Some questions on magic in combat

[Uthred]

1. Can you cast spells that don’t target the opponent e.g. Bladesharp and make a melee attack in the same combat round? The text on pg. 194 specifically says you can but the text on pg. 195 about using either melee or magic attack contradicts this.

 

2. Can you use different types of magic e.g. Rune and Sorcery in the same melee round (assuming you have the strike ranks for it)?

[jajagappa]

28 minutes ago, Uthred said:

Can you cast spells that don’t target the opponent e.g. Bladesharp and make a melee attack in the same combat round?

Yes.

34 minutes ago, Uthred said:

Can you use different types of magic e.g. Rune and Sorcery in the same melee round (assuming you have the strike ranks for it)?

I don't recall anything that forbids it. 

[Bill the barbarian]

41 minutes ago, Uthred said:

1. Can you cast spells that don’t target the opponent e.g. Bladesharp and make a melee attack in the same combat round? The text on pg. 194 specifically says you can but the text on pg. 195 about using either melee or magic attack contradicts this.

 

Yes if you aren't engaged in melee (close) combat.

1) That is, you are not attacking anyone the entire MR (Thus,  you are not engaged) and... see 2)

2) ...if engaged in melee... no one attacks in you (melee/ranged/spells) before the spell can go off (someone moves to engage close enough to get to you before the spell goes off an arrow a disrupt. A successful attack with damage will screw with concentration ruining the spell but not costing you  magic points.

3) The caster takes no damage prior to casting of spells (see strike ranks) Damage will disrupt spell but not cost magic points.

4) You do not move to attack another (become engaged).in the same round as casting a spell.

The attacks mentioned before now are all melee attacks.

Ranged attacks are different from melee combat though they can interact with it.

1) You can fire into melee. You can fire at others not engaged in melee

2) You can cast spells into melee.

3) You can cast spells before firing into melee

4) You can cast spells that have noting to do with melee.

limitations  are the number of Strike rank the actions cost, member mods...

• Or if not engaged in melee you can advance to attact a ranged weapon user or magic caster see above for concentration...

• If there is enough SRs other things can be done within the caveats listed above. 

• See SRs as related to moves, magic, weapons and SR mods on pages 192-195 in RQ RiG core book  for explanations of these mechanics of Strike Ranks, they are confusing, but necessary to run combat with or without magic so begin reading now.

There is a table in one of the foruns around that will help to understand combat and SR, can't recall where. Anyone?

Corrections and additions as well as comments are most welcome. Hecklers, not so much
(ah go suck a lemon) 

Cheers

 

*

Edited June 29, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Uthred]

11 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Yes if you aren't engaged in melee (close) combat.

4) You do not move to attack another (become engaged).in the same round as casting a spell

 

If point four is correct then surely the answer is No? The question was about using a spell and a melee attack (which you can only do when engaged) in the same round

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Uthred said:

1. Can you cast spells that don’t target the opponent e.g. Bladesharp and make a melee attack in the same combat round? The text on pg. 194 specifically says you can but the text on pg. 195 about using either melee or magic attack contradicts this. The red is mine

Yeah reading is a good skill to have at a high level, I think I fumbled that one and did a lot of work for naught.

But it does cover many circumstances. so no use in throwing it out.

SO... Now I have had a look at 195 and as you say it does say attack or cast spells in melee. So let's assume that is right so I can salvage all that work and still make something of it

 

Quote

This means that an adventurer who starts a round phys- ically engaged in melee may either:

Attack and defend normally;
or Defend normally and cast spells.

. so I will revise the opus to say...

Casting Spells in Combat
Mk2™ 

Yes one can can cast spells, offensive or otherwise if you meet the following caveats.

1) If you are not attacking anyone in melee for part or all of the Melee Round and... see 2)

2) ... no one attacks in you (melee/ranged/spells) before the spell can go off (someone moves to engage close enough to get to you before the spell goes off or being hit and damaged by an arrow or a spirit spell  disrupt for example. A successful attack with damage will screw with concentration ruining the spell but not costing you  magic points.

3) You do not move to attack another (become engaged).in the same round as casting a spell.

The attacks mentioned before now are all melee attacks.

Ranged attacks are different from melee combat though they can interact with it.

