Some magic questions, among others

[kalyptein]

Got my HQ book last week and I've been pouring over it for a while.  I'm totally new to the system (and the world), so I'm hoping some of you old skool types can help me out with a few questions.

1) Abilities seem very narrow, which seems like it would pigeon-hole characters into limited roles, something I'd expect more from DnD than what I had read about HQ.  If I want to play a weapon master, do I have to take abilities in every single combination of weapons?  Am I doomed to "Close Combat" with improv penalties on every roll?  A "weapon master" keyword might do the trick, but it can't be improved.

This extends to other areas besides combat.  From the examples of play I remember "Bring in Harvest", "Jump Up Cliff", and "Play Harp".  Why not "Farming", "Superlative Leap", and "Musician"?  If I want to encourage my players to branch out and take fun abilities that round them out and give them character, I wouldn't want them to have to sink the majority of their points into it just to be competent.  I have this vision of character creation, "oh, you wanted to *plant* crops too?  sorry, you'll also need Sow Crops, and then you'll take an improv penalty since you didn't specify what *type* of crop you can plant.  You'll also need Sharpen Plow, Care For Mule, Hitch Mule to Plow..."  At which point the player gives up in disgust and dumps all his points into Hit Things and Avoid Getting Hurt.

I'd assume I was blowing this out of proportion, except this concern was brought on by reading the examples of play.  How's this work out in actual play?

On to magic...

2) Theism would seem to be more powerful and versitile than Wizardry.  Affinities can contain a near infinite number of feats that can be learned or improvised (limited mainly by player creativity).  Feats can be improved and also benefit from the affinity being improved.  Spells cannot be improvised or even modified much in their use.  Grimoires kind of match affinities in that they give you access to a bunch of grouped powers, but you can't improvise spells and spells cannot be raised individually (and you can have your grimoire taken away).  Is this a feature, a bug, or am I missing something about wizardry?  In the comparison of power between the styles of magic in the book, wizardry was "starts really weak but can be very powerful at the high end", yet it seems a bit weaker than theism at best, and much weaker at the low end.

3) Does an animist always have to cement charms he creates?  If a shaman is about to fight a fire demon, can he take a little time to whip up a charm of protection from fire, not spend a hero point, and after the adventure just say he gambled it away/freed the spirit/gave it to the local tribe in case the demon came back/etc?  Is animism meant to have this kind of on the fly flexibility, or is each new charm meant to be paid for with hero points and made a permanent part of the character?

4) Magic works "here, now, against that".  To recreate the classic fireball, you'd use your Firebolt power and take a target number penalty to increase the number of targets, right?  If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

That's enough of a brain dump for now.  I really like the look of HQ, but there's definitely some nuances I need to understand before I'd try running it.

Alex

[Mike Holmes]

Cool post. I'm interested in the answers about the magic stuff myself as I haven't read that close enough to answer those (but I do know that it's more expensive to become a Devotee than it is to become an Adept). But I can speak to the breadth issue.

1) Abilities seem very narrow, which seems like it would pigeon-hole characters into limited roles, something I'd expect more from DnD than what I had read about HQ.  If I want to play a weapon master, do I have to take abilities in every single combination of weapons?  Am I doomed to "Close Combat" with improv penalties on every roll?  A "weapon master" keyword might do the trick, but it can't be improved.

Use Weapons Master to augment your Close Combat. Get good enough, and you can overcome any improv penalty. Ain't that cool?

In any case, this is realistic. People don't really learn to use all manner of weapons, and have to train in each individually. HQ with augmenting does a good job of making sure that you can represent the way one ability can help with another.

And, lastly, if you don't want combat to be a big focus of the game, you can change how that works by changing the weapon abilities to whatever you like. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for exactly, however. Would you just want a "Melee Weapons" Ability or something?

This extends to other areas besides combat.  From the examples of play I remember "Bring in Harvest", "Jump Up Cliff", and "Play Harp".  Why not "Farming", "Superlative Leap", and "Musician"?

Remember that you're going to have a ton of Abilities. Farmer is a keyword that contains things like Bringing in Harvest. Hero Quest is really very detailed. If you kept the total number of Abilities and made them each really broad, every character would be a jack of all trades.

