Why was the duration of Spirit Magic reduced from five minutes in RQ3?

[EpicureanDM]

If your answer is, "Because it was two minutes in RQ2," that will not be very helpful on its own.

What design goals does the change serve? Were there styles of play or "abuses" of the five-minute duration that RQG's designers sought to curb by dropping duration to two minutes? I assume the change was made with some sort of intention in mind. 

Does anyone who's running RQG keep fairly strict track of time (outside of combat) once someone's cast some spirit magic? If most folks are hand-waving it, as I suspect they are, then is the only benefit of switching from five to two minutes to put more of an informal limit on how much use can be obtained from a spirit magic spell? The reduced time limit could spur a greater sense of urgency once the spells have been cast. It shortens the window between casting the spell and trying to benefit from it. If you're heading into a situation where you face opposition, it might also close the distance between you before you engage (whether via combat or some other means). You've got to be one-minute's walk away from your opposition instead of four.

 

[David Scott]

I think you need to move your assumption that RQG is based on RQ3. All along it's been said that it's mostly based on RQ2, in Designing the new RuneQuest - Part 15, its says "We [the design team] widely agreed that RQ2 was mostly "not broken". Part 6 says "This is built directly off the RuneQuest 2 chassis, and is simply not a new layer atop RQ3, the MRQ variants, or TDM's edition. Think instead of it as RQ 2.5".

I had to look up the 5 min rule in RQ3, it's news to me. We were still playing 2 mins...

I'd ask  @Jeff or @Jason Durall to comment, but I think reading the Design notes would help. Part 1: https://www.chaosium.com/blog/designing-the-new-runequest-part-1/

As for keeping track of time outside combat - yes. Never been a problem.

Closing for combat, not a problem. Most cast then engage, especially when adding extra mps. If you are that far away, you're not ready,

What spells are your group having problems with the time limit?

Edited March 18, 2019 by David Scott

[Zozotroll]

I never noticed the longer time in RQ3 either, even though I have played a lot of it.  And I dont ever remember anybody running put of a spell.  Combat has never made it to the end of 2 minutes much less 5.

[EpicureanDM]

31 minutes ago, David Scott said:

I think you need to move your assumption that RQG is based on RQ3. All along it's been said that it's mostly based on RQ2, in Designing the new RuneQuest - Part 15, its says "We [the design team] widely agreed that RQ2 was mostly "not broken". Part 6 says "This is built directly off the RuneQuest 2 chassis, and is simply not a new layer atop RQ3, the MRQ variants, or TDM's edition. Think instead of it as RQ 2.5".

That's very helpful for reorienting my approach to RQG, since I've only got practical experience with RQ3. I use RQ3 as my touchstone when trying to figure out RQG. I wasn't aware of the Design Diaries. I'll dig into those.

32 minutes ago, David Scott said:

As for keeping track of time outside combat - yes. Never been a problem.

Closing for combat, not a problem. Most cast then engage, especially when adding extra mps. If you are that far away, you're not ready,

What spells are your group having problems with the time limit?

Defining spell duration in terms of minutes rather than narratively (e.g. one scene or encounter) is definitely an artifact of the prevailing design philosophies of the late '70's or early '80s when RQ2 was created. But it conflicts with some more modern approaches to duration found in RQG. Rune inspiration lasts "for the time it takes to complete the activity or task, such as the duration of the combat or battle. Generally, inspiration should have a maximum duration of one day." The duration's primary definition is narrative ("complete the activity or task"). It eventually puts a stricter, chronological limit on inspiration ("one day"), but that's more of a tie-breaker assumption.

So why don't spirit and rune magic share the same framework? Let's assume that a PC casts some spirit magic before they scout a ruined tower. If most RQG GMs aren't keeping strict, round-by-round track of time outside of combat, then it doesn't matter if the duration of spirit magic is two minutes or two hours. They'll sort it out by feel, guided by descriptions at the table, and their internal sense of drama and pacing. But is that functionally equivalent to "one scene or encounter"? These very specific durations might make more sense when we're in combat and keeping strict track of time, but how many RQ fights last 20 turns? Are there enough 20+ turn battles that we should really worry about the duration of spirit magic so precisely? If the answer is that we should handle it loosely, then the change from five minutes to two minutes wasn't motivated by any meaningful design purpose aside from honoring RQ's past.

