[Circle of Hands 1.1] Rules questions about spells

[Moreno R.]

Hi Ron!

Some questions about spells (some are still lingering from the previous draft, others are new)

1) Grow (p). Target person, beast, demon, or avatar visibly increases to between one-half again and twice its usual size. Benefits include combat advantage in many circumstances, the ability to apply force at the new size scale, immunity to arrows similar to the rules for beasts and monsters, and +2 to the damage the target delivers. Note that the target's actual Brawn score remains unchanged.

Armor, weapons and equipment grow with the character? What happen if this spell is cast on someone wearing mail?

2) Righteousness (p). If the target weapon or its wielder is subject to attacking magic, and if it or they survive, it inflicts 3 additional BQ damage until the Righteousness' duration is ended.

What does count as "attacking magic"? It has to be a kind of magic that cause BQ damage, or that can have lethal effects, or even spells as "dazzle" count? What about a weapon attack that is using magic-given bonuses?

If I am understanding the modification correctly, now the spell can be cast every morning or every night as before, but it doesn't give any bonus until the target survives a magic attack (as defined above), right?

3) Link (p, r). The caster and one designated person, avatar, demon, or beast may use one to three of one another's character points as bonuses at will, stating the amount and the attribute per action. While being used in this fashion, the points are unavailable to their original owner. The points do not revert and are re-stated with each action.

What does it mean "they don't revert"? That the original owner can use them only after the one who was using them change and restate the points he is using, or that he can't use them for a different duration?

4) Sacrifice (i): The caster must kill a person or beast before casting this spell, which is its own physical action. For each 3 of the victim's Brawn, one point is stored as per Store Power, usable by the caster except for black magic rather than white. The stored Brawn may be used for an enchantment, in which case the caster suffers no permanent B loss.

The victim has to be killed in a particular way, or the spell can be cast even on a foe just killed in battle?

[Nyhteg]

I've got another one. I'm slightly confused by Confuse:

Confuse (i). The target person or beast becomes incapable of targeting other characters in any way, or of speaking, until he or she pumps at least one point of Brawn to counteract the effect.

I see that it's categorised as an instant spell, but is it intended that the target remains Confused until a point of B spent, or that they are briefly Confused (lose next action or some such) unless a point of B is spent to counteract the spell at the moment of casting?

Can the caster pump B to make it harder to resist? It seems like that might be implied in the description too.

G

[Nyhteg]

OK. So I may have de-confused myself since posting...

I think the key was to understand what i, p, r, and c actually mean.
The thrust of the categories is not the 'speed of casting' or 'duration of effect' but the period of time during which the spell is vulnerable to counter-magic.

Instant spells are countered only at the moment of casting; prolonged and creation spells can be countered for the whole time the spell is in effect; rituals can be countered both during the ritual itself and during the window of its other category when the spell is cast.

If that's right, then my question about Confuse mostly goes away.
It's instant, in that your only chance to counter the spell with Absorb or whatever, is the moment when it's cast; but its effect - Confusion - lasts until B is spent to overcome it.
It's just like Blast. The casting is instant, the effect (being Blasted) lasts until you heal the damage.

I'm still not sure about pumping it for stronger effect though...

G

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Moreno,

Most of your questions are my questions too.

1) Grow (p). ...

Armor, weapons and equipment grow with the character? What happen if this spell is cast on someone wearing mail?

This is a good example. I'm not sure. It is too "fairy tale" for me to have all these things be increased in size along with the character's body. However, the potential for the naked-giant to become comedy is also present.

I could junk the spell, but at present I'll try the latter and hope the (lesser) absurdity turns out to be OK in play.

In which case, when the spell takes effect, all the armor, weapons, clothes, and similar are shunted away from the character's body, unharmed.

2) Righteousness (p). ...

What does count as "attacking magic"? It has to be a kind of magic that cause BQ damage, or that can have lethal effects, or even spells as "dazzle" count? What about a weapon attack that is using magic-given bonuses?

