offers a TON of flexibility for later works, as the combinations of manipulation+rune can almost be approached as schools, with collections of spells accessible thereto.

Jeff's only given us a pretty basic overview.  From what I've seen so far, I'm looking forward to more details.

Edited by styopa
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jongjom said:

What are grimoires ultimately? Manifestations of Runes?

To me a Grimoire is a collection of related "recipes" for casting sorcerous magic.  And I don't see any inherent issue between HQG and the new RQ sorcery as described.

For a short-lived HQG Argrathi campaign, I created the character Tathorine, an Esvulari sorceress.  She had a grimoire, Earnalda's Calendar of Magicks, as a breakout from her Law Rune.  This grimoire contained spells pertaining to the earth and earth cycle. Spells included (and note that each spell was associated with specific Runes):

○ Plough through Earth (earth, movement)

○ Shatter Bones of Earth  (earth, disorder)

○ Mend Body with Earth  (earth, harmony)

○ Hide Treasure in Earth (earth, fate)

○ Draw Endurance from Earth (earth, stasis)

As noted in HQG: You write on your character sheet the name of the grimoire and its core Rune; for each spell give a descriptive name. If the spell is based on the principle of Combine/Separate, include the Rune that is being combined with or separated from the grimoire’s Rune.

To convert Tathorine's magics to RQ sorcery, while it doesn't appear that I would explicitly name the Grimoire with the sorcery spells, it seems like I would simply give Tathorine the grimoire as an item and likely state that use of the grimoire provides a bonus for the associated spells (those with the Earth rune in this case).

Considering the nature of the Runes previously noted and the Techniques described, I might come up with a set of spells such as the following for Tathorine (assuming I've understood the use of techniques correctly):

Plough through Earth (earth, movement + command) - command an object to move through the earth easily

Break Bones (earth, disorder + command) - break the bones in a target creature (if it has such)

Shatter Stone  (earth, disorder + command) - shatter a stone, or a stone wall, etc.

Mend Body with Earth  (earth, harmony, man + combine) - combine earth and harmony with the man rune to heal a body

Hide Treasure in Earth (earth, fate + combine) - combine the fate of an object with the earth in order to hide it

Create Wall of Earth (earth + command) - pull the earth up into a wall to hide behind or to climb up

Open Pit (earth, disorder + command) - tear the earth apart to make a hole or pit

Seize Body with Earth (earth, disorder + command) - manipulate the earth to grab and hold someone touching the earth

Draw Stone from Soil (earth + command) - pull stones up through the soil to the surface

Draw Endurance from Earth (earth, stasis, man + combine) - use the power of earth to enhance a man's endurance [I could also see a similar spell that uses Tap + earth to strip the earth of magic and grant it to the caster]

 

Overall, it sounds like it can give players, GMs, and writers plenty of opportunity to create some interesting and unique spells, sorcerers, objects to facilitate and collect spells (e.g. grimoires) and likely sorcerous schools.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zit said:

How many of us want to keep track of the days to be able to play a sorcerer ?

Though my campaigns don't currently have sorcerers, I always ensure that the players know what day it is and what effects that may have on their magics/powers. 

However, I don't see that as a particular issue if you don't want to worry about such - you just won't have any bonus or penalty associated with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, styopa said:

I like that sorcerers are forced as they grow in power to make meaningful strategic choices about their character.

I really like this too - it's very much in keeping with classic RQ2 and the flexibility to create the character you want. 

 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Very much the opposite of RQ3's genericized system which was a little more D&D'ish "pick whatever spells your DM will let you have" thing.

As someone who GM'd an RQ3 campaign with a player who had a sorcerer, I can fully attest to the struggles to create spells, figure out how to make them useful, and actually make them usable in play (and not a bookkeeping nightmare).  

 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I like that Spirit magic isn't banned to casters, it's just strongly incentivized not to have it.

Very much agree on this.  And for the Fronelan men-of-all it seems to make a logical progression from peasant with an assortment of spirit magics to someone who has increasing use of sorcery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules look cool.

Is the tap technique in these rules meant to have the full barrel of moral implications that the word tapping has in this quotation: "Most sorcerers, except the Brithini, Vadeli, Waertagi, and Lunars consider Tapping to be immoral and evil" [GtG and HQG]?

I have the impression that Kralorela and the East Isles have their own sorcery tradition that's independent of the western one, although it's never really been clear.  Would these rules be OK to approximate that, or is that magic so different that it would call for very different rules?  (I can imagine reskinning these rules by using a different set of techniques or runes, maybe that'd be enough.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

I don't see any inherent issue between HQG and the new RQ sorcery as described.

