Egregious munchkinnery!

[Crel]

39 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Malkioni get 3 Runes and 2 Techniques at start (no specifics).

Aeolians get 2 Runes and one Technique.

Lunars are unspecified.

In my considerations, I left these aside as not sharing enough actual information. I read those sections as being more like fluff with passing rules reference, rather than actual play data. For example, it suggests that the Malkioni can master the Magic Rune on p.389, but this is not described elsewhere as a sorcerous Rune. Likewise the nature of Aeolian sorcery is still indistinct because we don't know how it interacts with theistic cults, just that they worship several Lightbringers in some form. As it stands I don't think we should consider Malkioni or Aeolian adventurers because there doesn't seem a good foundation for rock-solid rules munchkinnery. Lunar sorcery has more of a basis--play a Philosopher, master the Moon Rune, be a Seven Mothers cultist and bam, you're a Lunar sorcerer. I presume other, better options will later be published.

41 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

And, don't forget... INT-12 worth of Techniques and Runes.... so, realistically, minimum INT of 14 or 15 starting.

P.384 "A sorcerer must have a minimum INT of 13 to understand one Rune and one technique." So you can get one of each at species average. Each additional point of INT gives you one more--I suggest focusing on Runes, not techniques, because with Command or Tap you can get all the techniques.

I do acknowledge that the nigh-infinite Enhance INT looping is cheesy as hell and moderately bizarre, but I see nothing in the rules apart from time which prevents it. As for time requirements, all you really need is a day or two of downtime to focus on casting, which I believe is generally a reasonable request of a GM in a game where the paradigm is 3 weeks or less of adventuring per season. Snatching a day here and there for personal stuff feels plausible.

Choosing Fire/Sky over Moon is definitely a reasonable choice. I would emphasize the extra point of POW more, though, because it lets you get set up earlier. The buy-in on this adventurer has a very high POW cost, and if you can get 16+ points at creation that gives you some breathing space to set up MP batteries, sacrifice for extra RP, and so on. With Enhance INT ramping you only need adequate, not extraordinary, starting INT.

43 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I can't see a single GM allowing that, considering the "The hallucination is perceived only by the spell’s caster ...is completely undetectable to anyone else". (my emphasis)

Yeah, perceived only by me. As in, no one else can see the air elemental lifting me--but I'm still floating. No one else can see the bridge I'm walking on, or use it, unless they're in magical mental connection with me (which is noted in the spell description although no spells yet exist in RQG [like Mindlink] which develop that connection, thereby restricting this mostly to an allied spirit). Magical connection is noted in the description. Rune illusions are real; with Hallucinate, they're real only for the caster. (And for what it's worth, I know at least three GMs who allow this.)

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

12 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I don't see any evidence of RQ3 sorcery being copy-pasted, or any indication that that is likely to happen.

One area which looks decidedly not C&P.

I acknowledge that the machinery is new (and cool, IMO, even if I personally dislike Free INT). In my head, my C&P comment was speaking more broadly than sorcery alone; however within sorcery I do think there's a demonstrable amount of reused and repeated concepts, particularly in the spells. Ex. Castback, Tap Body, etc. So I feel that assuming old RQ3 spells and materials coming back in some magic day when Sorcery finally gets published is kind-of safe.

As for this potential sociopathic librarian's take on all the sects, factions, traditions, temples, etc. ...

FOLLOW THE GOURD! you bunch of sillybillies.

[PhilHibbs]

2 minutes ago, Crel said:

I do acknowledge that the nigh-infinite Enhance INT looping is cheesy as hell and moderately bizarre, but I see nothing in the rules apart from time which prevents it.

Nigh-infinite? How does that work?

[Crel]

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

Nigh-infinite? How does that work?

Steal Breath until you have MP equal to Free INT+Steal Breath's cost, cast Enhance INT to get more INT, then cast Steal Breath to get more MP and cast Enhance INT to get more INT. 

[PhilHibbs]

22 minutes ago, Crel said:

Steal Breath until you have MP equal to Free INT+Steal Breath's cost, cast Enhance INT to get more INT, then cast Steal Breath to get more MP and cast Enhance INT to get more INT. 