When my group reads that the duration of spirit magic is two minutes, it changes their frame of mind and their approach to play. Two minutes is not a lot of time. By announcing, "You have two minutes to get the value of the magic points you just spent," the game sort of slows down. People can get focused on describing relatively small actions and slices of time. It can seem like the game's asking you to switch from describing that your character climbs the stairs to narrating every step.

Put another way, have any experienced RQ GMs ever asked their players to re-cast their spirit magic before a scene or encounter ended because they "took too long"? Or do most RQ GMs just hand-wave it unless the players try for something that's clearly outside of the duration limits, e.g. trying to make use of a Mobility spell when running a marathon?

[Bill the barbarian]

6 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

Put another way, have any experienced RQ GMs ever asked their players to re-cast their spirit magic before a scene or encounter ended because they "took too long"? Or do most RQ GMs just hand-wave it unless the players try for something that's clearly outside of the duration limits, e.g. trying to make use of a Mobility spell when running a marathon?

Within in a combat and magic has been cast in said combat I have not seen magic run out, however in a series of running battles... The rainbow mounds brings this to mind for me... or where magic has been cast in anticipation. In both incidences I have seen magic run out (OFTEN!) Then again I have always loved how nitty gritty RQ combat can become.

[Bill the barbarian]

Dawns on me I should mention the "often" was in terms of RQ 2, the 5 minute spell duration cut down the frequency but it still occurred. Hell it occurs with the 15 minute duration of Rune Spells that run out before they were wished to.

 

Cheers

Edited March 18, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[PhilHibbs]

8 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

If your answer is, "Because it was two minutes in RQ2," that will not be very helpful on its own.

So the only correct answer isn't helpful. That's a shame, looks like you're beyond help! 

[EpicureanDM]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

So the only correct answer isn't helpful. That's a shame, looks like you're beyond help! 

Foiled again!

[olskool]

We always wanted to differentiate Spirit Magic from Sorcery and Rune/Divine Magic.  We gave Spirit Magic a duration of MINUTES equal to your Magic Points at the time of casting.  Have 2 Magic Points left?  Your spell's duration is 2 minutes.  Have 15 mp left?  You get 15 MINUTES of run time on that Protection spell.  The Shaman got to use his POW so his duration never changed (a perk for being a Shaman).  Divine/Rune Magic lasted minutes for Initiates and HOURS when cast by a Rune Priest.  The difference in runtimes between different "tiers" of casters proved to be especially popular reasons to take the restrictions those higher tiers had to endure during play (like the DEX x 5 limits on skills).     

[Joerg]

I more than once managed to parley a rune spell into expiration... the two minute limit will mean that spirit magic runs out in mid-combat if players put on a layer of spells all by themselves starting the round mechanism ticking before actual combat breaks out, as they were wont to do in RQ3 which had a lot less spirit allies or non-combatant supporters (at least in my experience). Players without supporters will have seven or eight melee rounds in combat before their spells wear off, as the risk to lose all attack options in late spell casting is IMO too high for front line combatants. In my experience the best defense in a RQ combat has always been to take out some of the enemies fast.

But then a lot of Augmentation has been moved away from spirit magic into invoking runes or passions, which I understand as unrelated and therefore "free" actions in a melee.

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

In my experience the best defense in a RQ combat has always been to take out some of the enemies fast.

Bingo, I hope the gent who is asking for combat tips sees this one; It is truly my fave.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[EpicureanDM]

9 hours ago, Joerg said:

the two minute limit will mean that spirit magic runs out in mid-combat if players put on a layer of spells all by themselves starting the round mechanism ticking before actual combat breaks out

This is what I'm digging for. So your group switches into detailed, round-by-round time-tracking as soon as the first, preparatory spell goes off. Do you get granular with movement before engagement with opponents (assuming it's a fight)? PCs with 8 Move advance 24 meters per round, all that stuff? What about actions or scenes that require some time but aren't centered around combat? I'm thinking scouting or stealth, but there might be other examples. I'm not sure that's the way I want to play it, but I'm curious to know if that's the style of play that most people think matches the rules about spell duration.

9 hours ago, Joerg said:

in RQ3 which had a lot less spirit allies or non-combatant supporters (at least in my experience)

My first- and second-hand experience suggests the same. What's strange for modern TTRPG audiences is the old idea from the '70s and early '80s of PCs dragging henchmen and followers around with the party. It's a style of play that largely died out with AD&D. But RQ2's a contemporary design with AD&D, so if it's design includes assumptions about PCs having henchmen (either as allied spirits or the more traditional NPC), modern TTRPG players who largely just understand 5e need to be made aware of that fact. I'm not saying they shouldn't adapt or try new styles of play, only that it won't occur to them and if RQG's higher level play assumes that it will, it could turn off new RQG players. 

