Bladesharp

[Russ Massey]

Quote

Also, where in all this do we factor Bladesharp? Pre or post splitting or reducing for over 100?

You would add it in with the modifiers for Sword Trance, until either expires. Generally speaking, you can't pick and choose when magical modifiers come into play if they're both cast on the same item at the same time. 

 

This was the answer given by Jason to a question in the rules thread, but I don't feel that it makes sense. Bladesharp is a spell that affects the weapon and not the weilder. It adds damage and a percentage to hit based on the number of points cast. If you are naturally 100% with your sword you can attack two different opponents at 50% each. If you have bladesharp 2 on your sword you will get +10% and +2 damage. Jason has ruled that the +10% is added before the split, so that you have 110% to divide against 2 opponents, but presumablythe +2 damage would apply to each hit.

 

This seems nonsensical to me. An enhanced weapon should gain its bonuses each time it is used, and an additional percentage due it being magically sharp should surely apply against each opponent you are capable of attacking, just as the extra damage does. Thoughts?

[Mugen]

Yes, it affects the weapon, but in which way ? Does it make it easier to use, or does it magically enhance its wielder's skill ?

Obviously, you consider it's the former, and Jason Durall thinks its the latter.

As for myself, given the rule that high attack skills reduce defender's skill, I think splitting attack is already a bad idea, so I'd rather give the full bonus to both attacks.

[Mechashef]

I agree with you, unless I see a compelling counter-argument.

 

I have always played it that it is possible for adventurer one to cast bladesharp on a sword and then to pass it to adventurer two who would get the benefit of it.  Sort of like bladesharp 1 being a temporary form of a D&D sword + 1.  That is because the range is touch not self and the description certainly seems to imply the spell is cast on the weapon.  On the other hand, if an adventurer casts it on a sword, then drops that sword and draws another, the spell won't have any affect on the 2nd sword. 

 

Sword trance on has a range of self and improves the casters sword skill.  It could be cast and then the user could drop that sword and use another one and still get the benefit.  Handing their first sword to another adventurer would not provide the 2nd adventurer with any benefit.

 

 

 

 

[StephenMcG]

I prefer to add everything up before deciding to split etc.  I think that if you are saying the +10% is on the sword and effects both hits then the 10% could not apply as to whether the attack could be split at all - which should all be about the wielders skill and not the weapon being used.

Personally, I think that the additional chance to hit is a bonus to the wielder of the weapon and that to double dip on chance to hit is to make the spell a bit too effective for what it is, you get the bonus to skill because the sword handles better and then it provides additional damage to everything hit by the weapon.  IMG obviously... 🙂

 

Stephen

[Psullie]

I'm inclined to go with Bladesharp/Dullblade etc effecting the weapon and therefore per attack, and as Mechashef points out stays with the weapon. Also easier than splitting +5% & 1hp damage mod. Assuming that you natural ability is 100+ I'd calculate all mods that effect the wielder first.

An interesting point would be Dullblade (or Encumbrance). If your warrior has 110 but got hit with Dullblade 3 - dropping his effective skill to 95 - but would you allow two attacks at 40 (55-15) each? as the ability is based on natural skill.

[Russ Massey]

1 hour ago, Psullie said:

I'm inclined to go with Bladesharp/Dullblade etc effecting the weapon and therefore per attack, and as Mechashef points out stays with the weapon. Also easier than splitting +5% & 1hp damage mod. Assuming that you natural ability is 100+ I'd calculate all mods that effect the wielder first.

An interesting point would be Dullblade (or Encumbrance). If your warrior has 110 but got hit with Dullblade 3 - dropping his effective skill to 95 - but would you allow two attacks at 40 (55-15) each? as the ability is based on natural skill.

Yep, I'd go with 2 attacks at 40%. The user has the skill, but the sword is clumsy/blunt/unwieldy due to the spell.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Psullie said:

I'm inclined to go with Bladesharp/Dullblade etc effecting the weapon and therefore per attack, and as Mechashef points out stays with the weapon. Also easier than splitting +5% & 1hp damage mod. Assuming that you natural ability is 100+ I'd calculate all mods that effect the wielder first.

An interesting point would be Dullblade (or Encumbrance). If your warrior has 110 but got hit with Dullblade 3 - dropping his effective skill to 95 - but would you allow two attacks at 40 (55-15) each? as the ability is based on natural skill.