But each 4 INT gets you 1 more INT, so you rapidly hit a wall. Mostly you will be able to cast it twice, getting +5 on the second casting to replace the +4 from the first. It's possible (1 in 4 "chance") that that extra +1 will tip you over into getting enough Free INT to cast it a third time and get +6 INT, but that's it. I would hardly describe two or three as "nigh-infinite".

And that gives you no points on duration. The more common use case is where you cast it once for +4, then use that +4 to cast it again with a lower Strength but with extra Duration.

Or, you use that temporarily raised INT to cast a different spell with long duration. So Enhance INT just becomes an augment that costs a bunch of MP.

Edited April 26, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Joerg]

Has there been a ruling whether you can simply cast a stronger version of the spell over a weaker one? Or whether the weaker spell stops in the presence of the stronger one? Or is temporarily neutralized by a shorter duration Neutralize Magic?

I note that sorcerers don't seem to have any spell that ends magic, they can only suspend its effect for the duration of the Neutralize.

(Which then begs the question whether the Neutralize Magic can be targeted with a Neutralize Magic...)

As to "nigh-infinite", that comes with inscribing the spell. True, four points of POW for a temporary extra point of INT, but you can accumulate this over time. Lots of reading scripture to the uneducated... (aka Worship Invisible God)

[Crel]

14 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

But each 4 INT gets you 1 more INT, so you rapidly hit a wall. Mostly you will be able to cast it twice, getting +5 on the second casting to replace the +4 from the first. It's possible (1 in 4 "chance") that that extra +1 will tip you over into getting enough Free INT to cast it a third time and get +6 INT, but that's it. I would hardly describe two or three as "nigh-infinite".

Okay yeah, fair. Undeserved hyperbole. But I do feel it removes the necessity for a spectacular starting INT.

[Kloster]

46 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Has there been a ruling whether you can simply cast a stronger version of the spell over a weaker one? Or whether the weaker spell stops in the presence of the stronger one? Or is temporarily neutralized by a shorter duration Neutralize Magic?

The way I understand it, if you cast a low strength, (let's say Enhance INT), then a higher strength one (same spell), the higher intensity takes precedence, but the spell don't add. When the high strength ends, if the lower strength is not finished (because of longer duration), the lower strength is again the one in effect.

If you cast a high strength spell, then a lower strength of the same spell, when the high spell finishes, the lower strength will be the one in effect (with Enhance INT, this could be used to have a longer duration effect, but at a high MP cost).

[Joerg]

3 hours ago, Kloster said:

The way I understand it, if you cast a low strength, (let's say Enhance INT), then a higher strength one (same spell), the higher intensity takes precedence, but the spell don't add. When the high strength ends, if the lower strength is not finished (because of longer duration), the lower strength is again the one in effect.

If you cast a high strength spell, then a lower strength of the same spell, when the high spell finishes, the lower strength will be the one in effect (with Enhance INT, this could be used to have a longer duration effect, but at a high MP cost).

So a Protection 2 with Extension will persist when a friendly supporter cast a Protection 4 without Extension on that person?

With sorcerous Neutralize Magic, it is evidently possible that two spells affect the same target at once. Both the Neutralize and the neutralized spell persist until their duration runs out - if the Neutralize runs out first, the original spell is in function again.

An argument against having multiple spells affecting the same target might be made if the target has a magical thingness that is modified by the spell. Any new spell would find the thingness to which the magic would couple already occupied.

As long as the spells affecting an item are addressing different properties, it is possible to have a single sword with simultaneous Bladesharp, Truesword, Boon of Kargan Tor, Neutralize Armor, Preserve Item, Dampen Damage, Neutralize Spirit Magic, Neutralize Death Rune, Neutralize Magic (cast at Neutralize Armor), possibly even Protection cast on it (if Countermagic, that would be enemy action to preserve the adverse magic cast on it, possibly after Dullblade). (And yes, Dampen Damage and the subsequent Neutralizes would be enemy action...)

This would obviously be a duel situation with indirect magical support allowed, and your friendly sorcerer might attempt to use Neutralize Magic on all those enemy sorceries...

 

[PhilHibbs]

4 hours ago, Kloster said:

The way I understand it, if you cast a low strength, (let's say Enhance INT), then a higher strength one (same spell), the higher intensity takes precedence, but the spell don't add. When the high strength ends, if the lower strength is not finished (because of longer duration), the lower strength is again the one in effect.