If I want to encourage my players to branch out and take fun abilities that round them out and give them character, I wouldn't want them to have to sink the majority of their points into it just to be competent.  I have this vision of character creation, "oh, you wanted to *plant* crops too?  sorry, you'll also need Sow Crops, and then you'll take an improv penalty since you didn't specify what *type* of crop you can plant.  You'll also need Sharpen Plow, Care For Mule, Hitch Mule to Plow..."  At which point the player gives up in disgust and dumps all his points into Hit Things and Avoid Getting Hurt.

Keywords, Keywords, Keywords. The depth comes from getting all these abilities that come along with the keywords. Remember that an ability at 17 is pretty good; even a 13 isn't bad for something outside of the keyword. So you don't have to dump any points into these at all. Yes, you have to take them, but you don't have to pump them up unless that's what the character is all about.

I'd assume I was blowing this out of proportion, except this concern was brought on by reading the examples of play.  How's this work out in actual play?

It works spectacularly well. By noting narrow things about the character, you do create realistic, interesting, and well differentiated characters. Have you looked at the sample characters in the book or on the site? What abilities are missing from these characters? Which would you expand? Heck, I can see being a Farmer who knew how to play one instument, or a Musician who knew how to plant, but how many people really are both? HQ represents this well. You have one culture, one occupation, and one Magic keyword. This alone makes for a reasonable character.

For copmparison, do you have a system that you think does a better job of this? So we can see what your standard is?

Mike

[Peter Nordstrand]

Hi,

- Keywords
While it is correct that keywords cannot be improved, individual abilities can. So, while a warrior cannot improve his Warrior keyword, he can improve his Scout ability, which is part of the keyword.

- Is Theism more Powerful?
Yes, affinities can be used to improvise feats. There is no equivalent in wizardry. Does this mean that theism is more powerful? Let's take a closer look, but bear in mind that a situation like the one below is purely academic. It will most certainly never come up in play, since there will be modifiers involved, and characters will be augmenting.

An initiate of Destor (p. 123) is fighting a magical duel with an orderly of Saint Gerlant (p. 170).

The initiate uses his Movement affinity @ 17 to improvise a feat that will paralyze his opponent (That's creative, I'd allow it). Assuming that he has concentrated his magic, and no other modifiers apply, his rating in the Paralyze feat is 17 -5 = 12. He faces a minimum resistance of 14, thus giving him approximately 40% chance of rolling a marginal victory or better.

The orderly uses his Burn Pagan spell @ 17 to defeat his barbarian opponent. He gets to use his full ability rating of 17, the minimum resistance is 14, giving him almost 50% chance of rolling a marginal victory or better.

Oh, wait a minute, they are fighting each other, right? Assuming that we make this a simple contests (the vast majority of contests, including combats, should be simple contests) they roll the dice against each other. That's 12 vs. 17 (or possibly 14 vs. 17, since 14 is the minimum magical resistance). Is the theist still the most powerful?

Now, take a look at the hero improvement costs. To increase an affinity +1 costs 3 hero points if you have concentrated your magic. To increase a spell costs only 1.

In real play things would be much less predictable. What augments are the characters using? Hell, what abilities are they using? Are they members of a hero band, or some other community whose guardian gives them a bonus? The orderly will always benefit from a whole bunch of blessings that are going to be on at all times. Are the characters getting community support? I could go on and on.

Game balance is a slippery thing, in HeroQuest particularly so. The game looks deceivingly straightforward, but it has nuances that you will probably only discover in play. The only thing you really need to know is this: The most powerful character is the one using the ability with the highest target number. But then, again, that is complicated by the use of hero points...

- Spells can be raised.
Spells can be raised individually. You need to re-read the appropriate sections in the book. Orderly spell is on page 161 (for orderlies), wizardry spells and grimoires (used only by adepts) on p. 164. Note that magic works differently for different kinds of worshippers. Wizardry is complex, but I love it.

- Charms
Hm. I haven't thought about this. Also, I've never actually tried out the animism rules in play. Give me a little while to check this out. I'm sure, however, that animism is not a "get any ability for free" magic system.