HQG is pretty loose about how grimoires can be associated with runes, so it's not like it's a perfect match to these rules.  For example the Debaldan Grimoire on HQG p. 174 is labeled with five different runes, which isn't very friendly for these rules.

I bet there are ways to house rule HQG's particular notion of a grimoire, though.  For example you could add a grimoire-specific type of technique, and say that every grimoire has a primary rune, and that if you master a grimoire and its primary rune, then that unlocks all the spells in it regardless of your other masteries. 

Edited by Roko Joko
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rick Meints @MOB @Jeff A request: when RQ4 gets ported to Fantasy Grounds, can the holy days and seasonal effects on spells be integrated into the calendar that comes with that software?

That would be super helpful for tracking these things during play (and that VTT is the only way I play games these days).

Edited by Nick J.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roko Joko said:

The rules look cool.

Is the tap technique in these rules meant to have the full barrel of moral implications that the word tapping has in this quotation: "Most sorcerers, except the Brithini, Vadeli, Waertagi, and Lunars consider Tapping to be immoral and evil" [GtG and HQG]?

I have the impression that Kralorela and the East Isles have their own sorcery tradition that's independent of the western one, although it's never really been clear.  Would these rules be OK to approximate that, or is that magic so different that it would call for very different rules?  (I can imagine reskinning these rules by using a different set of techniques or runes, maybe that'd be enough.)

Yep. Most cultures consider Tapping to be evil. However, knowledge of Tapping is inherent in every technique and Tapping goes a long way to solving the biggest in-game problem sorcerers have - a ready supply of magic points. Thus there is a constant moral dilemma - do I learn a forbidden and evil spell (which solves a major in-game impediment) or not? And these sorts of moral dilemmas are always worth giving players, as they create roleplaying possibilities.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think these rules can be cool in play. They remind me a bit of the sorcery rules in RQ3 but specially of the rules in the Gloranthan Adventures draft for RQ6, but of course, those were also based on the Gloranthan sorcery rules as explained in the Guide to Glorantha. I'm happy the Free INT is not the same as in RQ3, and I'm happy sorcery does not seem as overpowered as in RQ6.

However, I'd like to know for example how many spells can a starting character be proficient in (with around 60%) and how do all those spells will work mechanically.
Also: Will there be magic point matrixes? If yes, can a sorcerer cast Boon of Kargan Tor and spend as many magic points from these sources as he wishes?

 

As for the +1D10%, I would houserule that the player can either add +5% or roll the dice. Regarding the grimoires, you could say the character carries as many grimoires as runes he knows.

For the record, in the Gloranthan campaigns I run or play, we always use the calendar to keep track of the days. It is also useful for example if you want to know how much moonlight there is at any given night (with unclouded sky, of course), to better know how far can you see in the wilderness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These rules seem OK, functional with some nice touches. At first blush, they lack a bit of wow factor. And I'm not sure whether I want to bother about a +10% due to calendar in all my games.

NOTE: I have no preconceived idea about how RQ sorcery should look like. My games rarely used it,  

 

Edited by smiorgan
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jeff said:

All spells themselves are noun+verb (Rune(s)+Technique(s). However, you can't cast impromptu magic in RQ. You can create new spells, but that takes time. 

As for how you master a Rune or Technique for purposes of sorcery, originally each was going to be a skill, but in play that was tedious and added nothing to the experience. Now you just need to spend a season and try to make your INT+POWx1 (potentially modified by ceremony, which can add a lot of additional time. The number of Runes and Techniques you can master is limited by your INT. You need to have an INT of 13 to master one Rune and one Technique. For each additional point of INT, a sorcerer can know one more. Thus to master all the Techniques, you need to have an INT of at least 18 (and you will have mastered only one Rune).

So you spend the time, and make your roll and BAM, you know the Rune or the Technique? No percentages on either to deal with? OK, this satisfies the "you know it or you don't" statement (paraphrasing, not going back in the thread to get the exact wording). What threw me off was you also used the term Mastering, as if it was something additional that had to be done.

 

14 hours ago, Jeff said:

Sorcerers tend to cast spells they have just learned very slowly, using the ceremony and time/location/component bonuses to improve their chances of spell casting. For folk wanting to cast "combat spells" those time/location/component bonuses are going to matter tremendously. Damastol the Fire Sorcerer will be much better at casting Conflaguration on Fire Day in Fire Season than on Waterday of Sea Season. He'll probably insist on carrying around a lit lantern or carry a magical fire crystal.

