RQ magic questions

[styopa]

I'd like to pose a few magic interaction questions to you, because I felt they were pretty clear situations but my players have interestingly differing opinions.  I'm just curious how others play it.  We use RQ3 rules but I don't think version actually matters much here in principle, as these go more toward meta-concepts of how magic works.

1a) a character has protection 2 on them, and someone casts protection 3.  At this point, I think we'd all agree that effectively they would have prot 3 functioning.  Then someone casts a dispel that takes away the prot 3, do they still have the prot 2 remaining?

1b) would this be any different for divine magic, say someone had shield 1, then cast shield 2.

1c) sorcery?  Say, resist damage 4 then resist damage 6.

1d) in each of these cases, assume the HIGHER ones was already existing, and then (for some reason) someone cast the lower-power one; presumably in every case nothing would effectively happen as a higher-power spell already exists...but would the mp still be spent or the casting be considered "used"?

2a) a person has a protection spell, some physical armor, and also natural armor: an attacker against them crits.  Does it ignore EVERYTHING (magic, physical, and natural armors?) or only some layers?

2b, c) same question, with divine(b) and sorcery(c)

3a) a person has protection 3, and someone casts shield 1; does shield 1 stack atop prot 3 (effectively giving them prot 5, countermagic 2), partially stack (giving them prot 3 (ie the best in existence in that category), countermagic 2), or replace the protection (giving them prot 2, countermagic 2);  What about vice versa - someone has Shield 1 and casts prot 3?

3b) a person has protection 3 and someone casts damage resist 4: do they stack, partially cancel, or does the DR replace the prot 3?  Vice versa: has DR 4, and someone casts prot 3?

3c) a person has DR 4 and someone casts Shield 1 on them?  The reverse?

4) would countermagic 2 in existence prevent detection by a detect life (1 pt spell)?

5) attack spells can be boosted with mp's to help overcome defenses; can defenses likewise be boosted with "defensive" mp?

 

 

[RosenMcStern]

As no one has replied, I will try to point out that you already have a clear answer to many of your question in the rules, on page 95 and 121 of the Deluxe edition of RQ3.

1) In the RuneQuest 3 rules, spells are either compatible or uncompatible. If they are compatible, both are in effect (for instance, Bladesharp stacks with Truesword and Protection with Shield). If they are incompatible, then the smallest one vanishes, and does not reappear if the dominant one is dispelled. The question the rules do not address is whether Protection 3 and Protection 2 are incompatible, but I would say they are, otherwise it would be possible to "layer" magic on a single target.

2) Yes, the rules say it clearly on page 57. The concept of "only bypass one type of armour" is introduced in 2010 with MRQ2, classic rulesets use a "devastating critical" model.

3) Shield and Protection (and Shield and Countermagic) do stack, this is explained explicitly in the Shield description (p. 121). No doubt whatsoever. Protection/Shield and Damage Resistance work differently so they are both active at the same time, they could not "stack" and are not defined as incompatible.

4) Yes. This is not in the RQ3 rules but is explained in several later examples - probably mutuated from the RQ2 rules.

5) No. The rules say "offensive".

--- end rules recollection, start commentary

I really do not think that there are, or there should be, meta-concepts of magic. This is a game, and magic is not subject to "reality checks", so there is no "obvious way in which it should work". There are the rules of the game, instead, which may be either very comprehensive or ambiguous, depending on the authors' inclinations and on the always present human limits. Here RQ3 rules differ from MRQ rules and from Stormbringer rules, and so on. And then, when the rules fail to contemplate a case, there is the GM as the ultimate instance arbiter.

Invoking the existence of "meta concepts" may be convenient when you play several rulesets with the same group, as you tend to create your own style of play and an agreed set of house rules. Yet it has a great inherent danger, as the existence of RPG "meta-rules" implies the fact that there is a "right way" of playing an RPG, and I mean any RPG, independently of the rules. In other words, it is the antechamber of the "One True Way" school of thought that forms the basis of the most exquisite (kidding) RPG forum flames.

Each game is its own beast, and should be treated as such. You, as the gaming group, always have the authority to take rules from another game and apply them: it is nothing more than harmless houseruling. But when you start thinking of "meta" rules that are not in the manual but "should nevertheless be applied"(*), then you are leaving the door open for "we-play-right-you-play-wrong" arguments.