We never split damage mods in the past die we? I would think that would be the same regardless of the skill mod, because the weapon would be just as sharp (or dull ) for both attacks. 

[Russ Massey]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

We never split damage mods in the past die we? I would think that would be the same regardless of the skill mod, because the weapon would be just as sharp (or dull ) for both attacks. 

Exactly. Your physical damage bonus applied to every hit, and if that goes up due a strength spell it would still apply to each hit. But it would seem to be different if your chance to hit was increased by a coordination spell - in that case the spell adds to your overall hit chance before any splitting of attacks, just as it would for Trance spells or Berseker, as these spells all affect the user. My argument for bladesharp (and dullblade) is that this spell enhances the weapon and not the user, so any bonuses should apply to each attack using that weapon.

[Jakob]

I'd go for adding the Bladesharp bonus first and then splitting. My argument would be that while at first glance, it seems strange that you would halve the Bladesharp attack bonus, but get the full Bladesharp damage bonus both times on a hit, this is actually due to the fact that the rules treat attack skill and damage roll fundamentally different. You get a full damage roll (depending on level of success, sometimes more than that) any time you hit, period (armor reduction is something that happens on the receiving end, so I wouldn'gt count that). However, you don't get your full attack rating any time you attack someone - especially when you split your attack. So with split attacks, attack skill and damage are handled differently already, without bladesharp coming into play. You have to split your attack chance, but you don't have to split damage. Having Bladesharp add to the attack skill before the split sticks with that principle.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Russ Massey said:

Exactly. Your physical damage bonus applied to every hit, and if that goes up due a strength spell it would still apply to each hit. But it would seem to be different if your chance to hit was increased by a coordination spell - in that case the spell adds to your overall hit chance before any splitting of attacks, just as it would for Trance spells or Berseker, as these spells all affect the user. My argument for bladesharp (and dullblade) is that this spell enhances the weapon and not the user, so any bonuses should apply to each attack using that weapon.

You have a point. The high ground/mounted modifier doesn't get split. Nor, to think of it, the penalty for fighting in darkness. I don't think someone's chance to hit should improve for spitting attacks against people who are above him on a dark stairwell. Why then, should the reverse be split? You're beginning to win me over. 

But do we know why bladesharp gives a bonus to skill anyway? Is it just the edge,  or is there something else going on?

[Jakob]

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 

But do we know why bladesharp gives a bonus to skill anyway? Is it just the edge,  or is there something else going on?

I'd interpret it as "The weapon becomes perfectly balanced and might also seem to actually want to hit it's target." I wouldn't see it as the spell magically increasing the blade's sharpness and the user's skill, because that way, one spell would target to different entities with two different effects, which seems strange. Just making a weapon "better" in pretty much every regard and also giving it a slight "will to hit" makes more sense to me.

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, Jakob said:

I'd interpret it as "The weapon becomes perfectly balanced and might also seem to actually want to hit it's target." I wouldn't see it as the spell magically increasing the blade's sharpness and the user's skill, because that way, one spell would target to different entities with two different effects, which seems strange. Just making a weapon "better" in pretty much every regard and also giving it a slight "will to hit" makes more sense to me.

Yeah, I can go along with that. It just makes a sword more "swordly".But then why doesn't it help with a weapon parry?

[womble]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, I can go along with that. It just makes a sword more "swordly".But then why doesn't it help with a weapon parry?

Because parrying isn't part of the mythic purpose of the Death Rune, which is to END YOU!!!   I'd say the bonus to hit is applied before splitting: while it doesn't make the user 'better', it 'makes their job easier', and it doesn't do that twice as much if the user is trying to hit two people. Situational bonuses (attacking prone target, etc) should be added after, though, because they can be different between targets. Situational penalties probably come off before splitting, if they're the same across all targets.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, womble said:

Because parrying isn't part of the mythic purpose of the Death Rune, which is to END YOU!!!   I'd say the bonus to hit is applied before splitting: while it doesn't make the user 'better', it 'makes their job easier', and it doesn't do that twice as much if the user is trying to hit two people. Situational bonuses (attacking prone target, etc) should be added after, though, because they can be different between targets. Situational penalties probably come off before splitting, if they're the same across all targets.