So Damastol, who starts with Conflaguration at 60% (starting at 20%, plus putting one of his four 25% options in the spell, plus his Magic bonus), is pretty good with the spell. He gets to add +D10% for having his torch or lantern handy. f he personally has the Fire Rune, he might try to augment with that Rune. He's going to have a good chance of summoning a big fire at a place within the range of the spell. I

But if Damastol then tries to learn Reveal Rune and starts at 20% (1D6+ Magic bonus), he's going to almost always want to augment using ceremonial magic. So he might perform long lengthy rituals to identify a particular Rune. Or go out of his way to cast the spell on Truth Week, while carrying a "Y" shaped staff.

 

So, are there any differences for lower casts? Can a Soldier/Warrior still cast magic related to warfare? A farmer spells to enhance his yield? Etc. And if so, how are they limited, other than class strictures, from learning other stuff? Do they "know" enough general theory to use rituals? Is everything they do a ritual (using time as a cast limiter makes some sense). Or are they going to be using "lower magic" as I believe I read in one of the other threads?

SDLeary

Edited by SDLeary
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jeff said:

I think that is inevitable anytime you translate something into another medium (like from book to film or film to tv series). Different rules systems are very different media and deal with very different things. What matters is keeping the essential elements (and deciding what are the essential elements).

Jeff

Probably. or nearly so. While I'll admit to having reservations about the new RQ, I can't blame the RQ4 design team for the fact that all the previous RPGs than handled Glorantha took such diverse approaches. 

 

I think what you RQ4 design team can be blamed (or praised) for is where the RQ4 rules divert from previous editions. Basically, you have to  justify why you did something in a new and different way from they way it had been done before. However, in your defense, the history and evolution of RQ and RQ derived game systems is now so convoluted that in many cases it's hard, if not impossible, to determine what the "default" rule is supposed to be. I think Jason ran into that problem when he wrote BRP. Mechanically, it's a mostly based on the rules for Call of Cthuhlu/Elric! with bits from Worlds of Wonder, RQ3, Strombringer, Hawkmoon, etc. thrown in. 

 

BTW, I hope somebody finally corrects all the errors in the SIZ table that's been floating around for several editions of CoC. It really looks like somebody either made a cut & paste error, or wasn't familiar with the differences between short tons (2000 pounds) and metric tons (1000 kilograms). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I read about Sorcery, the more I like how it fits in with Glorantha as a setting.

My only concern is not particulary about Sorcery, but about the modifiers that may be  used in CRQ4. I am not sure in which thread to voice it, but a mention of it turned up here.

A +/-10% and esp +/- d10% modifier just annoyingly fiddly for me, and barely worth rolling.

I would prefer something like +/- 20% and +/-40%, or failing that, something like CoC7E's Bonus/Penalty Dice.

But a +/- dx% may end up being a rule that is likely to be ignored, just like the Fatigue Points rules in RQ3...

 

Edited by Mankcam
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am one of the few people who liked the RQ3 Sorcery system - which I used in two different campaigns each of which lasted ~1 1/2 to 2 years. The system worked very well, if you respected the checks and balances built into it. Throw one out and *POW* you were in trouble. That being said, I was never happy with the various sorcerer NPCs in the  adventure packs.

Now this new system will be very different, mechanically, and it will be a lot of fun figuring out what it can do.

Most of the people I know who complain about a game's magic system, their complaint really boils down to: "I can't just blast things with the magic system..." This is not a problem, in my book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mind RQ3 Sorcery, but it does not feel terribly Gloranthan, and there are bits that need to be streamlined.

Hopefully this revision in CRQ4 does the trick.

As far as 'blasting' things go, we had a lot of fun Forming Fire/Earth/Water etc and using Animate at top speeds, and although costly, that certainly did the trick!  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mankcam said:

I dont mind RQ3 Sorcery, but it does not feel terribly Gloranthan, and there are bits that need to be streamlined.

Hopefully this revision in CRQ4 does the trick.

As far as 'blasting' things go, we had a lot of fun Forming Fire/Earth/Water etc and using Animate at top speeds, and although costly, that certainly did the trick!  

True, it wasn't Gloranthan, but it certainly wasn't as horrible as most seem to point to. At least it never was in any of the games I was in. Even in the Gloranthan campaigns I was in, the Sorcerers were always top notch in terms of effectiveness. 