- Fireball

If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

You have to divide the AP loss among the opponents as usual.

I really like the look of HQ, but there's definitely some nuances I need to understand before I'd try running it.

You can read the rulebook and try to sort things out that way, but eventually you will learn more by actually playing the game. If you feel a little overwhelmed, stick with theism to begin with and run a mini campaign of a couple of sessions.

Hope this helps,

/Peter N

[kalyptein]

By noting narrow things about the character, you do create realistic, interesting, and well differentiated characters. Have you looked at the sample characters in the book or on the site? What abilities are missing from these characters? Which would you expand? Heck, I can see being a Farmer who knew how to play one instument, or a Musician who knew how to plant, but how many people really are both? HQ represents this well. You have one culture, one occupation, and one Magic keyword. This alone makes for a reasonable character.

Realism is definitely not my first concern.  I want to allow heros the kind of breadth they have in movies.  The swashbuckling pirate doesn't commandeer a ship and then realize he can't sail sloops, only schooners.  The sage can comment on pretty much any supernatural phenomenon even if his magic is all about Fire.  Its the NPCs who are stuck with realistic scopes to their skill.  Even if your tribe only grows corn, if you've made your character a Farmer, I'm darn sure going to let you try and apply your skill to just about any plant related issue.  There will probably only be so many plots about plants, let alone just corn (unless of course everyone is a farmer or the whole game is about fertility magic or something), that I wouldn't want to deprive the player of his limelight.

Having said all that, you definitely have a point.  Three keywords does give bigger range than I was thinking about at first.  And comparing it to movies and such, each character does typically have 1 schtick.  The warrior may be able to fight with any weapon, but he just plays the harp if he plays anything; its the bard who can sing and play any instrument, but only fights well with a rapier.

For comparison, do you have a system that you think does a better job of this? So we can see what your standard is?

I guess I have a better idea of what I don't want than what I do.  If I was sure of the right system I'd be off playing it =)  I do know that DnD isn't it.  I'm rather fond of Feng Shui, but for a less over-the-top game, its skills are actually *too* broad for my tastes.  Just can't satisfy some people I guess...

Oh, wait a minute, they are fighting each other, right? Assuming that we make this a simple contests (the vast majority of contests, including combats, should be simple contests) they roll the dice against each other. That's 12 vs. 17 (or possibly 14 vs. 17, since 14 is the minimum magical resistance). Is the theist still the most powerful?

I'm still not used to this combat-by-simple-contest thing.  Point taken though.  Matching strengths and weaknesses is far more important.

- Charms
Hm. I haven't thought about this. Also, I've never actually tried out the animism rules in play. Give me a little while to check this out. I'm sure, however, that animism is not a "get any ability for free" magic system.

Not for free.  I'd assume it would require some minimum time, and an appropriate spirit.  In my fire demon example, maybe you need a frost spirit, which might be absent from the demon's desert lair, or it might have driven them all away, forcing you to go on a side quest if you want to find one.

Quote:
If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

You have to divide the AP loss among the opponents as usual.

So basically there's no point to taking the penalty to increase a power's scope in combat.  In a simple contest you'd just roll the power and if you win you defeat all your opponents anyway, or you split the AP in an extended contest.  Actually, now I can't think of too many cases where I'd bother.  Easier to heal all my friends one at a time, or turn them invisible one by one, or whatever.  Unless I had to do it in a big hurry.  Hmm, any more of my questions I'd like to answer?

Thanks for the help!

Alex

[Bankuei]

Hi Alex,

Regarding the narrow/broadness of the typical skills, you could also rule to play with broader ranged skills, but also recognize that you'd probably be speeding up advancement by about 4 to 5 times, which may be just fine for you(it is for me).

Chris

[newsalor]

Hi, Alex

1) Abilities seem very narrow, which seems like it would pigeon-hole characters into limited roles, something I'd expect more from DnD than

You can always adjust the improvisational penalties to you taste. If you think that playing the harp familiarises you with horns, hit the only with a penalty of -3, or something like that. HeroQuest is a toolbox, use it to fit your campaing and tastes. Also, I think that "Bring in the Harvest" is a very broad ability. IMO it aplies to everything associated with bringing it the harvest, not just carrying it from the fields to your stead.