Yes, that's how sorcery works.

3 minutes ago, Joerg said:

So a Protection 2 with Extension will persist when a friendly supporter cast a Protection 4 without Extension on that person?

Protection 2 is spirit magic, Extension is rune magic, the two can't be combined, and Kloster was talking about sorcery anyway.

[Shiningbrow]

If there are two Neutralise Magic spells in place, wouldn't the higher powered one just neutralise the lower powered one?? 😛

[PhilHibbs]

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

If there are two Neutralise Magic spells in place, wouldn't the higher powered one just neutralise the lower powered one?? 😛

No, it would be resolved by a reisistance roll, each one would attempt to suppress the other on the resistance table. Although I wonder what would happen if both succeeded!

Oh, hang on, I'm wrong, you only roll the resistance once when the second spell is cast to see if it suppresses the first. The first spell has no effect on the second. It just keeps on suppressing any spells that it suppressed when it was cast. Presumably if the first is suppressed by the second, then any spells that the first was suppressing then have to be overcome separately by the second one.

But you asked that as if someone else had mentioned multiple Neutralize Magic spells - I don't see anyone else mentioning it.

Edited April 26, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[Joerg]

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

If there are two Neutralise Magic spells in place, wouldn't the higher powered one just neutralise the lower powered one?? 😛

The way I understand the description, Neutralize Magic always targets a single spell in effect. In case it is cast blindly, a random spell would be targeted. You might need some other magic to identify the spells active on a target, such as Identify Spell. In case of the multiply enspelled sword I talked about above, what amount of "Identify Spell" would a sorcerer need to keep abreast with all the magic going on?

3 hours ago, Joerg said:

a single sword with simultaneous Bladesharp, Truesword, Boon of Kargan Tor, Neutralize Armor, Preserve Item, Dampen Damage, Neutralize Spirit Magic, Neutralize Death Rune, Neutralize Magic (cast at Neutralize Armor), possibly even Protection cast on it

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 4/25/2019 at 2:07 AM, DreadDomain said:

However, ii the Rules thread, Jason clarified:

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

Posted April 8 Jason Durall said:

  On 4/7/2019 at 11:43 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Pardon me -  but I would add (based on Jasons previous clarifications) That with two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry.

Worth repeating

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

Gone over this with Jason in detail, and this is the intention. I do think the correction for the 2nd printing on 2 weapon fighting was a missed opportunity to make this crystal clear. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Crel]

12 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Gone over this with Jason in detail, and this is the intention. I do think the correction for the 2nd printing on 2 weapon fighting was a missed opportunity to make this crystal clear. 

This sounds to me like you could also get in a free shield bash if you're using a shield instead of a second weapon. Basically, each hand can parry once, attack once, and further parries take the -20% penalty. Am I right?

[Crel]

Munchkin "trick" #507: Start with a 41 year old adventurer. While the skill bonuses are pretty trivial, you do get +6 Rune points for being 20 years older than starting. Only costs one point of STR, CON, or DEX, of your choice. At 51, get +9RP. Page 81, though it's in a sidebar, it doesn't look like a "variation" or "alternative" type of rule.

[Bill the barbarian]

20 minutes ago, Crel said:

This sounds to me like you could also get in a free shield bash if you're using a shield instead of a second weapon. Basically, each hand can parry once, attack once, and further parries take the -20% penalty. Am I right?

If I understand you, no. Each hand can attack, and a hand  (one or the other, it does not matter) can parry (multiple parries allowed one per attack with each subsequent parry being 20% less). The next round the same but the parry (which hand does not matter) is now less. Now, a weapon in one hand can both attack and parry so unless a shield is much different one should be able to parry, and bash with shield and attack with other hand. Or if preferred (not sure why, attacker is using natural weapons perhaps) one could parry with sword and attack with sword and bash with shield. 

For a while (back when the quick start was literally the only (RQ)  game in town) one could not parry and strike with the same weapon in the same SR. I have not seen this in the core rules, or heard of it in a while. Anyone else?

Cheers

Edited April 28, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[PhilHibbs]

41 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Now, a weapon in one hand can both attack and parry so unless a shield is much different one should be able to parry, and bash with shield and attack with other hand.