SDLeary

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, deleriad said:

 

It's certainly not what I expected. Reminds me of D&D/Vancian style magic where a very specific thing done in a very specific way leads to a very specific outcome or none at all.

This seems to me intentional, and expected. Sorcery in HQG was very much your spells are a collection of very specific effects rather than flexible effects. 

And it seems to me to be Vancian, in the sense of gloriously flavourful spells with cool names, without being at all D&Dish (not the use and forget mechanic, not likely to lead to a pile of bookkeeping keeping track of very minor unexciting spells that soon become redundant). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
21 hours ago, Jeff said:

Sorcerers tend to cast spells they have just learned very slowly, using the ceremony and time/location/component bonuses to improve their chances of spell casting. For folk wanting to cast "combat spells" those time/location/component bonuses are going to matter tremendously. Damastol the Fire Sorcerer will be much better at casting Conflaguration on Fire Day in Fire Season than on Waterday of Sea Season. He'll probably insist on carrying around a lit lantern or carry a magical fire crystal

I have the same concerns about relying heavily on time as some others (definitely doesn't suit every game style to be constantly concerned with what day of the week it is) but sorcerers carrying around a lot of supporting equipment sounds great. 

One suggestion is that I found in RQ3 if sorcerers gained POW at the same rate as other dedicated magicians, the question arose of what did they do with it all. Priests gained RunePower, Shamans built up their fetch, but sorcerers mostly used it to enchant things. Giving them the ability to enchant items to boost their chances of casting spells will appeal to many players (who might not want the frustration of every new spell being laboriously built up in skill levels before being regularly usable without ceremony), soaks up a lot of POW, and suits descriptions of Gloranthan sorcery (eg the mention in Xeotam dialogues of sorcerers initially having to rely on amulets and such). And sorcerers having plot complications due to access to their gadgets is a pretty classic motif. Of course they will also want to enchant a lot of items that give them access to more magic points as well (binding enchantments that contain spirits for power is another motif both classic and Gloranthan). 

Also, am I the only one who is finding the editing system on these forums dealing with quotes incredibly hard to use and frustrating?

Quote
Quote
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The "effectiveness" of RQ3 sorcery is not why it was broken - in truth RQ3 sorcerers, particularly once they had high skills, a familiar and spell matrixes, spirits, etc, were absurdly overpowered. Let's not look at munchkin monstrosities like Arlaten or Aziok - even Maculus the Monitor was just a nightmare to manage as a NPC. It was over-powered, soulless, and made little sense within the overall setting. The new RQ sorceryis the least effective per magic point of the three systems, but unlike spirit magic you can put 15 additional magic points to bump up the strength of your spell to impressive levels.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jeff said:

Yes. But it is also deliberately not being tested using people who have strong preconceived notions what they want or don't want to see in a sorcery rules (or any other rules). Just people who want to play with it and give me objective feedback (such as "hey we found that the sorcerer's ability to cause damage in combat was way greater/way less than anyone else in the party - even though she specialized in combat magic").

Jeff, I can assure you that if I playtest, I playtest. I give it to my players (who vary widely in their experience with both Glorantha and various game systems) and let them play with it, and only let them know my opinions beyond the most general after I've heard what they have to say (and I'm regularly surprised). My preconceived notions do make a difference, but mostly in that I have ideas about what I think should be possible that I try to test out - for example my experiences with running a Fronelan game make me think that the case of a character who learns sorcery from scratch, rather than starting with significant previous experience, is worth looking at. I'm sure I'm not the only player with preconceived ideas (as any experienced player will have) but who takes objective playtesting seriously, and I'd like a game that considers some of the concerns experienced players are likely to have as well as the new player. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The "effectiveness" of RQ3 sorcery is not why it was broken - in truth RQ3 sorcerers, particularly once they had high skills, a familiar and spell matrixes, spirits, etc, were absurdly overpowered. Let's not look at munchkin monstrosities like Arlaten or Aziok - even Maculus the Monitor was just a nightmare to manage as a NPC. It was over-powered, soulless, and made little sense within the overall setting. The new RQ sorceryis the least effective per magic point of the three systems, but unlike spirit magic you can put 15 additional magic points to bump up the strength of your spell to impressive levels.

TL;DR I think the really overpowered sorcerers only came from munchkin NPCs, but there are still real RQ3 play balance issue. 