Anyway, the abilities are broad. Let's examine your basic farmer. Let's say that he has 5W in "Bring in the Harvest". That means that he can do many things related to that and propably can improvise things like "Shoo Animals Away from Fields" with an improvisational modifier.

Let's see that weaponmaster. If he has Sword and Shield close combat, I'd let him fight with -3 with only a sword, -3 with two swords, but something like -5 with a spear and -10 with a lance. "-3" isn't crippling. It means that he is not comfortable fighting with odd weapons. Now, the keywords often have several styles of combat, so I don't think this is a problem. The same goes for Sword & Shield vs. Fyrd combat. . .

3) Does an animist always have to cement charms he creates? If a shaman is about to fight a fire demon, can he take a little time to whip up a charm of protection from fire, not spend a hero point, and after the adventure just say he gambled it away/freed the spirit/gave it to the local tribe in case the demon came back/etc? Is animism meant to have this kind of on the fly flexibility, or is each new charm meant to be paid for with hero points and made a permanent part of the character?

IMO you don't have to cement each charm. Story-wise you can handle this by saying that your ancestor agreed to help you against this demon or whatever. Animism is flexible, but remember that you generally only deal with the spirits known to your tradition.

4) Magic works "here, now, against that". To recreate the classic fireball, you'd use your Firebolt power and take a target number penalty to increase the number of targets, right? If this happens in an extended contest, and you cause AP loss, do you have to divide the AP loss among the targets they way you would if you attacked multiple people in one round with a sword, or have you already paid that price in the form of the initial target number penalty?

HQ is a toolbox. IMO it doesn't define set ways of doing things. "Fireball delas 6D6 dmg to everyone within 10' radius of the point of impact" is just not what HQ is about. If the fight is not that important or climatic, I'd recommed that you just use simple contest and just roll the thing with 2 dice and tell what happened. If you want to use it in an Extended contest you could rule that a serius opponent and his followers were under it and no-one else is affected or you could rule that it is just like attacking several targets with the sword etc. If you want fireballs to be effective you can go easy on then, if not . . .

Also, I'd say that I'm not the right person to answer this conundrum. You can find extra guidance from HQ-Rules at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hw-rules/.

[dunlaing]

Realism is definitely not my first concern.  I want to allow heros the kind of breadth they have in movies.  The swashbuckling pirate doesn't commandeer a ship and then realize he can't sail sloops, only schooners.

The easiest way to deal with this is just to give lower improv penalties than the book recommends.

So if your Pirate has Sail Schooner, give him a -2 to sail sloops. That's not a big difference, but the pirate still has a particular type of ship that he's better at sailing.

[Tim Ellis]

[quote="kalyptein]
Realism is definitely not my first concern.  I want to allow heros the kind of breadth they have in movies.  The swashbuckling pirate doesn't commandeer a ship and then realize he can't sail sloops, only schooners.  The sage can comment on pretty much any supernatural phenomenon even if his magic is all about Fire.[/quote]

So the Pirate has the keyword "Swashbuckling Pirate 17" - This means he can do all manner of Pirate-y things at a rating of 17 - Sail Sloops, Schooners, or rowboats. Sing Sea Shanties, Draw Treasure Maps, Splice Maibraces and Shiver Timbers (etc etc). That's before you get to add any points on in character creation or through play.  So say you have added 10 points to "Sail Schooner", making it "Sail Schooner 7W".  
Now you commandeer a sloop and the GM says "Your skill is 17 from your Pirate keyword"
You reply "But I have 'Sail Schooner' -can't I improvise from that" and the GM says "OK, but at -5" , leaving you with 2w.

The sage works in a similar way - "Sage 17" gives you a chance to know stuff about anything (the GM may impose modifiers for obscurer stuff - or just make the resistance higher - "Can I tell what the villains secret weakness is with my 'Know stuff 17?" - "Sure, the resistance is is 7W4, so even if you critical and I fumble it will still be bounced to me getting a critical and you only succeeding...")

