<RQ:G> Casting Shield on body, equipment, or both?

[Puckohue]

If I cast Shield on myself, does it shield against Bladesharp on my sword? Against Mobility on my mount?

[Runeblogger]

In my games, Shield only protects your body, and nothing else, if you cast it on yourself. You can also cast it on your shield or on your sword, if you want to.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Runeblogger

[Lord High Munchkin]

I view it a bit like a protective personal aura. It is around and enveloping you - but only you (so no, not your horse).

[Psullie]

Shield operates just like Countermagic in that it resists all incoming spells. You character must cast all the magic first then Shield/Countermagic. However if someone else casts Bladesharp on a weapon in their possession, nothing prevents you from subsequently picking it up and using it. As LHM said, it would not extend to your mount.

[womble]

IMG, Shield protects you, or whatever you cast it on. Having it protect your weapon and or shield for all those extra (parrying) AP as well as your own tender bodily particles would be too much of a freebie, IMO. And if the sword isn't protected by the AP, it's not protected by the Countermagic strength either. You can cast it on your weapon and/or shield, but that's extra Rune Points, and you might've preferred to stack those on yourself.

Still, Shield can't distinguish between friendly and unfriendly spells, so it would protect the target from buffs such as Strength, Charisma or Catseye, as well as, importantly, Healing spells. If you want to stack Protection, you'd better cast that first, or boost it so it can beat the Countermagic strength of your Shield, and Countermagic pretty much has to be cast second if you're looking to stack that with Shield, and at high enough magnitude or with boosting MP to get past the Shield spell's Countermagic element; if you try and cast Shield on yourself after  Countermagic, either the Shield doesn't work, or the Countermagic is blown down, or, worst of all, both of these things occur.

But your mount and equipment need protecting separately for all of these spells.

[Zozotroll]

I am a bit more user friendly, I let it protect all of you.  Of course, that goes for bad guys as well.  Probably wrong, but it works for us.

[PhilHibbs]

I think there are problems with casting protective spells on items. I remember once someone wanted to cast Protection on the cloth canopy of their wagon, to protect the whole party against arrows.

[Runeblogger]

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think there are problems with casting protective spells on items. I remember once someone wanted to cast Protection on the cloth canopy of their wagon, to protect the whole party against arrows.

What a cool idea!

[womble]

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think there are problems with casting protective spells on items. I remember once someone wanted to cast Protection on the cloth canopy of their wagon, to protect the whole party against arrows.

I agree with Runeblogger, that is a pretty cool idea. Since a giant could cast Protection on themselves for a normal MP cost, the canopy's surface area isn't an impediment... The characters would effectively be able to take advantage of some semi-hard mobile cover. The 'classic' ends of the wagon would be open, the driver would have to be a bit exposed, and the canopy could still end up being shredded by melee attacks, unless that was some mondo Protection...

[Lord High Munchkin]

On 2/6/2019 at 1:36 PM, womble said:

if you try and cast Shield on yourself after  Countermagic, either the Shield doesn't work, or the Countermagic is blown down, or, worst of all, both of these things occur.

Err, that's not how the spell works:

Quote - "If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible."

I take that to mean that you can indeed cast it on someone that already has Countermagic on them, but incoming spells will remove the Countermagic, then the Shield.

It also says - Quote: "The effects of this spell are cumulative with either Protection or Countermagic."

It's a Rune spell, so the intentions of the deity are important - they are trying to help their worshiper after all, not make them jump trough hoops.

[PhilHibbs]

13 hours ago, womble said:

I agree with Runeblogger, that is a pretty cool idea.

Not all cool ideas stand up to playtesting. They often end up with undesirable consequences. I can't remember what the problem was with Protection/Shield on objects. It might have been something like, "I cast Protection 6 on this suit of chainmail, then Protection 6 on myself, then I put on the chainmail". Maybe you can lawyer your way around that by saying that Protection does not increase the HP of the armour, and the HP is what protects you, not AP.

Edited February 8, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Not all cool ideas stand up to playtesting. They often end up with undesirable consequences. I can't remember what the problem was with Protection/Shield on objects. It might have been something like, "I cast Protection 6 on this suit of chainmail, then Protection 6 on myself, then I put on the chainmail". Maybe you can lawyer your way around that by saying that Protection does not increase the HP of the armour, and the HP is what protects you, not AP.

Protecting a chainmail is clearly an abuse, but protecting a weapon or shield is not. It would avoid damage to it, but not to the wearer: A large shield with a Protection 4 would protect for 16 points of damage, but would need 20 points of damage to be damaged itself. I once had a RQIII sorceror that cast Resist Damage on his shield and weapons for that effect.

