Can the spell Fanaticism be used to boost Archery skills?

[Yelm's Light]

 

2 hours ago, BWP said:

Which part of "attack", implicit or explicit, excludes ranged attacks?  If I am making a ranged attack, am I not making an attack?  Explicitly or implicitly?  Where in the spell description(s) is the explicit statement "this spell only works for melee attacks"?  Are you sure you know what "explicit" means?

If you, as GM, want the spell to exclude ranged attacks (for whatever reason you want to make the exclusion), you are entitled to make that declaration.  I don't think anyone here would say otherwise.

If you, as someone who claims to read and understand English, state that the spell description "obviously and/or explicitly" excludes any form of attack that isn't melee, and/or that it "obviously and/or explicitly" includes elements of being a berserker (to any degree), and/or believe that "obviously and/or explicitly" the game designers meant anything not actually written in the text, then you are reading words that do not exist in the spell description(s), and are instead trying to pass off your personal opinions as if they were objective facts.

Heck, if I was running a game and somehow a character had (legitimately) acquired a skill of "make hurtful remarks", I'd be happy to let the spell increase the chance of that working, too!  Ultimately, it's all about game fun and (in the case of Glorantha) emphasising the magic parts of the world (i.e., the myriad ways in which it differs from our own).  YMMV.

Let's try to have some sense of reality here.  You're throwing around manufactures of your own mind.  I neither said that the authors were obvious nor explicit in their description.  I said that they should have been MORE explicit, specifically in regard to ranged attacks, which led me to believe that they hadn't considered the possibility.  It's you people who have been bandying around the word 'explicit' and then immediately proceeding to draw conclusions that you claim as implied by the text.

Spare me your japes about the level of knowledge of my 100K-plus word vocabulary of my native language.  I've likely had more years of college education than most of you, including subjects ranging from several years of grammar/writing to classes on Shakespeare, American poets, English poets, and Comparative, Classical, and Modern Lit.  And I've read an average of roughly a book a week for all of my adult life.  You don't impress me.

That last paragraph is ludicrous on its face, not even worth wasting the time to address.

[g33k]

On 1/3/2018 at 12:20 AM, Yelm's Light said:

To attack it from another angle, don't you think the game's creators would have been more explicit if they meant to include archery?  Like saying 'in ranged or melee combat?'

Taking the obverse of your "other angle:"  don't you think the game's creators would have been more explicit if they meant to exclude archery? Like saying 'melee combat only?'

On 1/3/2018 at 12:20 AM, Yelm's Light said:

It's clear enough that they never considered that eventuality, or they likely would have drawn one distinction or another.

Turns out... it's NOT clear enough.

If I understand what people are saying in this thread, plenty of them -- plenty of grognards from the RQ3 and even RQ2 eras -- have been playing the other way; evidently the opposite conclusion is as clear to them as your conclusion is to you.

 

As I said upthread:  you can make a RAW-based argument either way.  I will go so far as to say that you can make a really strong argument either way.

Except not.

Because neither line of argument really addresses the other line of argument, which each reach the opposite conclusion.  So both of them suffer from a fatal flaw (as "really strong argument(s)") of having an unanswered counter-argument.

I respectfully reiterate:  in RQG, Chaosium should either make the "intended" use explicit (and anyone who wants can (if they want) HR the reverse of whatever Chaosium elects)  /OR/  Chaosium should explicitly call for each group to decide for thenselves.

 

Can I have a "YGMV!!?"

Amen, Brother!  Amen, and Hallelujah!

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by g33k

[g33k]

Ummm.   Wow.  You seem to've had a hotbutton get hit.  Maybe some deep breaths?

22 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

Spare me your japes about the level of knowledge of my 100K-plus word vocabulary of my native language.  I've likely had more years of college education than most of you, including subjects ranging from several years of grammar/writing to classes on Shakespeare, American poets, English poets, and Comparative, Classical, and Modern Lit.  And I've read an average of roughly a book a week for all of my adult life.  You don't impress me.

Really?

You want to get into an academic-qualifications and language-aptitude dicksizing contest?

In THIS crowd?

Dude.  Your stones got stones.

 

[Grievous]

Not that I wish to use the situation to collect points, but I do think this thread sort of proves my point that clearer language in the source text would be useful (ie. could avoid a lot of needless argument that reflects poorly on all things involved) and being intentionally vague is a bad policy, even where the goal would be to empower the reader by a form of sleight-of-writing.