This has been clarified in the Q&A thread that a shield cannot be used to attack and parry. A regular weapon can. I'm not a big fan of that, so taking off my munchkin hat and putting my GM hat on, I'm not allowing two attacks with two weapons and also parrying with the same weapon(s) in my game. I'm allowing dodge, though. I think you should be able to get something for having to develop a third skill.

Maybe a parry with a weapon that is also attacking should kick off the parry penalties at -20 from the start. But I already have a character in my game built around two weapons and dodge, so I think I will stick with what I have decided otherwise that character would have to be rebuilt to be fair.

41 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Or if preferred (not sure why, attacker is using natural weapons perhaps) one could parry with sword and attack with sword and bash with shield.

That works. Using a sword to parry may be preferable if you're being attacked with natural wepaons, as successful parrying against a failed attack is a fantastic tactic.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

2 hours ago, Crel said:

This sounds to me like you could also get in a free shield bash if you're using a shield instead of a second weapon. Basically, each hand can parry once, attack once, and further parries take the -20% penalty. Am I right?

Shields are an exception to this rule. If you attack with a shield, you loose the shield parry, but you would still be able dodge.

So you could attack with both a shield and a melee weapon in a round if enough Strike ranks, but you’d loose the protection of the shield.

...Also parry and dodge are interchangeable. So you can parry one attack and dodge another in a round, however the -20 culmaltive penalty applies regardless. 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

7 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

The next round the same but the parry (which hand does not matter) is now less

I think the intention is for the cumulative  penalty to reset at the start of the next combat round. It simulates the struggle to parry a flurry of attacks in a single combat round. Next round catch your breath and start again. 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Bill the barbarian]

8 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I think the intention is for the cumulative  penalty to reset at the start of the next combat round. It simulates the struggle to parry a flurry of attacks in a single combat round. Next round catch your breath and start again. 

Correct, my bad.

[davecake]

On 4/25/2019 at 5:06 PM, metcalph said:

Zorak Zoran - coz Arkat.

I think it isn’t permitted to Zorak Zoran, but those damn Illuminated Arkati just go and do it anyway. Cheats. 

[Joerg]

27 minutes ago, davecake said:

I think it isn’t permitted to Zorak Zoran, but those damn Illuminated Arkati just go and do it anyway. Cheats. 

ZZ is Disorder. "Not permitted" just means it is slightly harder.

Kyger Litor allows sorcery because of Arkat, and what the Hellmother says, uzkind do. Argan Argar's Kitori followed Arkat, too, to the amount that people in Dragon Pass failed to see the difference between Kitori and Arkati. There was of course Arkat's Command that reinstated an odious tax which was supposed to be compensated by the annual tribute the Orlanthi would draw out of Dara Happa. Well, they botched that, and badly.

I don't think that Illumination even comes near this problem. ZZ is contrary. So is Storm Bull. It is what makes them great as Chaos fighters, if for very different reasons. But Orlanthi ignorance has never stopped them from doing utterly stupid and destructive things.

[Tywyll]

On 4/28/2019 at 12:08 PM, Crel said:

Munchkin "trick" #507: Start with a 41 year old adventurer. While the skill bonuses are pretty trivial, you do get +6 Rune points for being 20 years older than starting. Only costs one point of STR, CON, or DEX, of your choice. At 51, get +9RP. Page 81, though it's in a sidebar, it doesn't look like a "variation" or "alternative" type of rule.

Wow...just reread that. That is...a poorly written rule. In ten years you only gain +20% to skills and 1 point of spirit magic, but somehow you sacrifice three points of POW?!?  That...isn't at all like how the game will play out.

 

[PhilHibbs]

42 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Wow...just reread that. That is...a poorly written rule. In ten years you only gain +20% to skills and 1 point of spirit magic, but somehow you sacrifice three points of POW?!?  That...isn't at all like how the game will play out.

Yep. You're better off doing the occupational experience rolls for 50 seasons.

Edited April 30, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[g33k]

7 hours ago, Tywyll said:

...

That...isn't at all like how the game will play out.

It sure the heck isn't!

Statistically speaking, your character is ovewhelmingly likely to be dead.