[PhilHibbs]

20 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Protecting a chainmail is clearly an abuse, but protecting a weapon or shield is not.

My experience is that once a door is opened, people will try to squeeze all sorts of crap through it. Sometimes it's best to just not open it, that's why I came down on the side of just not allowing it to be cast on objects. Saying "No you can't do that", or coming up with a reason why it doesn't do what they wanted it to do, was just becoming a drag.

Edited February 8, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Zozotroll]

Indeed I agree.  Saying No once early on is much better than having to say it again and again.  I much prefer to say yes as much as I can.

[PhilHibbs]

4 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

Indeed I agree.  Saying No once early on is much better than having to say it again and again.  I much prefer to say yes as much as I can.

I agree, and bear in mind that I'm recalling an incident from 30 years ago, I was probably a different kind of gamer back then.

[Zozotroll]

I got RQ as soon as the 1st copy got to Spokane.  Always been my favorite game and setting.  And yes I am a much different gamer these days.  Much more sober if nothing else.  Some of the things I was interested in exploring in a game are no longer that big a thing anymore.  ad things I wasnt interested in are now more interesting.  But it is still RQ and Glorantha

[soltakss]

For me, I I had Shield 2 up and someone cast Dispel Magic 4 on my Bladesharp 4, I would argue that the Dispel Magic bounces of the Shield's Countermagic.

That is how we always played it.

However, the Protection part of Shield does not help the sword at all.

[Joerg]

15 hours ago, Lord High Munchkin said:

Err, that's not how the spell works:

Quote - "If cast on a target already protected by Countermagic, the Countermagic would be Dispelled before the Shield, if possible."

I take that to mean that you can indeed cast it on someone that already has Countermagic on them, but incoming spells will remove the Countermagic, then the Shield.

It also says - Quote: "The effects of this spell are cumulative with either Protection or Countermagic."

It's a Rune spell, so the intentions of the deity are important - they are trying to help their worshiper after all, not make them jump trough hoops.

It is Countermagic which is acting up. Shield is your steady and undisturbed friend that may make casting harder but not impossible, while Countermagic is the hysteric "I'll block you or I'll implode" nervous wreck of a spell. The deity has no control over Countermagic, hence Countermagic has to be the last spell to be productively cast on the character in question.

Neither Shield nor Countermagic have any Friend/Foe detection running and act blindly against helpful spells and agains harmful ones. You can't expect your deity to sweat all the details, that's your job.

[PhilHibbs]

27 minutes ago, Joerg said:

It is Countermagic which is acting up. Shield is your steady and undisturbed friend that may make casting harder but not impossible, while Countermagic is the hysteric "I'll block you or I'll implode" nervous wreck of a spell. The deity has no control over Countermagic, hence Countermagic has to be the last spell to be productively cast on the character in question.

Shield is stackable on top of Countermagic, and always has been. This is explicitly stated in RQ3 and RQG.

[Lord High Munchkin]

Indeed.

[womble]

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Shield is stackable on top of Countermagic, and always has been. This is explicitly stated in RQ3 and RQG.

"Cumulative" is what it says. You may be correct in your interpretation. In your Glorantha, you pretty much certainly are. However, the language of this version supports an interpretation that means Countermagic is only cumulative if it is cast at a high enough level. I prefer that interpretation, as it is more consistent with other mechanics.

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, womble said:

However, the language of this version supports an interpretation that means Countermagic is only cumulative if it is cast at a high enough level. I prefer that interpretation, as it is more consistent with other mechanics.

I don't understand. What do you mean by "a high enough level", and what other mechanics?

[Joerg]

9 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Shield is stackable on top of Countermagic, and always has been. This is explicitly stated in RQ3 and RQG.

Sure about the "on top of" bit? Shield and Countermagic stack, but the nature of Countermagic doesn't check what magic is cast against it. The stacking has always worked only in the right sequence, as far as I am concerned. House rule vs. house rule, I guess.

[womble]

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I don't understand. What do you mean by "a high enough level"

A high enough level to 'stick' on the previously-Shielded target.

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

...and what other mechanics?

The standard interaction of Countermagic/Shield and other spells.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, womble said:

A high enough level to 'stick' on the previously-Shielded target.

The rules say that Shield can be cast on top of Countermagic. Countermagic 1 then Shield 2 gives Countermagic 5, with the subtle difference that the Countermagic 1 can be dispelled separately. The other way around is unclear. You may be right that that way around needs a high enough Countermagic, 2 points more than the Shield x2. I would not rule that way.