[Jeff]

30 minutes ago, Grievous said:

Not that I wish to use the situation to collect points, but I do think this thread sort of proves my point that clearer language in the source text would be useful (ie. could avoid a lot of needless argument that reflects poorly on all things involved) and being intentionally vague is a bad policy, even where the goal would be to empower the reader by a form of sleight-of-writing.

Actually from my perspective, it has shown me the opposite. There are several play-styles and traditions in play here, and where practicable, the rules should be written broadly enough so allow them. Even though my intent in Fanaticism is that the spell effects ALL attacks (melee and missile), I'm glad that it is easy and trouble-free for GMs who don't like the implications of that to interpret the rules in a manner consistent with their preferred style. 

The only downside to it is the occasion interminable forum debate, which - as long as it remains polite - is a small price to pay.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

27 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Actually from my perspective, it has shown me the opposite. There are several play-styles and traditions in play here, and where practicable, the rules should be written broadly enough so allow them.

I can see the advantage of this approach. I think the key thing is as Jeff says “where practicable”.

My concern is with more key mechanics being overly ambiguous.

There is admittedly a geeky satisfaction in knowing that you are playing the rules as intended. Making changes to rulings is more comfortable and decisive for some when you are clear about the stepping off point. 

Having said all that there is no specific mention of excluding missile weapons from the spell fanaticism, which I would take to mean that it is applicable to both melee and missile attacks, as Jeff has confirmed.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Yelm's Light]

9 hours ago, g33k said:

Ummm.   Wow.  You seem to've had a hotbutton get hit.  Maybe some deep breaths?

Really?

You want to get into an academic-qualifications and language-aptitude dicksizing contest?

In THIS crowd?

Dude.  Your stones got stones.

Not three weeks ago I edited a draft document for MOB.  Ask him what he thinks of my facility with the English language.

And I've had more college education than the average doctoral candidate.  Deal with it.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Yelm's Light

[DavetheLost]

Interesting take away for me is that in OpenQuest, and, at least, the 2006 edition of Mongoose RuneQuest Fanatiscism is specifcally called out as applying to melee attacks only. But in Chaosium RuneQuest it applies to any attack.

[Jeff]

46 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

Not three weeks ago I edited a draft document for MOB.  Ask him what he thinks of my facility with the English language.

And I've had more college education than the average doctoral candidate.  Deal with it.

I'd like everyone on this thread to chill out and relax. I'd really prefer not to have to lock the thread.

Jeff

[g33k]

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

Actually from my perspective, it has shown me the opposite. There are several play-styles and traditions in play here, and where practicable, the rules should be written broadly enough so allow them. Even though my intent in Fanaticism is that the spell effects ALL attacks (melee and missile), I'm glad that it is easy and trouble-free for GMs who don't like the implications of that to interpret the rules in a manner consistent with their preferred style. 

The only downside to it is the occasion interminable forum debate, which - as long as it remains polite - is a small price to pay.

I still think a better choice would be to expliciitly call out the choice; but it's not my decision.

[g33k]

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

... my intent in Fanaticism is that the spell effects ALL attacks (melee and missile) ...

This actually brings up an interesting point, now.

Will any of the RQG magic systems/subsystems have any sort of "targettig" roll that one might interpret as covered by Fanaticism?  Given the RQG snippet cited up-thread by David, the criterion would seem to be a "chance to hit."

 

<wanders off, innocently whistling at the addition of a quart of accellerant to the brewing flamewar...  cos ya just KNOW the idea of Fanatacism boosting magic is gonna get some folks frothing...>

 

[Zit]

Does it work when launching a Hoola Hoop of Death ?

And what about the Harpoon of Sun County ?

[David Scott]

20 minutes ago, Zit said:

And what about the Harpoon of Sun County ?

Given the nature of the unit manning it, I’d say it was pretty much needed. 

[Richard S.]

1 hour ago, Zit said:

Does it work when launching a Hoola Hoop of Death ?

And what about the Harpoon of Sun County ?

i see what you did there...

----------------

Anyways, to add my own two cents, to anyone complaining about "game balance" just keep in mind that I'm a simulationist game like RQ, there are going to be certain ways of doing things, certain life choices, and certain abilities that are just better than others, just like in real life.