[Mike Holmes]

Did I say realism? Bad Mike. Does Plausibility work better for you? The point is to make characters that have depth to them that makes them interesting. If all your abilitties are like "farmer" and "Musician" that doesn't tell us very much about what instruments he likes, or what sort of farming he does. The point that people are making is that the Keywords give you broad areas of competence that "fill in the holes" and the specific abilities serve to really flesh the character out. This is the best of both worlds.

I now have some comments on the Magic. :-)

I'd definitely allow charms to be made and lost as you suggest. It seems to totally be how it would work for most abilities. For example, I can probably use a smithing ability to create a sword with similar bonuses. But I can only keep it if I Cement it. Basically, all Abilities have some power to create temporary bonuses and Abilities (limited as you and others have suggested by plausibility, time, resources, etc). But only by Cementing can you keep them.

I'm really confused about the fireball thing. What would you prefer? That the same number of AP be taken from all the opponents? The TN penalty is not a compensation for this. You have the same penalty if you're using a weapon against multiple opponents (actually spells have less of a penalty when you get to really big numbers of people). So that's what multiple target modifier balances. If you made a spell do the same AP to all targets, then spells would way outstrip the power of normal abilities. I'd gladly lower my TN a few points to multiply the power of the ability many times.

AP aren't hit points. They're a representation of how close I am to success. For example, if I win with the fireball, I can describe how it blows out the platform on which they're standing, droping them all into the pit below. It doesn't have to do "damage" per se at all. So the "power" of an Ability is the power of an ability. A 17 in sword and a 17 in fireball have the same game effect in almost all respects. If that seems weak to you, then get the level of your fireball up higher so that it compares favorably. Don't blame the game for being well balanced.

This isn't easy for people who aren't used to it to wrap their heads around. But it's a very cool way to do things, and not any harder than any other way (in fact, in most ways it's much easier).

Mike

[elgorade]

I haven't played HQ yet, so if I got a chance to, I might find my question is meaningless in play.  But since I haven't, I'll ask instead, and hope someone can help.

Given the above discussion, I don't understand why (in an extended contest) you would fireball a group rather than firebolt your main enemy.  You take a penalty for doing so, but in the end the APs taken from the main enemy and his followers is the same.  Sure, the fireball is flashier than just a bolt of flame.  What I'm curious about is whether there is anything you get from the mechanics in exchange for the mechanical penalty you take?

Elgorade

[dunlaing]

elgorade:

It all depends on how the contest is being run (leaving aside whether it's cooler to fireball them and such things, I'm only considering the game mechanics).

It sounds like you're assuming that you're in an extended contest against one opponent who has a bunch of followers and they're all adding AP to him, not acting as seperate opponents. In that case, either one works exactly the same. You don't take a penalty for multiple targets since you're only attacking one target. Even though that one target is "Fishface and his band of Mermen". So assuming you have a Fire Affinity of 7W, are specialized, and have no appropriate feats, your Firebolt would be 2W (that's with the -5 for improvising a feat) and your Fireball would be 2W (you only take the -5 for improvising since you're only attacking one target)

If the Narrator sets the contest up differently, though, you might be fighting several opponents (Fishface, Merman 1, Merman 2, and Merman 3).  In that case, using your 2W Firebolt against Fishface won't do anything to his followers. They still have all of their AP and can act. On the other hand, if you cast a Fireball on all of them, you would get to divide the AP loss among them (possibly taking some of them out). Of course, you could just as easily shoot a Firebolt at each one (zap, zap, zap) as one action, but you take the same multiple targets penalty as if you Fireballed them.

So basically, you take the multiple targets penalty only if you have multiple Opponents to target. Followers just adding AP don't count as additional Opponents.

[kalyptein]

I'm really confused about the fireball thing. What would you prefer? That the same number of AP be taken from all the opponents? The TN penalty is not a compensation for this. You have the same penalty if you're using a weapon against multiple opponents (actually spells have less of a penalty when you get to really big numbers of people). So that's what multiple target modifier balances. If you made a spell do the same AP to all targets, then spells would way outstrip the power of normal abilities. I'd gladly lower my TN a few points to multiply the power of the ability many times.

