[Circle of Hands] Noxify

[Nyhteg]

Is this spell as awful and handy as it sounds?
By pumping to three Brawn could a caster effectively disarm a roomful of opponents by covering their weapons and shields (and armour and clothes and...) in foul gunk?  What does the limitation of 'organic' exclude, though? Metals? Stone? Wood (like spear shafts, say)?

Is there a way to cancel or reverse this once cast? I couldn't see one and spells I thought would do the trick (Purify, say) specifically exclude it.

G

[Ron Edwards]

Yes, Noxify is horrid and works just as you envision. There is no specific reversal or counter, although the generic oppositional spells will do the job.

I went to some effort to unbalance black and white magic; I really didn't want them each to have a "bolt," each to have a "shield," each to have a perfect counter to the other in a paired fashion, or for such counters, to choose them very carefully like Bless/Curse. Instead, I wanted each to work well on its own terms.

Metal and stone are not organic. Wood is. I confess to chemistry geekery in this regard, for which "organic" has a very specific meaning, of compounds ultimately derived from fructose and glucose - all carbohydrates, proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids. It doesn't mean "living" and it doesn't mean "natural."

[Ron Edwards]

Small clarification: therefore the eligible target for the spell must be composed of organic molecules as described above, and also not be (currently) living. Therefore most clothing, wood, and plenty of other items are affected, but metal items including armor and living flesh are not.

Reflect, Sink, and Absorb may be the best magical options in this context. Not that you're telling the players enough for them to know that.

[Moreno R.]

chemistry geekery / rules lawyering questions:

1) grass is "living" in that sense? What about vegetation in general?

2) it doesn't work on the METAL of armor, but would it not work on the padding inside the helm and armor, the gambeson, the wooden shield, the wooden handle of a sword, the boots? What does it mean "unusable" in this context?

3) cast on a flask of olive oil, or vine: can you carry it around, and when you need it, remove the cork and throw it in the face of an opponent?

[Ron Edwards]

1. Grass and other living vegetation are unaffected. Water is unaffected although it might get gunk in it depending on the circumstances.

2. You are absolutely right about the necessary cloth and leather which accompany metal armor, and that is exactly what I had in mind. Use the advantage rule accordingly.

3. The spell is subject to its duration (instant), so the noxified substance cannot be used as a secondary application of the spell. If one were, for instance, to try a Quickness vs. 12 roll to get some into a flask for some reason, the flask would be affected - metal canteens are not used in the Crescent Land.

[Nyhteg]

Cool, thanks for the insight.

So in terms of tactical use against armed opponents, say, the 'unusuable' part is more along the lines of it being nasty and tricky to fight with gear and weapons? Opponents in a clash would typically get the advantage die, rather than 'weapons rendered useless, effectively disarmed'?

G

[Ron Edwards]

Depends. That question is framed in a way which seems too modular for Circle of Hands

I'm not criticizing that type of framing outright, because as it happens I'm admiring its utility in D&D 4E. It uses completely generic rules concepts, such that any imagined situation is mechanically composed of a limited set of variables, and "the rules" concern only those variables - all else is pure Color.

Don't get me wrong either that I'm saying "GM makes up whatever happens and the player basks in the glory of his Vision (Story, whatever)." I'm really not. I'm saying the rules are applied in context of how you see things occurring at the fictional moment the rules hit. They require your imaginative commitment not to what you want to see occur in terms of outcomes, but in terms of what you see right now, about what is going on.

Therefore, the operating principles for Noxify are laid out - if you apply them to the situation as you understand and envision it, you'll find they work fine. A fellow attacks Eckhart with a spear, Eckhart pumps a Brawn to go first and Noxifies him, and the spear's haft is eligible as a target, as are some other things, and then you apply the combat rules in all their details, which are written to be applied to the immediate circumstances, to the new circumstances. If instead he's using a steel sword, well, the situation is different, and would have to be assessed anew.

But I'm not even going to say, "Noxify destroys spears and doesn't destroy swords." There are a lot of things going on in that moment, and you have to be working with the kind of commitment to what's just been played and said that I'm talking about.

[Nyhteg]

Understood. I see where you're coming from and that makes total sense, thanks.

G