1) You can fire into melee. You can fire at others not engaged in melee

2) You can cast spells into melee.You can cast spells at others not engaged in melee

3) You can cast spells before firing into melee

4) You can cast spells that have noting to do with melee.

limitations  are the number of Strike rank the actions cost, remember mods...

• if not engaged in melee you can advance to attack a ranged weapon user or magic caster see above for concentration for spell casters...

• If there is enough SRs other things besides casting spells can be done within the caveats listed above. 

• See SRs as related to moves, magic, weapons and SR mods on pages 192-195 in RQ RiG core book  for explanations of these mechanics of Strike Ranks, they are confusing, but necessary to run combat with or without magic so begin reading now.

There is a table in one of the forums around that will help to understand combat and SR, can't recall where. Anyone?

Corrections and additions as well as comments are most welcome. Hecklers, not so much
(ah go suck a lemon) 

Cheers

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Bill the barbarian
damn, that was a hard slog, many errors

[Bill the barbarian]

The above required much editing and probably still does, It you looked at the revision before now, I ha just finished many corrections so...

[David Scott]

8 hours ago, Uthred said:

1. Can you cast spells that don’t target the opponent e.g. Bladesharp and make a melee attack in the same combat round? The text on pg. 194 specifically says you can but the text on pg. 195 about using either melee or magic attack contradicts this.

Yes, page195 says the adventurer can't attack physically and magically. Bladesharp isn't an "attack" spell.

So Bladesharp 4 with a DEX SR of 2 would go off on SR 6 and then a readied sword attack of 5 SRs on SR11

You couldn't do a Disruption (1) on SR3 and then attack.

8 hours ago, Uthred said:

2. Can you use different types of magic e.g. Rune and Sorcery in the same melee round (assuming you have the strike ranks for it)?

If neither were attack spells then yes.

[Shiningbrow]

P315 - Casting a Rune magic spell prevents an adventurer from casting any other Rune magic, spirit magic, or sor-cery spells that round. 

It's even in bold! 

[jajagappa]

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

P315 - Casting a Rune magic spell prevents an adventurer from casting any other Rune magic, spirit magic, or sor-cery spells that round. 

I was feeling there was something stating that but couldn't locate it yesterday!

[Uthred]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

P315 - Casting a Rune magic spell prevents an adventurer from casting any other Rune magic, spirit magic, or sor-cery spells that round. 

It's even in bold! 

I'm sure it is and when I get to pg. 315 I'll feel suitably chagrined. But I've only read to the end of the combat section so far. So multiple spells per turn while engaged in melee are fine once they dont involve Rune magic?

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Uthred said:

So multiple spells per turn while engaged in melee are fine once they dont involve Rune magic?

If you can manage the strike ranks, and as long as they are not both attack spells.

[Joerg]

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

P315 - Casting a Rune magic spell prevents an adventurer from casting any other Rune magic, spirit magic, or sor-cery spells that round.

How about vice versa - does casting any spirit magic or sorcery first prevent an adventurer from casting Rune magic that same round? Asking because that's what my bunch of rules lawyers will ask me...

[Uthred]

Just now, Joerg said:

How about vice versa - does casting any spirit magic or sorcery first prevent an adventurer from casting Rune magic that same round? Asking because that's what my bunch of rules lawyers will ask me...

During the intent phase wouldnt you have to state you're using Rune magic thus barring you from using any other type of magic even if in strike rank terms you used Sorcery and then Rune magic?

[Joerg]

1 minute ago, Uthred said:

During the intent phase wouldnt you have to state you're using Rune magic thus barring you from using any other type of magic even if in strike rank terms you used Sorcery and then Rune magic?

At least frequently with sorcery, but also with huge castings of variable MP or hugely boosted spells it is possible to finish a spell in the next melee round. Does this prevent the character from casting a rune spell in that melee round?

[Psullie]

6 minutes ago, Joerg said:

At least frequently with sorcery, but also with huge castings of variable MP or hugely boosted spells it is possible to finish a spell in the next melee round. Does this prevent the character from casting a rune spell in that melee round?

Rune magic happens SR1. So if you are halfway through casting a Sorcery spell and suddenly decide to channel your gods power I'd say the Rune magic takes precedence but this would cancel any in progress Spirit or Sorcery magic. 

[HreshtIronBorne]

Sorcery ALWAYS takes a full round plus 2 strike ranks per,MP. It is literally impossible to use a sorcery spell in the same round as ANY other spell pretty much, unless you end the sorcery really early in a round and could maybe squeeze in a quick spirit spell. 