---

(*) Note that in some cases there are indeed clear and discernable parts of the procedures of play that are not in the book but most groups apply nevertheless. These are called "system" in the Forge theory, and "unwritten practices" in other definitions like "Robin's Laws of Gaming". But what you asked for here is not part of either, as it something that is in the manual, if you look for it.

[Yelm's Light]

Coming from a RQ2 perspective, version does matter; there are some slightly different answers.

The rules state that you can't have two of the same spells stack (i.e. Prot 2 + Prot 2 = Prot 2, not Prot 4),  Note also that certain battle magic spells are incompatible with each other; specifically listed as not working with Protection are Countermagic, Shimmer, and Spirit Shield.  Stackable rune magic spells will have their effects stack up to 4 points, which pretty much covers all of those personal defense-type rune spells.  There's a specific example of stacking of battle and rune magic under Shield (note that these personal-protection rune magic spells last for 15 minutes and cannot be knocked down):

Quote

If Shield and Countermagic are stacked together, and a spell which would normally knock down a Countermagic spell of their total strength is put against this, the Countermagic will go down, but the Shield will stay.  Thus, if Ariella put up both points of her shield spell, and added 2 points of Countermagic (a total Countermagic effect of 6 points), and a foe put 5 points behind a Demoralize spell thrown at her, the Demoralize spell would fail, but the 2 points of Countermagic would also be blown down and she would only have her Shield spell left for protection.  (RQ2, p. 63.)

And since there is no sorcery in RQ2, that's moot, but the above should answer everything under question 1.

As for question 2, back to the rules again:  critical hits will penetrate Protection, and since Shield says it serves as a Protection and Countermagic in the rules, I'd go with the ruling that crits will ignore any magic protection.  I can't come up with any other examples at this point, but I would think that would apply as a general rule.  I can see arguments both pro and con on the natural armor, but in general I'd say crits ignore all protection of any type.

3a)  According to the above example, you'd have Prot 5 (with the above-quoted proviso) and Countermagic 2, regardless of the order of casting.

3b & 3c)  Protection is effectively RQ2's damage absorption spell, so that's academic.

4)  No explicit mention, but the rules do say "Countermagic...will attempt to stop any other spell incoming against the protected person or object" so I'd have to go with Yes here.

5)  Nope.  Once the defensive spell is cast, that's the way it will stay.

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[Zit]

7 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

4)  No explicit mention, but the rules do say "Countermagic...will attempt to stop any other spell incoming against the protected person or object" so I'd have to go with Yes here.

 

however the countermagic let you know that your spell has been countered, while a Detection Blank does not. In the Warding rune spell description, it is said that a Detection Blank can prevent the defenses to be triggered, but does not mention the Countermagic, so I guess that the Warding will interpret the blocking effect of a Countermagic as an hostile event.

[styopa]

17 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Invoking the existence of "meta concepts" may be convenient when you play several rulesets with the same group, as you tend to create your own style of play and an agreed set of house rules. Yet it has a great inherent danger, as the existence of RPG "meta-rules" implies the fact that there is a "right way" of playing an RPG, and I mean any RPG, independently of the rules. In other words, it is the antechamber of the "One True Way" school of thought that forms the basis of the most exquisite (kidding) RPG forum flames.

Except that 'meta' rules help a DM be consistent in interpretation, and allow players some conceptual understanding of frameworks that are, after all, entirely imaginary.

I'd say both of those are unalloyed good things?

I'd say it's obvious that there's enough 'wiggle room' in the mechanics that there are a number of models that could potentially be rationalized to fit the mechanics as given; thus, DM's always have leeway to have their OWN interpretations and systems.  

I'm not sure I agree that postulating some 'meta' concepts of magic necessarily are the start of the slippery slope to one-true-gamism.  They certainly don't have to be.

For example, IMG there are all sorts of variation from canon; I wouldn't even faintly suggest that others follow my mental wanderings, they're for me, my players, and my campaigns alone.  More likely, if I refer to them at all it's going to be because I've used them so long that I've forgotten they're house rules and not canonical.