In my experience it was both too effective, and not effective enough. A sorcerer with high skills, a familiar, a bunch of bound spirits and magic items, was very powerful - though not necessarily in a way that super fun to play (you often got to buff everyone if you had a lot of Duration, but powerful spells still took a long time to cast), and it was far harder in play to get to be a powerful sorcerer than it was to become a priest or shaman. And if you did have a powerful sorcerer, your game became spells and spreadsheets, constantly juggling huge sets of magic point resources vs complex tradeoffs of Duration, all mostly done out of play. In short RQ3 sorcery was not broken in one single way, but multiple ways.

But I'd like to take a closer look at that idea of the very powerful sorcerer. Because I think its spread largely by crazy NPCs in official publications.

For example, Maculus the Monitor and the like were quite overpowered, but it was very difficult to be Maculus (let alone Arlaten or Halcyon Var Enkorth (Griffon Island version)) - he had 17 different spells or skills at ~90% or over. Spell Matrices added up to 37 points of POW worth (a large percentage in tattoos so personally enchanted not inherited or found), plus similar enchantments to hold 7 bound spirits (I think thats another 14 points of POW worth?), plus another 6 points on one of his familiars. Plus a bunch of armouring enchantments, and other magic items. Plus some fairly obvious abuse of the Familiar rules (which was absolutely more common than not in published characters). He was overpowered, but it wasn't just sorcery that made him so, and I don't think many games would have anyone like that as a player character. Was he that overpowered compared to a Rune Lord-Priest that had over 60 points of Rune Magic and enchantments? Though he was certainly considerably more complicated to play. 

And Arlaten was similarly difficult to replicate as a PC - 25 skills or spells at 85% or higher (a couple more for evil Arlaten), 14 points of POW worth of Matrices, at least 10 points worth of spirit binding enchantments. PCs did not replicate these guys often. And again, gratuitous abuse of the familiar rules. And somehow he got all this POW despite maintaining a POW of 21 so he basically never made POW Gain rolls. So again, implausible as a PC, and very difficult to play. 

This was my experience with RQ3 - that most of the impressions of wildly overpowered sorcerers came from the munchkin sorcerers within official publications, rather than characters worked up in play, and that sorcerers were often a little underpowered, at least at character creation. But the sort of things achievable by a moderately powered sorcerer, like buffing the entire party with a few spells before any major fight, still upset the sense of play balance of most people, and did seem to challenge most peoples ideas of how the world worked. The most challenging thing conceptually about RQ3 sorcery was the idea that large chunks of Glorantha ran around with a lot of magic perpetually active, which was not true of any other magic system.

None of which is really meant to challenge or criticise the new RQ sorcery in any way, just to say that the problems of RQ3 sorcery might be widely misperceived. You might be able to create similarly super powered characters in new RQ sorcery, if you assume they are that skilled at a huge number of skills and spells, and give them absolutely enormous amounts of POW to create enchantments, but there might be nothing wrong with that. Worrying about whether you can create an incredibly powerful sorcerer given that sort of crazy 'budget' shouldn't be a huge concern IMO, as long as priests or shamans with a similar budget are also crazy powerful and one or the other isn't obviously inferior - and without knowing how the heroquest stuff works, it may not even matter at all, if you are just pushing the rules into zones where they aren't really designed to be played. 

Whether or not sorcery is overpowered should be looked at within the realms of play that are likely to happen. Are they roughly equivalent at starting PC level to experienced PC level is what matters. Magic that is a bit less effective per MP but allows the casting of big powerful spells with many MP sounds great, usefully different to other magicians.

But it is worth noting that heavy use of multispell and duration was what really bothered people about RQ3, and replicating the same exponential scheme is probably where the weird issues of significant amounts of perpetually maintained magic come in, which was what bothered people about RQ3 sorcery. Anything that uses the exponential scheme of RQ3 is likely to run into similar issues eventually - if boosting Duration 10 is 10 times as long, no problem, but if Duration 10 is 2^10 times as long, as in RQ3, then it will end up with the same issue of permanently maintained magic upsetting some peoples ideas of what Glorantha is like (I have no strong opinions as to what is preferable, but it certainly makes play balance easier if you just avoid the whole issue). Though permanently maintained magic by other means (eg by enchantments that cost POW) are by no means as problematic. 

So after that long rant - Jeff, are the Duration etc effects exponential or linear? If exponential, are there 'hard' limits that might prevent them leading to the perpetually maintained spells of RQ3?

  • Like 2
Link to post
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...