Well that was basically the question.  In lots of games, swords are the slow-and-steady method, and sorcery gives a quick, highly effective bang.  Looking at the rules, it certainly didn't seem like a TN penalty was equal to multiplying your AP loss inflicted, and HQ magic isn't limited in its use per day/combat/etc, but who knows.  After all, its not like the warrior types can't use magic too.  The mage spreads his Firebolt and hits a bunch of people, the warrior spreads his Whirlwind Strike and hits a bunch of people.  It was such an obvious thing for a player to ask about, I figured I'd get a more informed answer.

On the other hand, if you cast a Fireball on all of them, you would get to divide the AP loss among them (possibly taking some of them out).

Oh, duh.  You need to spread the spell just to give yourself that option.  No spreading, no division of AP loss.  Comprehension dawns.

Another magical situation I was wondering about: How would you handle something like a petrification spell (assuming a mage good enough to get by the increased resistance for transforming someone)?  In an extended contest I'd assume you keep "missing" your target until he runs out of AP and finally gets tagged.  But petrification is pretty binary, you're rock or you aren't.  How would that work if you get less than a Complete Victory?  Or is this kind of save-or-die magic just not something appropriate to Glorantha?  Would it be sensible to say you're petrified, but it wears off in a few hours on a Minor Victory?  It does leave you worse off after a fight than a normal I-got-wounded result would, but you're if you're defeated by an enemy, you're pretty much at their mercy anyway, right?

Alex

[elgorade]

Ah.  That helps.  I wasn't clearly making the distinction between follows just adding ap and followers acting on their own.  

Elgorade

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

One consideration is that effects don't take place until after the resolution is over.  This allows a lot of leeway for Fortune in the Middle style juggling of events...  So, a successful roll with Swordfighting in the middle of the extended contest could be a flesh wound, or even just a close call that puts a chink in the foe's armor, while the same roll at the end of the contest could be a solid blow, or knocking your foe unconcious with the hilt.

Bringing this over to the idea of petrification, it could be either a "slow working spell" working in many ways like a poison, that takes time to kick in, it could require a lot of magical concentration to pull off(hence multiple rolls), or it could be as described, miss, miss, hit.  

On note of splitting spells and taking the penalty, you're limited to handing out 1 hurt(-1 penalty) in a single roll against a single opponent... So if you split between 3 opponents, and hit them for a total of 21 AP, you could then confer all of it to hurts, giving each of them a -1 to the rest of the contest.  It could be very useful in a group combat.

Chris

[NickHollingsworth]

How would you handle something like a petrification spell ... petrification is pretty binary, you're rock or you aren't. How would that work if you get less than a Complete Victory? Or is this kind of save-or-die magic just not something appropriate to Glorantha?  

Its appropriate if you want  it to be. Remember that you have carte blanc to describe the AP loss in terms you find suitable. The mechanics tell you how many AP point are lost. You decide what you want that to mean in the ongoing narrative.

For example if you get a success against Ruric with your petrification spell and take off half his AP the narrative could be:

"Ruric feels his joints fusing and his muscles calcify. Fear spurs his spirit and he struggles to throw off the evil magic. He struggles - and then shatters the spell. His skin which had become grey returns to its normal tone. But the effort has exhausted him and worse, his enemies have taken advantage of his lack of concentration to close."

or it could be:

"Ruric feels his joints fusing and his muscles calcifying. Fear spurs his spirit and he struggles to throw off the evil magic. He struggles - and finally he succeeds. But not before it has stiffened his flesh and left him with a unhealthy grey palour. His enemies are closing and he struggles to move his unresponsive body to defend himself."

The mechanical effects of losing half his AP are the same. The situation you describe and the implications on what skills he can now use and modifiers he will suffer may not be.

Since my background is RuneQuest, which is very rule based, it took me a while to realise that its OK to think in terms of modifiers and not just straight forward AP number crunching and that this meant the jointly agreed narrative, which is what we use to agree on the modifiers, has a massive affect on the odds. (Hope that makes sense).

If extended contests where just about AP attrition it would be a bit dull IMO.