[MJ Sadique]

Meta-rules are usefull to state "The spirit of rules". In justice, there is The Law (rules) and the Spirit of Law when laws are flawed, the "Spirit of Law" dictate what we should do. The same apply in gaming where the GM is the judge. Two types of logic usually apply in flawed rules/laws cases : (1) Anglo-saxons which is a realist school "you find a solution and this became a new law". (2) French which is a idealist school "In a perfect world, the new law should be this, creating a new law". Realist vs Idealist (a malkionism thing some should say...).

I'm more an idealist and I'll be 100% agree with styopa comment of " 'meta' rules help a DM be consistent in interpretation, and allow players some conceptual understanding of frameworks that are, after all, entirely imaginary. " It also can help you to go ahead of the rules, create and evolve without losing the "Spirit of the rules" so you can improvise a resolution without losing half hour looking in the book.

1 Multiple Magic Protections : Only the strongest apply when there is a least one common effect (like voices, 80dB + 20dB = 20db voice ignored !).
-I consider magic layers only for sorcery as a sorcerer can see magic and mold/create is spell himself. He don't have any control for others type of magic, spirits and gods don't ask you for petty details.

2 French ed. said : only the first armor is ignored : But... I said If you can see an armor, you can choose to strike a flaw.
-2 differents armors (magical or natural) have different flaws but wearing two plates (i've seen this), the two armor are ignored on critical.
-If you wear a cape/cloth that make your armor non-visible, critical don't ignore the armor. (can't see a flaw)
-If a divine spell create around you the "magical armor of your god", using a spell to see magic can help finding a flaw. Critical should not ignore the full protection but at least halved it ! (one of my favorite dirty tricks)

3 Mixing magic protection : Like for drinking, I'll say mixing is a bad idea ! I simply sort them by MP/Intensity (x2 for divine ones) and apply the case 1.
-Using spirit magic on others magic will upset the spirit (like a bad tempered pikachu) n' sometimes he can choose to not act.
-Divine magic is not automatic... the gods can be offended if you want to protect someone with a lesser protection. He could kick the spirit before protecting you or simply refuse.

4 Opposing magic with/without analyse : A simple detect spell like a radar (or Rahan's dagger using "detect adventure") is automatically a contest of "strongest spell win".
-If you're using a "I can see magic" or "I can analyse magic" spell and you can't strictly detect nothing on someone, it's fishy... no info is a big info !!!
-Simple/passive detect spells : strongest win. Analyzing/active magic spells : MP & INT/Skill bonus vs MP

5 Attack spells can be boosted with mp's; can defenses likewise be boosted with "defensive" mp ? Attacks take times, preparation and risk...
-In Rune Masters : runelord use full POW instead of MP to defend themselves. Even tired at 2MP, a runelord use is full 18POW to resist a spell.
-I may risk to say that you always use all your MP to resist spell (mental ones) without losing any. So you cannot boost your defense but someone else, a spirit / familiar / matrix could do it at 1:1 cost. He/it will literally over-charge your magic aura to defend you when he sense something happening (since spirit/familiar/matrix are linked to the users). But a cristal of power could not (just a bag of magic).

Edited November 22, 2016 by MJ Sadique
a bit punctuation

[Yelm's Light]

As far as multiple protections is concerned, to use your analogy, just because you can't tell the sound is there doesn't mean that it isn't.

[RosenMcStern]

8 hours ago, styopa said:

I'm not sure I agree that postulating some 'meta' concepts of magic necessarily are the start of the slippery slope to one-true-gamism.  They certainly don't have to be.

For example, IMG there are all sorts of variation from canon; I wouldn't even faintly suggest that others follow my mental wanderings, they're for me, my players, and my campaigns alone.  More likely, if I refer to them at all it's going to be because I've used them so long that I've forgotten they're house rules and not canonical.

I never said that they will necessarily lead you to one-true-ism. Just that they create a danger, and only when you apply the "meta" concept across a variety of rules systems. Your initial statement that "edition does not matter" (and instead it does, as we have seen) may be interpreted as a "let us find something that applies to ALL rulesets and game tables". I suppose you did not intend to post a statement in this sense, yet the wording was open to this interpretation, and not only to the interpretation of "let us find guidelines for the GM when he has to make the necessary rulings".

House ruling is a good thing, as it creates a system that is more tailored to your personal needs - and more likely to create fun for your group.

[soltakss]

This is where BRP's Quoting makes for a horrible reply experience, having to copy the quote 11 times and then edit out the lines is awful ...