For most RQG play, allied spirits, bound spirits, or elementals are effectively magic items in 5e terms, even if allied spirits could be considered intelligent magic items that should be respected by the PC. But as a conceptual bridge from RQ to 5e, it works. Once RQG players start to find spirit allies that can cast spells while the PC jumps straight into battle, that changes the dynamic a bit. Spell duration doesn't matter because someone else (the spirit) will make sure it never runs out, barring unique, situational circumstances in play. So that pushes us back towards the idea that spell duration doesn't really matter once higher level play is reached. You can keep track of it if you've got the bandwidth, but it's not a big deal if you don't.

8 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Bingo, I hope the gent who is asking for combat tips sees this one; It is truly my fave.

I am that gent.

It's well-intentioned, but too vague to be of use: "I find that the best way to win a football match is to score more goals than my opponent." True, but useless in practice. 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

It's well-intentioned, but too vague to be of use: "I find that the best way to win a football match is to score more goals than my opponent." True, but useless in practice. 

Hm... how about getting a bit more concrete?  It's two-fold...

#1 "Numbers (of foes) can make a difference.  If you can area-attack or otherwise multi-target, and neutralize a large number of mooks VERY early (before they can subject you to their many attacks), that can be a winning tactic; or at least, it can block THEIR winning tactic."  The idea is, if none of foes A/B/C/D/E/F/G are particularly threatening (individually), you still need to treat them as a COLLECTIVE threat:  taking out foe E has only reduced the threat to 6/7 its prior danger.

#2 - "Bosses are seldom best left to the end; if you can get several PC's attacking a Boss early on, forcing them onto the defensive or even taking them down, it can be a winning strategy; a Boss may be capable of reliably 1-shot-dropping any PC, and the fewer rounds they are free to do that, the better!"

Many D&D players are used to an "attritional grind" of hit-points down to zero; they count on their own HP-buffer to suffice vs the foes' grinding.  In RQ, one round can make an enormous difference.  Best you seek that round EARLY, and in your favor, lest the foes find a way to inflict it upon you in THEIR favor.

[Bill the barbarian]

4 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

It's well-intentioned, but too vague to be of use: "I find that the best way to win a football match is to score more goals than my opponent." True, but useless in practice.  

Then I do not know what to say, this is an integral beginning of tactics.  Ignore it at your peril.

G33 has said a whole lot of words but those words mean "In my experience the best defense in a RQ combat has always been to take out some of the enemies fast. "

[EpicureanDM]

1 hour ago, Bill the barbarian said:

G33 has said a whole lot of words but those words mean "In my experience the best defense in a RQ combat has always been to take out some of the enemies fast. "

G33k put the point into better perspective with the analogy to D&D. It became concrete by allowing me to translate a familiar language into the new one.

2 hours ago, g33k said:

Many D&D players are used to an "attritional grind" of hit-points down to zero; they count on their own HP-buffer to suffice vs the foes' grinding.  In RQ, one round can make an enormous difference.  Best you seek that round EARLY, and in your favor, lest the foes find a way to inflict it upon you in THEIR favor.

My dismissal of Joerg's and Bill's points was itself too vague. In hindsight, I don't think it could produce the sort of rules-grounded advice that I'm keen on in the combat tips thread. G33k's fine effort to put meat on the bone arguably applies to many RPGs. I could deploy that advice for 5e fights without much of a disconnect for my players ("The fewer enemies there are on the battlefield, the fewer d20's are being rolled against you, which is usually how you lose hit points.")

But G33k's excerpt above does feel concrete and useful. It spotlight's D&D's attritional grind and how that buffer allows for some tactical laziness or foot-dragging (I'm adding that last bit). There's no death spiral in D&D like their can be in RQ. G33k explained why the rules of RQ compared to D&D (no hp buffer/grind, inclusion of death spiral or sudden swings in combat) make Joerg's point more vital, perhaps. It'll be easier to explain to my 5e players.

[Bill the barbarian]

23 minutes ago, EpicureanDM said:

My dismissal of Joerg's and Bill's points was itself too vague. In hindsight, I don't think it could produce the sort of rules-grounded advice that I'm keen on in the combat tips thread. G33k's fine effort to put meat on the bone arguably applies to many RPGs. I could deploy that advice for 5e fights without much of a disconnect for my players ("The fewer enemies there are on the battlefield, the fewer d20's are being rolled against you, which is usually how you lose hit points.")