[Pentallion]

On 1/2/2018 at 4:22 PM, Puck said:

It is not just that the disadvantage of the spell does not work against an archer.  It is a massively powerful spell if it can be used for archery due to the multiple attacks that can be made by an archer.  Imagine an archer who is quick and can attack 3 times per round. If they are well skilled with the bow, maybe 80%, it means that they are making THREE 120% (2 if less quick) attacks per round! (with all the chances to impale and critical going up as well). Three 24% chances to impale per round is pretty nasty.  ( Just as a note, I have been allowing the player to use the spell and it has not gone off the rails yet (lots of close quarters stuff and he also has to cast mobility first to lower his SR), but right away I  feared the possibilities and mentioned that I would have to do some checking). It certainly trumps the other missile type spells for archers though.  

That archer that attacks 3 times a rd.  He's an elf named Cherry and he casts arrow trance and wonders is it stackable with fanatacism?  And the rules always point out when spells arent so it must be.  So Cherry now shoots three times a rd with trplie chances to hit.  Which,  IIRC, for Cherry puts him well above 400%.

 

As DM I have no problem with this.

But I get upset about Hula Hoop of Death?  Why?  Idk.  Everyones DMing may vary.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Pentallion

[MOB]

On 06/01/2018 at 5:16 AM, Zit said:

Does it work when launching a Hoola Hoop of Death ?

And what about the Harpoon of Sun County ?

Here's a scenario all about it: MAD PRAX—BEYOND SUN DOME http://rpgreview.net/mob/madpraxintro.htm

On 06/01/2018 at 5:39 AM, David Scott said:

Given the nature of the unit manning it, I’d say it was pretty much needed. 

And here's an article all about them: THE MEN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN http://rpgreview.net/mob/goldengun.htm

[MJ Sadique]

On 07/01/2018 at 2:39 AM, Pentallion said:

That archer that attacks 3 times a rd.  He's an elf named Cherry and he casts arrow trance and wonders is it stackable with fanatacism?  And the rules always point out when spells aren't so it must be.  So Cherry now shoots three times a rd with trplie chances to hit.  Which,  IIRC, for Cherry puts him well above 400%.

...

 I think, Fanaticism is not combinable with arrow trance because when two spells have a common effect on the same target, only the stronger apply. Arrow trance is strictly like berserk, friend/foe distinction aside and berserker exclude fanaticism.

Rules say that when Arrow trance is used first, the user cannot cast spell others than bow related (fanaticism is exclude because it boost the user not the bow). If you use fanaticism first, you can only cast attacks spells (which I think, exclude arrow trance, because it doesn't deal any kid of damage, so it's not offensive one).

In RQ3, the difference between the 2 spells is not too extreme :
-An archer with 60% skills and +20% modifier have usually 80% chance of hit, By using fanaticism will have 120% chance of hit (as Fanaticism boost the chance to hit)
-An archer with 60% skills and +20% modifier have usually 80% chance of hit, By using Arrow trance will have 140% chance of hit (as Arrow Trance only boost the skill)

But 24% or 28% chance to impale compared to 16% without any spells is still monstrous ... you know why elfs vs trolls is not in favor of big uz.

To me, The best combination is using fanaticism with three Multi-missile 3 used on arrows. If you shoot three times per round, 3 normal arrows and 9 magical arrows will fly with almost 12 sure hits in one round. (for 10 MP, no Runic magic used).

[Pentallion]

Well, I'd argue anything that doubles your chance to attack successfully is an attack spell, but aside from that, someone else could cast a Fanaticism on an Arrow Tranced elf.

[Zit]

is an attack spell not simply a spell which is targeted (not self) and has to overcome a resistance ? I mean in the rule POV, I don't want to start a new philosophical debate about attack or not attack here.

[Pentallion]

No, that's a good question.  But I fear we are getting into Magic: the Gathering level of rule mechanics here.  I think more than an ironclad ruling, a more rpg ruling is required, so yes, I suppose that's philosophical.  Arrow Trance IMO is an attack spell, not because it fulfills the conditions of targeting and overcoming resistance, but because it just is.  Speeddart is also an attack spell that doesn't fulfill the targeting requirement.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Pentallion

[DavetheLost]

I would hope that a GM and players could come to quick agreement as to what is or is not an "attack spell". 

[Jusmak]

There always remain rules, which are open to interpretation. There is always the right one, which suites best for invidual or small group. If one derives fanatism as word/meaning from hot temperament rage, where parrying becomos irrelevant action or more cold blooded, single minded focus kill somebody, its's easy to see people are not speaking about same thing, but complately different.