[Shiningbrow]

10 hours ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Sorcery ALWAYS takes a full round plus 2 strike ranks per,MP. It is literally impossible to use a sorcery spell in the same round as ANY other spell pretty much, unless you end the sorcery really early in a round and could maybe squeeze in a quick spirit spell. 

Here is where I see,a failure of the rules (at least as far as the description goes)... On SR 1, you quickly mentally petition your god to send down it's power. (For some strange reason, this always takes precisely 12 seconds, regardless of the spell, God, player or location...unless you need to power it up with magic points - although this has a contradiction in.the book).*

For some unknown reason, this petition to the gods stops you from casting any other magic, but doesn't stop you from doing anything else... 

For some bizarre reason, you can only begin this petition at the beginning of a melee round, and not in the middle (say, right after getting your leg hacked off...)

*it could be suggested that this invocation itself is going for all of that time, which would be valid.

[Uthred]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Here is where I see,a failure of the rules (at least as far as the description goes)... On SR 1, you quickly mentally petition your god to send down it's power. (For some strange reason, this always takes precisely 12 seconds, regardless of the spell, God, player or location...unless you need to power it up with magic points - although this has a contradiction in.the book).*

For some unknown reason, this petition to the gods stops you from casting any other magic, but doesn't stop you from doing anything else... 

For some bizarre reason, you can only begin this petition at the beginning of a melee round, and not in the middle (say, right after getting your leg hacked off...)

*it could be suggested that this invocation itself is going for all of that time, which would be valid.

Strike ranks explicitly aren't discrete second in the combat round. Also isn't the "bizarre reason" simply a result of the combat systems abstraction? From what I can see you cant do anything to react to your leg being hacked off, whether its rune magic or anything else, you state your intent in Phase 1 and then the Strike Ranks play out in Phase 3. There seems to be no option for "changing your mind" so the reason that Rune magic always takes place in SR1 is because it happens as soon as you think of it. 

Admittedly that interpretation may be wrong. The combat chapter is not very clearly written e.g. the fumble example on pg. 206 directly contradicting the text before it, the fact Impaling damage has "Double Damage" and Slashing damage has "Roll Damage twice" despite them being mechanically identical, and so on. It could do with another editing pass and a large worked example. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Uthred

[Bill the barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Uthred said:

Admittedly that interpretation may be wrong. The combat chapter is not very clearly written e.g. the fumble example on pg. 206 directly contradicting the text before it, the fact Impaling damage has "Double Damage" and Slashing damage has "Roll Damage twice" despite them being mechanically identical, and so on. 

Actually. in fairness, there is a game reason for doing it this way.

The ancient battlefield's big hitter with the glass jaw was the impaling spear. Get it into a foe and the damage just keeps coming. Hit it and it could well break. The slashing weapon was more something that took time to bleed a foe, but was more robust and able to take a beating. So, more damage is awarded to an impale initially and again the next round if the weapon remains impaled. 

[Uthred]

7 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Actually. in fairness, there is a game reason for doing it this way.

The ancient battlefield's big hitter with the glass jaw was the impaling spear. Get it into a foe and the damage just keeps coming. Hit it and it could well break. The slashing weapon was more something that took time to bleed a foe, but was more robust and able to take a beating. So, more damage is awarded to an impale initially and again the next round if the weapon remains impaled. 

That doesnt explain why the two subheadings have different names for literally exactly the same mechanical effect. Impaling damage, other than the additional impale effect doesnt do any more damage than slashing damage. 

RQG pg. 203 "Double Damage

An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. An impaling blow with a short spear does 2D6+2 damage points, not the normal 1D6+1. If the impaling adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage—the damage bonus is not doubled. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells."

RQG pg. 204 "Roll Damage Twice

The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. A slash with a broadsword does 2D8+2 damage points, not the normal 1D8+1. If the slashing adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the slash is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible damage (18 points in the case of the broadsword) is done to the victim in that hit location."

It's literally the same mechanical effect but has a different subheading and is written in a slightly different way, its emblematic of the kind of sloppy writing the combat chapter is full off. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Uthred

[Bill the barbarian]

14 minutes ago, Uthred said:

That doesnt explain why the two subheadings have different names for literally exactly the same mechanical effect. Impaling damage, other than the additional impale effect doesnt do any more damage than slashing damage. 