Any of the things you list. Magic directed against the character of any spell type.

If I am understanding the modification correctly, now the spell can be cast every morning or every night as before, but it doesn't give any bonus until the target survives a magic attack (as defined above), right?

Right.

3) Link (p, r). ...

What does it mean "they don't revert"? That the original owner can use them only after the one who was using them change and restate the points he is using, or that he can't use them for a different duration?

I knew you'd be asking about this one. I mean that while two characters are linked, and whenever either gets his or her turn to act, then this character (only) can "grab" a point from the other. If the attribute is different from the previous choice (e.g. currently this character has borrowed a point of Q but now wants a point of B), then the old point reverts to its owner. Each character can do this on his or her turn to act. Another option is to return the current point to its owner without gaining one.

Therefore at any given time, each linked character may have only one borrowed point from the other.

4) Sacrifice (i): ...

The victim has to be killed in a particular way, or the spell can be cast even on a foe just killed in battle?

This is another one I've been waiting to see more in playtests. I GMed it badly last weekend, permitting the death of the animal to be synonymous with the spell, and for some reason agreeing that a donky provided 9 B, which is ridiculous. Given the power of the spell as written at the time, given that I didn't consider that killing a donkey should be problem of its own (and ascending the poor little bugger so it could fight back), and given that Blast was over-powered as well, the effect of the combo was astronomically higher than it should have been, and much much faster.

So at present, I'm inclined to think that play-experience indicated that the spells were broken and that I mis-played the killing, not that the killing itself should have been more complicated. I do want it to be a combat-useful spell, which is why it's not a ritual. I'm thinking that since the spells are now better balanced in effect, and since I'm specifying that the killing has to be an action, with difficulties and implications depending on its own circumstances, that the killing itself doesn't have to be done in any special way. So yes, a foe just slain in battle will do.

Which is sort of nasty. I've been enjoying the way some players shudder when they see the in-play effects of a black spell. (Mind) Rip and (Cloud of) Hate are good examples. I think that fighting and killing someone normally, stressful and intense as it is, turns into something else quite horrid if the winner then casts Sacrifice over the body.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gethyn,

You've de-confused yourself very successfully, so I think the only question remaining concerns pumping in general.

I think some legacy text is messing things up a bit, so I'll fix it. The intention is that a few spells can be pumped for higher effect, like Blast, but only where indicated in the spell's text. All other spells may be pumped only when oppositional magic is involved, and if the spell does take effect, it's only to the degree described in the spell text.

[Jonas Ferry]

Which is sort of nasty. I've been enjoying the way some players shudder when they see the in-play effects of a black spell. (Mind) Rip and (Cloud of) Hate are good examples. I think that fighting and killing someone normally, stressful and intense as it is, turns into something else quite horrid if the winner then casts Sacrifice over the body.

This was my first thought when I read Moreno's question. I want sacrifice to available in battle. I image a Circle knight, immediately after having killed a foe, shouting on the top of their lungs "I SACRIFICE THIS SOUL TO THE DARK FORCES OF RBAJA!". I mean, sure, you get a bonus now, but that's some heavy stuff. Are you still one of the good guys? Who knows what happens to a sacrificed soul? People who hear this probably won't look at you the same way afterwards.

[Ron Edwards]

Even more so! One might narrate this spell as plunging a bone knife into the corpse and seeing it instantly shrivel into a horrible contorted mummy, while a scream in the already-dead person's voice splits the air.

Instead of saying, "Oh, the locals are superstitious and therefore unaccountably distrust magic," I see the players knowing flat-out, without need for discussion, that people don't like you when you do stuff like this.

[Moreno R.]

Ron, it's something I have thought at first reading of both drafts... don't you think the magic section would benefit by a having a more detailed (and graphic) description of what you have to do to cast each spell? The combat chapter details the differences of the weapons, the way they are used, how the shield was really used... and then the magic chapter is like "make up a description as you want, take this +2".  But the description of how each spell is cast would go a long way into creating the setting at the table, and give a more concrete depiction of how black and white magic would appear to the character.