For me fanatic person, who is not parrying, is in ragemood. Otherwise forgetting one's defences, I cannot find many reasons for it. Cold blooded action does not forget defence. When defence is lowered happens mostly, when a person is in rage, or overconfident. I do prefer seeing/visualizing ragemood as a reason to forgetting defence. Being overconfident in combat situation is same as being careless and stupid. It does not sound very heroic action.

If one makes all out attack, it is in other rulesets described same way, person losing ability to defend for greater opportunity to attack. Then it is much about timing your strikes. There is no bonus about timing your arrows same way.

But... fanatism is a spell, not real life simulation about doing all out attacks. So it may be used any way. If used with bow, I would bring shielded opponents. I have houseruled, that crouching/kneeling behind shield covers doublehit locations, crawling behind shield without constant visual contact covers all.

 

 

[jajagappa]

8 hours ago, Jusmak said:

For me fanatic person, who is not parrying, is in ragemood.

And that may be part of the variance in interpretations here.  Most definitions of fanatic do not express anything to do with rage, but of someone who is overly excited and interested in something or having an enthusiastic devotion to a cause.  

That rage mood is what is reflected in the Berserk spell.

[Jusmak]

On 13.1.2018 at 6:27 PM, jajagappa said:

And that may be part of the variance in interpretations here.  Most definitions of fanatic do not express anything to do with rage, but of someone who is overly excited and interested in something or having an enthusiastic devotion to a cause.  

That rage mood is what is reflected in the Berserk spell.

Oh, yes. Fanatism as a concept of being "overly exited of something" may not be most common phrasing and simplest to catch. While not holding greater amount of aggression itself, it sort of brings that kind of image with context of combat. Light ragemood is easy to comprehend here. If I become overly exited of something, it is very rare that I call my self being fanatic about something. I may be obsessed, exited, interested. Those I call fanatic seem to me absolutly crazy about something and going into ragemood, if their views about that something are any way attacked or even set in doubt. (like debates about diets)

So, by experience concepts of fanatism and ragemood are not so far from each others.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Jusmak said:

Oh, yes. Fanatism as a concept of being "overly exited of something" may not be most common phrasing and simplest to catch. While not holding greater amount of aggression itself, it sort of brings that kind of image with context of combat. Light ragemood is easy to comprehend here. If I become overly exited of something, it is very rare that I call my self being fanatic about something. I may be obsessed, exited, interested. Those I call fanatic seem to me absolutly crazy about something and going into ragemood, if their views about that something are any way attacked or even set in doubt. (like debates about diets)

So, by experience concepts of fanatism and ragemood are not so far from each others.

Emphasis added by me...  because I was about to call out this very word.  Someone who is "Berzerk" would not likely be considered "obsessed" per se.

"Berzerk" clearly implies violence and/or rage, and an extremity of physical action.

"Obsession" can become violent (when thwarted) but that isn't a default implication; a thwarted obsession might as-easily collapse into despair, for example; or cold calculation over how next time, you won't be thwarted !!!   But like "Berzerk" is is a mental state that tends to discount consequences, even fatal ones:  the obsessed artist, working to death (when a day or two of rest and proper food/drink/etc might set them on the road to recovery); etc.  The obsessed Selfie-taker who dies from ignoring sane risk-assessment in order to get The Perfect Selfie.

It's particular application, with regards to the Fanaticism spell, is that disregard for consequences -- I need to make THIS shot, just right.  OK, now the NEXT shot... OK, here's ANOTHER shot... and ANOTHER... and...  All with an "obsessive" disregard for consequences (such as stepping out of cover into the sight of opposing archers, or not dropping the bow to draw a parrying weapon when charged; etc).

Just a thought, FWIW...

===============

I note that this interpretation clearly implies a couple of other things not explicitly stated in the RAW...  For example, you're likely to have almost no Perception of anything but the target (and issues (such as wind/etc) that affect your to-hit roll); your senses may still register whatever, but your (obsessed, fanatical) mind will dismiss it as irrelevant.

Also, there clearly "should be" an out-of-combat application that increases a non-combat skill by half again, an Obsession spell.  It would include things like the Perception issue above - you are picking a lock under Obsession, and don't notice the guards jingling armor as the walk up to you, or them asking you WTF you think you're doing, or the n00b ask his Sarge if you are deaf or a moron or what, and the Sarge say "Nah, 'e got an Obsession on 'im, 'e does.  We gets 'em two, tree time a week a' dis gate..."

Edited January 14, 2018 by g33k
italicized-spell-name consistency