I'm a bit late to the game, so someone has probably answered all the questions, but ...

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

1a) a character has protection 2 on them, and someone casts protection 3.  At this point, I think we'd all agree that effectively they would have prot 3 functioning.  Then someone casts a dispel that takes away the prot 3, do they still have the prot 2 remaining?

I would play not, because the Protection 3 cancels the Protection 2 spell.

In the same way that someone who is Fanatical then Demoralised cannot become Fanatical if the Demoralise is dispelled, the spells cancel out.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

1b) would this be any different for divine magic, say someone had shield 1, then cast shield 2.

I would say it is the same.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

1c) sorcery?  Say, resist damage 4 then resist damage 6.

I would say it is the same.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

1d) in each of these cases, assume the HIGHER ones was already existing, and then (for some reason) someone cast the lower-power one; presumably in every case nothing would effectively happen as a higher-power spell already exists...but would the mp still be spent or the casting be considered "used"?

Yes, the spell would be cast, the MPs expended or the spell would be used, then the spell would have no effect.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

2a) a person has a protection spell, some physical armor, and also natural armor: an attacker against them crits.  Does it ignore EVERYTHING (magic, physical, and natural armors?) or only some layers?

 

In RQ2/RQ3 it ignores everything.

In Mythras, it ignores a layer of armour, but magical counts as physical.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

2b, c) same question, with divine(b) and sorcery(c)

Same, ignores everything.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

3a) a person has protection 3, and someone casts shield 1; does shield 1 stack atop prot 3 (effectively giving them prot 5, countermagic 2), partially stack (giving them prot 3 (ie the best in existence in that category), countermagic 2), or replace the protection (giving them prot 2, countermagic 2);  What about vice versa - someone has Shield 1 and casts prot 3?

 

Shield and Protection stack, so Shield 1 and Protection 3 gives 5 points of Protection.It doesn;t matter what order they are cast as they are comatible. You couldn't cast Shield, Protection and Countermagic, though, as Protection and Countermagic are not compatible.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

3b) a person has protection 3 and someone casts damage resist 4: do they stack, partially cancel, or does the DR replace the prot 3?  Vice versa: has DR 4, and someone casts prot 3?

Not sure about that, We normally played that Protection adds to the armour, so in theory damage Resistance 4 would take effect first and if the damage got through then it would need to get through the armour+protection.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

3c) a person has DR 4 and someone casts Shield 1 on them?  The reverse?

The same, the damage needs to get through Damage Resistance first, then gets through armour+Shield.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

4) would countermagic 2 in existence prevent detection by a detect life (1 pt spell)?

We have discussed this at length in our RQ games over the years.

There is a spell, Detection Blank, that specifically stops Detects without the caster of the Detect being aware of the spell, so countermagic shouldn't work in the same way.

I would say the caster would know that the spell was blocked or bounced off the Countermagic. In this case, the Countermagic would go down, as it it a point above the spell, so casting Detect life again would work.

 

On 11/21/2016 at 5:51 AM, styopa said:

5) attack spells can be boosted with mp's to help overcome defenses; can defenses likewise be boosted with "defensive" mp?

In theory, I would say yes. The only real benefit would be to make the defensive spell harder to Dispel/Dismiss/Neutralise. So, Protection 2 cast with 10 MPs would take Dispel Magic 10 to knock down.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by soltakss

[Zit]

On 21.11.2016 at 6:51 AM, styopa said:

I1b) would this be any different for divine magic, say someone had shield 1, then cast shield 2.

 

Yes, it would be different. Shield, unlike battle magic spells, is "stackable". Subsequent casting just add to the existing. In your exemple, this result in a shield 3.

[trystero]

23 hours ago, Zit said:

Shield, unlike battle magic spells, is "stackable". Subsequent casting just add to the existing. In your exemple, this result in a shield 3.

Not per the rules: a subsequent casting is a different stack. Stackable (in RQ3, anyway) doesn't mean you can add multiple levels of spell cast in different rounds; it means you can add multiple levels of spell in a single casting (in one round). From the Magic Book, p. 28, second paragraph under "Stacking Limits" heading:

Quote

Divine magic spells can be stacked (combining several castings into one) if the caster has several uses of a spell and if the spell is described as stackable. This provides a much more powerful effect when the spell is cast. There may be a ceiling to the maximum allowed to be cast together. All the spells must be cast at one target, in a single melee round.