LOL! Yeah, but is Bladesharp in RQ now tied to the Death Rune? In RQ2-3 it was't really spelled out as such. Just something that certain cults would favor/have. HQ bypassed battle magic and just made it an aspect of a cult/rune. If the reasoning that it's some sort of death magic, I'm fine with it being attack only. 

But, you'd think there'd be a a sprint magic spell out there that increases parry. Even (some) Humakti can use shields. 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Mechashef]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

 

But, you'd think there'd be a a sprint magic spell out there that increases parry. Even (some) Humakti can use shields. 

 

Perhaps the existing “Parry” spirit magic spell?

[Mugen]

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But do we know why bladesharp gives a bonus to skill anyway? Is it just the edge,  or is there something else going on?

I think the spell was meant to temporarily transform the target weapon into the equivalent of a +X D&D magic weapon.

So, basically "it's magic"...

[daskindt]

What I don’t understand is why does Dullblade cancel Bladesharp bonus damage, but the percentages don’t cancel? Why? What happens to the penalty percentage from Dullblade then?

[Mechashef]

I've gone back an read the post from the Core Rules Questions thread and I think I agree with Jason's rule, but I do believe he has misapplied it in this case.

He wrote:

Quote

... you can't pick and choose when magical modifiers come into play if they're both cast on the same item at the same time. 

 

That sounds reasonable, but in my opinion they are clearly not cast on the same item.

Sword Trance is cast by the person on themselves.  

Bladesharp is cast on the sword.

They are not the same item (unless we have sentient swords casting spells on themselves) thus Jason's guidelines do not apply in this case.

 

 

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, daskindt said:

What I don’t understand is why does Dullblade cancel Bladesharp bonus damage, but the percentages don’t cancel? Why? What happens to the penalty percentage from Dullblade then?

It does? It used to be that having one of those spells prevented the other.

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Mugen said:

I think the spell was meant to temporarily transform the target weapon into the equivalent of a +X D&D magic weapon.

So, basically "it's magic"...

LOL! That's probably exactly what the spell was meant to do, back when Ray and Steve created the RQ Battle Magic rules.

 I was thinking more in game.

[daskindt]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It does? It used to be that having one of those spells prevented the other.

From the Bladesharp description:

Quote

This spell works on any cutting, stabbing, or hacking weapon. It increases the chance to hit by +5% and does 1 additional point of damage per point of spell applied. The spell is incompatible with the other weapon-enhancing spells of Bludgeon and Fireblade. If Dullblade is also cast on the weapon, the improved chance to hit from Bladesharp is not affected, but the weapon’s additional damage is reduced by the second spell.

The bolded part makes no sense to me. I would expect the damage and chance to hit would both counter each other on a 1 to 1 basis.

[Atgxtg]

That new. In previous versions of RQ casting one prevented the other. 

[womble]

Well, I think both those interpretations are wierd...  Proper confusing. I'll be playing that they both co-exist, but cancel each others' effects out (rather than negating the conflicting spell) on an ongoing, point-for-point basis.

Reading the description again, I'm wondering, too, whether the to hit bonus actually ought to apply 'last' to any attack (after splitting): it doesn't affect the wielder's skill per se. The converse, of course, would be that the negatives of Dullblade would apply after splitting, too.

 

[Atgxtg]

14 minutes ago, womble said:

Well, I think both those interpretations are wierd...  Proper confusing. I'll be playing that they both co-exist, but cancel each others' effects out (rather than negating the conflicting spell) on an ongoing, point-for-point basis. [/qiuote]

The seems the logical solution. 

14 minutes ago, womble said:

Reading the description again, I'm wondering, too, whether the to hit bonus actually ought to apply 'last' to any attack (after splitting): it doesn't affect the wielder's skill per se. The converse, of course, would be that the negatives of Dullblade would apply after splitting, too.

I'm starting to think so. As I noted earlier, none of the situational modifiers split. 

[daskindt]

13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

The seems the logical solution. 

I'm starting to think so. As I noted earlier, none of the situational modifiers split. 

Yeah. I’ll certainly have the two spells directly counteract each other’s effects. Also, I think it makes more sense to apply the bonus/penalty to each attack after the attacks are split.