 

Thanks for understanding guy, I was not trying to be dismissive but the tips I can give are hard earned after years of gaming. I am not sure a page of my ramblings can come close to saying what I want to say or even should say. Now, I am taking a guess that Sandy Peterson might well be another matter. <gr> I do agree with you that G33 not only has more words but he has a nicer way of putting them in sequence as well.

Alas, sorry but to everyone's horror here comes another pithy and totally useless remark (God Learner's secret: except it's not). 

Experience is a great teacher, go out there and fail, write a page of useless home rules that no one else will use (or understand), have an absolutely horrible day running a game that absolutely fails. Being nerds, there is a good chance they will forgive you and play again next week (after a bit of obligatory grumbling and whining).

Post on a forum, get flamed and try again.

And then be nice to that person that just flamed you (and hide a very big pie behind your back to retaliate with).
;)

Cheers

[Bill the barbarian]

Oh and a major point that is beginning to dawn on me.

RQ 3 and 2 are not RuneQuest Roleplaying in Glorantha. This is a whole new beast woven with whole new sets of axioms (in my playing and GMing experiences anyway). The PCs are not struggling to become warriors, sorcerers, great men or women; Rune Levels! They are already there, or on the cusp. My last RQ3 River of Cradles campaign, after a year and a half of play the Humaki was  coming close to a generic newly generated RQ G character.

I just had an Argar Argar Torkani wood cutter generated with an incredible series of skills in combat (i seem to recall 70s with melee and missile but I do not have the sheet to hand) and a very wide range of spells to boot (14 not counting enchantments).

Knowledge of skills and tactics as well as spells (it has been literally decades since I played RQ 2 2 minute spirit magic spell limits) are something I will have to put a little effort and time into, because this is a brave new world of playing at near Rune Levels out of the box (it still has that new Rune Lord smell).

Cheers

[EpicureanDM]

56 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Experience is a great teacher, go out there and fail, write a page of useless home rules that no one else will use (or understand), have an absolutely horrible day running a game that absolutely fails. Being nerds, there is a good chance they will forgive you and play again next week (after a bit of obligatory grumbling and whining).

Post on a forum, get flamed and try again.

And then be nice to that person that just flamed you (and hide a very big pie behind your back to retaliate with).

I've been playing and GMing RPGs for 35+ years and have been involved in online RPG discussions since the Usenet days.

I ask questions like these because I have an interest in game design and playing games as closely to the written rules as I can to see how design works at the table. I pick up RQG with the assumption that its designers have made choices that they believe will produce the best Runequest experience in play: "Follow these rules as we've written them and you'll have a great Runequest experience." Posting questions like these help me to figure out if the rough spots I'm seeing in play are supposed to be there or not. Are what I consider "rough spots" actually part of a good Runequest experience? If enough other people out there are keeping strict track of time once a spirit magic spell's been cast, then that's probably the design intent and I should try to stick with it. The problem's with me and my assumptions. If most folks are handwaving it, then that's probably a design failure (not considered important enough or fun by most folks) and I can smooth it out with house rules.

50 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Knowledge of skills and tactics as well as spells (it has been literally decades since I played RQ 2 2 minute spirit magic spell limits) are something I will have to put a little effort and time into, because this is a brave new world of playing at near Rune Levels out of the box (it still has that new Rune Lord smell).

That's why I'm often asking people to provide more detail in this forum. I see more than a few well-respected members with high post counts providing advice based on their RQ2/3 experience who seem unfamiliar with RQG's actual rules. I watched a YouTube video the other day in which Jason Durall told a new RQG player to use RQ2's rule for calculating impaling damage rather than RQG's, which is different. Jason also allowed a player to parry an incoming arrow, which is not permitted under RQG but maybe it was in RQ2? So I ask questions about how literally people take the two-minute duration in play to see which folks are thinking practically and from experience, rather than theoretically.

1 hour ago, Bill the barbarian said:

RQ 3 and 2 are not RuneQuest Roleplaying in Glorantha. This is a whole new beast woven with whole new sets of axioms (in my playing and GMing experiences anyway).