(emphasis added)

So if you cast Shield 1 in round 1, then cast Shield 2 in round 2, you get Shield 2, not Shield 3. You'd have to cast Shield 3 all at once if you wanted Shield 3.

Edited December 4, 2016 by trystero

[Zit]

13 hours ago, trystero said:

Not per the rules: a subsequent casting is a different stack. Stackable (in RQ3, anyway) doesn't mean you can add multiple levels of spell cast in different rounds; it means you can add multiple levels of spell in a single casting (in one round). From the Magic Book, p. 28, second paragraph under "Stacking Limits" heading:

(emphasis added)

So if you cast Shield 1 in round 1, then cast Shield 2 in round 2, you get Shield 2, not Shield 3. You'd have to cast Shield 3 all at once if you wanted Shield 3.

Right, this was the RQ2 rule. I don't know about the RQ3's. I thought RQ2 was asked for, I mixed up with another topic.

[trystero]

4 hours ago, Zit said:

...this was the RQ2 rule. I don't know about the RQ3's.

Hunh. I had never realised that RQ2 allowed for "after-the-fact" stacking, but you're right that it does. Thanks for bringing this up; I learned something. :-)

[Mugen]

Concerning question 5), rules say that spells can be boosted to overcome protective magic. For instance, if an opponent has cast a protective spell to prevent you or your buddies to cast spells on you.

What would be the point to learn more that 1 spell point if you could spend as many points as you want in it ?

Edited December 5, 2016 by Mugen

[Yelm's Light]

15 hours ago, Zit said:

Right, this was the RQ2 rule. I don't know about the RQ3's. I thought RQ2 was asked for, I mixed up with another topic.

The Magic Book sounds like RQ3.  In RQ2 it's explicitly only for rune spells defined as stackable, and not for battle magic spells at all.

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[Khedrac]

11 hours ago, Mugen said:

Concerning question 5), rules say that spells can be boosted to overcome protective magic. For instance, if an opponent has cast a protective spell to prevent you or your buddies to cast spells on you.

What would be the point to learn more that 1 spell point if you could spend as many points as you want in it ?

Right, there's a difference between a boosted spell and a higher power spell.

For example, take a typical variable spell like bladesharp.

Bladesharp V costs 5 magic points and adds 5 to damage and 25% to your attack chance.  A Dispel Magic II will fail to affect it but a Dispel Magic V will dispel it.

Bladesharp II costs two magic points and 2 to damage and 10% to attack chance.  A Dispel Magic II will dispel it.

Bladesharp II backed by 3 magic points costs 5 magic points and adds 2 to damage and 10% to your attack chance.  A Dispel Magic II will fail to affect it but a Dispel Magic V will dispel it.

So, if you want more than +10% and 2 damage you need more than 2 points of Bladesharp in memory - assuming you can 1) find a teacher, 2) afford the cost) and 3) have spare memory to learn the spell.  If you don't need more two points then yes, just learn Bladesharp II and back it with magic points when you need dispel protection.

 

The ability to twist a Bladesharp I into a Bladesharp VI (possibly lasting longer as well) is Lunar magic (basically sorcery for spirit magic) and is a very different thing.  The skill that is equivalent to Intensity is Amplify and allows for increasing the number of points of effect without increasing the number known.

[Zit]

8 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

In RQ2 it's explicitly only for rune spells defined as stackable, and not for battle magic spells at all.

 

yes, that's what I said.

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, Khedrac said:

Right, there's a difference between a boosted spell and a higher power spell.

For example, take a typical variable spell like bladesharp.

Bladesharp V costs 5 magic points and adds 5 to damage and 25% to your attack chance.  A Dispel Magic II will fail to affect it but a Dispel Magic V will dispel it.

Bladesharp II costs two magic points and 2 to damage and 10% to attack chance.  A Dispel Magic II will dispel it.

Bladesharp II backed by 3 magic points costs 5 magic points and adds 2 to damage and 10% to your attack chance.  A Dispel Magic II will fail to affect it but a Dispel Magic V will dispel it.