That's what I am saying, impaling does do more damage than slashing. I am not a physicist, Physician, or combat technolgist, so I can not tell you why. The larger brains or followers of said disciplines can give you the whys. I am just reapeating what I have heard for 35 years from folk who seem to know what they are talking about. that the spear on the accent battlefield did more damage, more quickly that did the slashing weapons. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Uthred]

6 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That's what I am saying, impaling does do more damage than slashing. I am not a physicist, Physician, or combat technolgist, so I an not tell you why. The larger brains or followers of said disciplines can give you the whys. I am just reapeating what I have heard for 35 years from folk who seem to know what they are talking about. that the spear on the accent battlefield did more damage, more quickly that did the slashing weapons. 

No, according to the rules they do exactly the same amount of damage when it comes to damage doubling. The extra damage impaling does is covered in a different subheading "Weapon stuck in target". The damage doubling effect for Impaling and Slashing damage, for the third time, FUNCTIONS EXACTLY THE SAME. There is no justification beyond sloppy editing for describing the same mechanical effect with different text and subheadings.  

Edited June 30, 2019 by Uthred

[Bill the barbarian]

16 minutes ago, Uthred said:

I'm sorry but, so? What does this have to with having different subheadings for the same mechanical effect? The extra damage impaling does is covered in a different subheading "Weapon stuck in target". The damage doubling effect for Impaling and Slashing damage, for the third time, FUNCTIONS EXACTLY THE SAME. There is no justification beyond sloppy editing for describing the same mechanical effect with different text and subheadings.  

I am not sure but it seems that you may be getting mad. I hope not, that would be a drag

Again, I said earlier that is there is more damage going in and if it stays in it does more damage again,   Pulling it out also causes damage, It has always been this way since I started playing RQ and this argument has happened more than a few times with someone always getting extremely annoyed and yelling  why?

 Now , one last question for you. Are you saying impaing and slashing are the same,?

Cheers

Edited June 30, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Uthred]

13 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I am not sure but it seems that you may be getting mad. I hope not, that would be a drag

Again, I said earlier that is there is more damage going in and if it stays in it does more damage again,   Pulling it out also causes damage, It has always been this way since I started playing RQ and this argument has happened a few times with someone always getting extremely annoyed and yelling  why?

 Now , one last question for you. Are you saying impaing and slashing are the same,?

Cheers

I'm genuinely confused as to what you're talking about. I thought I had been painfully clear but apparently not. I will try and make myself clear one more time and then I'm dropping it because either I am communicating this terribly or you're being deliberately obtuse. If you have the book handy maybe opening it and following along would help. But before I begin, yes I am saying that Impaling and Slashing damage (before any additional damage the impale might trigger) do the same damage. Are the physically the same? No, of course not, but who cares because thats not what this is about. Which makes it all the more bizarre that you keep bringing it up. 

Open your Runequest Glorantha to page 203. You will see a section titled "Special Damage" under that you will see a heading "Impaling Damage".  Under that there are two  sub-headings "Double Damage" and "Weapon stuck in target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads 

"An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. An impaling blow with a short spear does 2D6+2 damage points, not the normal 1D6+1. If the impaling adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage—the damage bonus is not doubled. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells."

So if a 1D8+1 Impaling weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Double Damage" "Mechanical Effect A"

Turn to page 204. You will see a heading "Slashing Damage". Under that there are two sub-headings "Roll Damage Twice" and "Incapacitating the Target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads

"The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. A slash with a broadsword does 2D8+2 damage points, not the normal 1D8+1. If the slashing adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the slash is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible damage (18 points in the case of the broadsword) is done to the victim in that hit location."
 

So if a 1D8+1 Slashing weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Roll Damage Twice" "Mechanical Effect B"

Do you understand that Mechanical Effect A is identical to Mechanical Effect B? That is the complaint. Identical mechanical effects should be labelled and written consistently. If you have a mechanical effect you dont redefine it with a different name every time its introduced. Its sloppy writing and editing. Thats the extent of the complaint. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Uthred

[Bill the barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Uthred said:

either I am communicating this terribly or you're being deliberately obtuse

Please do not enter a public forum and when some one offers an opinion call him obtuse. This is not manners. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Bill the barbarian