I disagree here. I own a large RQ collection spread across RQ2, RQ3, and Heroquest. I compare the text in many sections of RQG to RQ2 and RQ3 to find that it's close to verbatim in many instances. What's different is that the majority of old RQ2 and RQ3 players never really played at this middle point in RQ's power curve. As you suggest, most RQ2/3 campaigns likely never reached the power level that RQG starts at. To twist your analogy, it's basically the same horse, but most of us never rode it past a trot. Now we're starting at a canter. That's part of why I started that combat tips thread. Even though most of the folks responding seemingly rely on RQ2/3 experience, those are the only people with practical experience of the RQ system when it's "cantering." If RQG was "a whole new beast," their advice wouldn't translate. But it does, doesn't it? Not perfectly, but enough. 

[Joerg]

Hmm. My throwaway comment was rather directed at the concept of taking the free disengagement after having downed your direct opponent(s) for a short role as non-combattant support or refreshing spirit magic before returning to the melee, and not as part of the tactical advice thread. For which I might have a one syllable, three letter advice: "Win!" 😜

(And more seriously, that thread lacks advice on how to proceed when losing a fight, taking a tactical defeat to salvage most of the party rather than suffering a TPK. Short of Rune Lord DI, that is.)

I have no practical experience yet with applications of Extension and Multispell to stabilize spirit magic over significant portions of the scenario, though I have sufficient experience with mid-duration (RQ3) sorcery. Blowing say three rune points and a matrix/crystal worth of MP for such an effect rather than a day's worth of MP and ceremony for the sorcerous way might be more cost effective than the normal duration benefit from say three points of Shield for one, at most two, combat situations. Little difference when facing the final boss in the final showdown, but boss villains have the nasty habit of escaping from a showdown and reappearing at a later time, so how can you be (or make) sure that your showdown is the final one for this scenario?

This is of course advice for the GM how to make a villain with mediocre stats but a good escape trick outlast the party's heavy magical augmentation and catching them just a little later with their magical pants down. Minus a few henchmen, with blood-stained rips in parts of his robe, but alive (even healthy) and kicking ass.

[EpicureanDM]

49 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Hmm. My throwaway comment was rather directed at the concept of taking the free disengagement after having downed your direct opponent(s) for a short role as non-combattant support or refreshing spirit magic before returning to the melee, and not as part of the tactical advice thread.

I like that observation, but do combatants get a free disengagement after downing a direct opponent in RQG? The closest I get to a "free disengagement" is a prone opponent who isn't incapacitated who might attack at a penalty if their opponent chooses the Flee option when disengaging. The prone opponent could attack at a penalty. Every other downed opponent is "functionally incapacitated" and cannot attack anyway. I can see how that's a "free disengagement," but that's not really what RQG's rules mean by "disengagement," is it?

With that aside, it's a valuable perspective to raise for newcomers: "Don't be eager to jump back into melee combat. You could be more useful as an Outside of Melee support character for a round or two." 

55 minutes ago, Joerg said:

(And more seriously, that thread lacks advice on how to proceed when losing a fight, taking a tactical defeat to salvage most of the party rather than suffering a TPK. Short of Rune Lord DI, that is.)

Agreed! If you've got tips and tricks to share, I'd love to see them in that thread. Make it better and more complete.

58 minutes ago, Joerg said:

I have no practical experience yet with applications of Extension and Multispell to stabilize spirit magic over significant portions of the scenario, though I have sufficient experience with mid-duration (RQ3) sorcery.

To return to the thread's original idea, do you (or did you) ever find the PCs making use of these techniques to stabilize spirit magic beyond RQ3's five-minute duration? If it didn't come up much, it adds more data to the idea that RQ's design basically handwaves the duration for spirit magic in most cases.

[HreshtIronBorne]

In my experience we have never really had to worry about spells expiring in either 2 or 5 minute duration. We have very very rarely had a combat situation last long enough that we have to count the number of rounds and track Fatigue (RQ3) and all that jazz. Our biggest hurdle has always been effectively applying Magical augmentation in combat situations before we are engaged, we primarily played RQ3 with many a varied house ruling over the years. In RQ:G we now have Multispell as a stackable Runespell that is Common. I just recently put it to use with a little hitsquad my Humakti is leading on an adventure. We had a character with a Spell Enhancing (Whichever one adds to variable spell intensity) Crystal POW 4 cast Multispell 2 and then Protection 4 (8 effective) and Bladesharp 4 (8 effective) on the while front line by the end of the second round. Made a HUGE difference against the 36 ghouls we were fighting. My Humakti has an item with Strength + Coordination + Mobility Linked together in Matrices which he uses with Multispell 2 to make everyone on the front lines a badass for a fight, he calls it Humakt's War Wind. Our Trickster with Shattering has realized he can cast a Multispell 3 on himself rather than several Shatterings and as long as he has MP to cast them, he can get more Diruption 4s off in a round then he can shatterings, like 3 times as many because of his DEX SR and how we calculate it.