So, if you want more than +10% and 2 damage you need more than 2 points of Bladesharp in memory - assuming you can 1) find a teacher, 2) afford the cost) and 3) have spare memory to learn the spell.  If you don't need more two points then yes, just learn Bladesharp II and back it with magic points when you need dispel protection.

 

The ability to twist a Bladesharp I into a Bladesharp VI (possibly lasting longer as well) is Lunar magic (basically sorcery for spirit magic) and is a very different thing.  The skill that is equivalent to Intensity is Amplify and allows for increasing the number of points of effect without increasing the number known.

Well, I don't have access to the original RuneQuest 3 rules, but both french translation and the Magic Book (Chaosium's re-edition of RQ3 magic without RQ name) clearly state that Spell Boosting is dedicated to "overcome defensive magic".

Is there an errata I'm not aware of, and that was not incorporated into the Magic Book ?

And, once again, what would be the point in making Countermagic a Variable spell if you could boost it with the number of MP you want ?

EDIT: and RuneQuest II Classic edition also state that "However, additional POW can be added to a spell, to overcome a Countermagic or Shield spell" (pg 36 of the pdf).

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mugen

[styopa]

16 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Well, I don't have access to the original RuneQuest 3 rules, but both french translation and the Magic Book (Chaosium's re-edition of RQ3 magic without RQ name) clearly state that Spell Boosting is dedicated to "overcome defensive magic".

Is there an errata I'm not aware of, and that was not incorporated into the Magic Book ?

And, once again, what would be the point in making Countermagic a Variable spell if you could boost it with the number of MP you want ?

EDIT: and RuneQuest II Classic edition also state that "However, additional POW can be added to a spell, to overcome a Countermagic or Shield spell" (pg 36 of the pdf).

IMO that's a pretty narrow literalist reading of spell boosting.  Yes, most of the time boosting is going to be to try to penetrate defenses, but I can see it also being used to 'reinforce' for the reasons already illustrated.

And Countermagic 2 boosted with 3 points is different (again, pretty simply illustrated above) than Countermagic 5, clearly.

[Mugen]

40 minutes ago, styopa said:

IMO that's a pretty narrow literalist reading of spell boosting.  Yes, most of the time boosting is going to be to try to penetrate defenses, but I can see it also being used to 'reinforce' for the reasons already illustrated.

Well, I really don't see how you can make interpretation of the rule the way it's written, as it clearly says "overcoming defensive spells"...

EDIT: There's nothing wrong with houseruling it, though.

40 minutes ago, styopa said:

And Countermagic 2 boosted with 3 points is different (again, pretty simply illustrated above) than Countermagic 5, clearly.

So... How does it work ?

EDIT: That's a real question. I really don't have a clear view on what Boosting is supposed to do with Countermagic. Unless you state it only affects Spell Boosting.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Mugen

[RosenMcStern]

Countermagic 2 boosted with 3 points of extra mana will still stop only up to 3-point spells. It will, however, take a Dispel Magic 5 to dissipate it.

Countermagic 5 still requires Dispel Magic 5 to dissipate, but it will also stop spells up to 6 points (coincidentially, Sever Spirit counts as a 6-point spell...).

It is the difference between having dinner with Humakt after the battle, or not

Edit: and I think the rules as written do not allow "defensive" spell boosting.

Edited December 7, 2016 by RosenMcStern

[soltakss]

On 12/3/2016 at 8:37 PM, Zit said:

Yes, it would be different. Shield, unlike battle magic spells, is "stackable". Subsequent casting just add to the existing. In your exemple, this result in a shield 3.

We never played that in RQ2. We always played that casting Shield 2 then Shield 1 would result in Shield 2. The only way to get Shield 3 would be to Mindlink with someone and use your own Shield 2 and their Shield 2 together to get Shield 3.

We always interpreted Stackable as being "Spells cast together at the same time".

[Zit]

Then this was not the rule as written. P. 60 of the RQ2 rulebook, "Stackable Rune Magic " : "As an example, if Ariella were to decide she needed another point of Shield to add to one she already cast...etc"

[MJ Sadique]

On 06/12/2016 at 3:49 PM, Mugen said:

Well, I don't have access to the original RuneQuest 3 rules, but both french translation and the Magic Book (Chaosium's re-edition of RQ3 magic without RQ name) clearly state that Spell Boosting is dedicated to "overcome defensive magic".
Is there an errata I'm not aware of, and that was not incorporated into the Magic Book ?
And, once again, what would be the point in making Countermagic a Variable spell if you could boost it with the number of MP you want ?