Another suggestion: some "beneficial" spells, like "Grow", can be turned into attack spell very easily. Some of that can be limited adding to the description (like the bit about shunting the armor), but adding a condition to some spells that the target has to agree and be willing, could go a long way into avoiding this kind of use.

[Ron Edwards]

Upon looking at the text, the Link spell permits one to three points to be active in this way. Keep that detail, with the added content that the 1-3 points are the total limit of current points in a linked state, not up to three per individual.

At this point, I'm leaning toward keeping Link limited only to two individuals, without the admittedly tempting potential to permit bigger groups.

Moreno, please: I do not want "how to write" suggestions at this time. Not at all. It is very counter-productive. Take notes of this kind, make a list, and wait for when I ask for it.

edited in order to make the whole damned post make sense, in the bolded word. - RE

[Ron Edwards]

I was thinking some more about Grow and realized that it only ever made sense in my mind if the target were a beast. So obviously it needs to become a beast-only spell. That solves a lot of problems regarding armor - e.g., casting Grow on a foe to strip him or her of armor.

Moreno, if the spell were limited to targeting beasts, do you see a potential for broken or hostile uses? The only one I can think of is casting it upon a creature in a confined space, to crush it - and I don't really think of that as broken, in fact it's not a bad application.

[Moreno R.]

Moreno, if the spell were limited to targeting beasts, do you see a potential for broken or hostile uses? The only one I can think of is casting it upon a creature in a confined space, to crush it - and I don't really think of that as broken, in fact it's not a bad application.

About the target:
Only normal, mundane beast, or even magical or summoned ones?
It would be cumulate with the black spell "beast"?
What about the tally item "Shape-shift into mutant wolf – effective Beast Shape spell, once per adventure"?

About hostile use, the ones I see:
- cast it on a flying beast, to force it to land (the mass could become too big for the wings).
- cast it on a horse to cause the fall of the rider (the horse growth would be confined by the saddle, and in any case the rider would have difficulties in riding a much bigger beast.
- if not controlled the beast could run away scared by what's happening.

None seems a very effective way to consume Brawn, the beast could be scared away by a confuse, itch or paralyze instead, and the first one could be more probably a possible drawback on using the spell on a summoned hawk or eagle, so it's something that probably should be specified in the text (if a flying creature could still fly under that spell) for that reason.

[Ron Edwards]

About the target:
Only normal, mundane beast, or even magical or summoned ones?

Magical and summoned for sure! I love the idea of summoning a magical wolf and then making it huge.

It would be cumulate with the black spell "beast"?
What about the tally item "Shape-shift into mutant wolf – effective Beast Shape spell, once per adventure"?

I think so, but in these cases, the target must be willing.

I think the hostile uses are pretty interesting, in the realm of viable tactics rather than breaking the intent of the rules. I also think I can put in a proviso that Grow never impedes normal animal function like flying or whatever.

Thanks! This helps a lot.

[Nyhteg]

Hi Ron

Just a quick question or two I know my players will raise:

How come Wrath is simpler to cast than Distort?
An instant spell vs a 3-point ritual (ie 3 hours in the casting).

Is it right to assume the zones created by these spells are permanent?
I mean Distort is listed as a creation spell which nit-picky types might insist lasts until sunup/sundown...

G

[Ron Edwards]

These spells have different creative histories and are currently not well curated. I won't be finished with them until I decide how the zones come into existence without magic (if they do), and how they may be destroyed through the Circle's activity. In that context, I'll have a better idea of how I want them to work.

I do know that Wrath will not be a ritual, though.

[Ron Edwards]

My thinking continues ... one of my goals from all the way back in Gray Magick was for black and white magic not to be mirrors of one another. My favorite Magic expansions were those which emphasized completely different strategies for the various colors of magic, rather than each one having its own basically identical array of tactics. I have yet to go through the newest round of Circle of Hands magic to make sure I see this difference consistently.