End rant 

Some of this might belong in the Techniques thread. Sorry. 

[Bill the barbarian]

7 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

I disagree here. I own a large RQ collection spread across RQ2, RQ3, and Heroquest. I compare the text in many sections of RQG to RQ2 and RQ3 to find that it's close to verbatim in many instances. What's different is that the majority of old RQ2 and RQ3 players never really played at this middle point in RQ's power curve. As you suggest, most RQ2/3 campaigns likely never reached the power level that RQG starts at. To twist your analogy, it's basically the same horse, but most of us never rode it past a trot. Now we're starting at a canter. That's part of why I started that combat tips thread. Even though most of the folks responding seemingly rely on RQ2/3 experience, those are the only people with practical experience of the RQ system when it's "cantering." If RQG was "a whole new beast," their advice wouldn't translate. But it does, doesn't it? Not perfectly, but enough. 

I have given it a good bit of thought but I can not agree with you. Not a big deal, we all have opinions and we could both be wrong so...

In any case, I can not accept that a beginning character created in RQ 2 bears much more than a family resemblance to RQ 2.5 or as it it is also called RQ Gs near superheroes.  A quick look at the covers of the two games give away the level they are meant to be played at. I suggest that RQ G is a step closer to HQ than RQ 2 in terms of playing level (not actual rules obviously).

Nothing other than tales of Greg and Sandy's characters or Hero Quests from lore, or the Cradle from the Rubble even sounded like a modern game can become at a very early stage. Ergo, a  new beast, if not a whole new beast (for me, I still aver a whole new beast, it's my beast and damn it I want it whole :). have a boo at the above post by HreshtIronBorne for a quick look at how colourful combat can get... Sounds like fun-guy!
(PS I think that you are misreading Multispell use with disrupt HreshtIronBorne. Unless Enchantment and linking hacks grant even more powers to the combination.)

Cheers

Edited March 20, 2019 by Bill the barbarian
Cheers

[HreshtIronBorne]

Multispell 1 Point Self, Temporal, Stackable This spell allows the caster to combine two spirit magic spells and cast them at once. These are resolved as separate attacks. The only exception to this is the Disruption spell, which can be combined with itself and resolved as one attack doing 2D3 damage to one hit location...  An attack using Multispell takes effect at the highest strike rank of any spell included in the combined attack. 

 

This leads me to believe even a Multispelled Diruption 4 would still go off on Dex Sr +1. The Combining together of Disruption could mean that it behaves as a single 4 point spell when multispelling, so it could be DEX SR +3 Sr, to cast Diruption 4s with Multispell 3 up, 5 SR between casts means that with low DEX SR you could cast 2 per round. You can still do it every round for 15 minutes, even if you can only do it once or twice a round. 

[Bill the barbarian]

5 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Multispell 1 Point Self, Temporal, Stackable This spell allows the caster to combine two spirit magic spells and cast them at once. These are resolved as separate attacks. The only exception to this is the Disruption spell, which can be combined with itself and resolved as one attack doing 2D3 damage to one hit location...  An attack using Multispell takes effect at the highest strike rank of any spell included in the combined attack. 

 

 Sorry EpicureanDM for a quick hijack of your thread. I will return it briefly...

HreshtIronBorne: Now here is my problem. The rules as written imply if not actually state that ..

"The only exception to this is the Disruption spell, which can be combined with itself and resolved as one attack doing 2D3 damage to one hit location:"

One can infer that seeing as the spell is stackable one can take the italicized bolded text able and add a d3 per point of stackingdouble it. But is that inferance correct?
Or does stacking allow one to toss another doubled disrupt per stacking at another target (another inference)?

Cheers

[PhilHibbs]

On 3/20/2019 at 9:33 AM, Bill the barbarian said:

One can infer that seeing as the spell is stackable one can take the italicized bolded text able and add a d3 per point of stackingdouble it. But is that inferance correct?
Or does stacking allow one to toss another doubled disrupt per stacking at another target (another inference)?

I think it's pretty clear that Multispell 2 allows a single 3D3 disrupt, Multispell 3 allows 4D4, etc., all at DEX SR + 1. The text of Multispell appears to have been copied from the RQ2 spell "Multispell 1", as many stackable spells were described as different versions for different sizes.

Edited March 23, 2019 by PhilHibbs