Spell Boosting IN RQ3 (Avalon Hills & VF by Oriflam) : YES, Spell boosting is dedicated to overcome defensive magic and you can use in Spirit / divine spell casting but not in sorcery as sorcerer can freely adjust intensity. Spell boosting can be use with any spell.
-Spell boosting doesn't change the spell but just add 5% more in "the table of opposing characteristic".
-Spell boosting cost more time to cast (1SR / MP), with no limit of MP spend

In RQ3, A Stackable spell isn't boosting; you can only stack the same divine spell at CAST, not after. You cannot stack different spirit magic at cast or after.
-In divine magic : Shield 5 mean you have five different Shield spells. You can use only one (Shield 1) or stack 5 spells of  Shield and to cast Shield 5.
-In spirit magic : Protection 5 mean you have one spell at a level 5. You can use spell from 1 to 5 MP; it's not a stack.
You cannot stack two protection 5 but if you have two Shield 5 (personnal + cristal) you can stack all ten of them to have a Shield 10 !

Stackable Spells effects are spirit + magic spells whose effects can apply at the same time (Shield effects stack with countermagic & protection effects). To clear any mistake I force my new player to write divine magic as Shield x5 (you have five spells) and spirit magic Protection (5) meaning you can protection at a condition (brakes) to use 5 MP. With this they get a better and faster understanding of rules.

About Counter magic : Why I hate this spell... (Bladesharp 3 + boosting 3MP = Bladesharp 6)

Counter-magic is (to me) a shitty spell because it's description is a bit tricky. Most people think to use boosting to protect a spell but it's wrong. First how it work ...
-Counter-magic 5 will stop & stay active against any spell of 3 pts or lower. (2 MP lower)
-Counter-magic 5 will stop & get dispell against any spell of 4,5 or 6 pts. (+/- 1MP)
-Counter-magic 5 will not-stop & get dispell against any spell of 7 pts or lower. (2M upper)

How it can work : Counter-magic can be dispell with anyspell of 2 MP higher... even a healing spell. If you're protected by counter-magic 5 spell and you only have heal (3) :
-you can dispell a counter-magic 5 with a counter magic 4 (the two are dispell)
-you can dispell a counter-magic 5 with a heal 3 and a boosting of 4MP (7MP total) (counter is dispell, heal apply normally)
-you can dispell a counter-magic 5 with a counter magic 3 and a boosting of 4MP (7MP total)  (CM 5 is dispell and CM 3 stay active)

How it should be use (no-boosting) : If you want to protect Bladesharp spell, you must cast Countermagic afterward (which protect any object and all the spells on it).
A weapon receive Bladesharp 3, Protection 4 and then Countermagic 5 (total 13MP) get attacked
-A dispel_magic of 3MP will not affect countermagic 5 which will stay active
-A second dispel_magic of 6MP will get stop by countermagic which will be dispell along
-A third dispel_magic of 6MP will only dispell Protection and Bladesharp will stay

All This cost 15MP to attacker and a total of 24 Strike ranks (with a Dex_SR of 3). A lot of thing can happen in 24 SR with a Bladesharp in hand ...

On 07/12/2016 at 6:53 PM, RosenMcStern said:

Edit: and I think the rules as written do not allow "defensive" spell boosting.

Yes, but doing it won't hurt much !

In France we always said "If it's not clearly forbidden by a rule, it's authorized"...(which cause tons of problems in boardgames). I think You Can Do It ® but as in my last example (dispell_5 vs dispell_3+boost_4), using a defensive spell to over pass another defensive spell is quite inefficient. Unless you prepare to fight a sorcerer with a countermagic_5 and ended up facing a Minotaur where your protection_5 have to be boost of 2MP to not be dispell.

PS : So much text for so few info....pffffff

[soltakss]

3 hours ago, Zit said:

Then this was not the rule as written. P. 60 of the RQ2 rulebook, "Stackable Rune Magic " : "As an example, if Ariella were to decide she needed another point of Shield to add to one she already cast...etc"

Well, well, well, clear as anything. I wonder why we did not play it like this in any of the RQ2 groups I played in.