> Exactly! Just like light cavalrymen, who, if they have fast horses, don't need
> to use mobility spells to move faster - perish the thought! In a magic-rich
> society such as Glorantha I'm sure they'd always reject any form of magical
> stimulants to help them perform better.
Despite Davids savage attack of sarcasm, he is missing the point here, which is that I do not object to spells that are useful to soldiers, or even spells that are more useful to Hoplites than other soldiers. I do object to spells that have enormous inbuilt restrictions on them merely to enforce appropriate cult fighting style. Think about it. Is the cult any worse off if the restrictions are removed? Is game balance thrown into serious disarray? Does the cults combat style change at all? No. So there are no disadvantages to removing the restrictions. Are there advantages to removing them? Well, it makes playing a Hoplite PC a bit more fun , it avoids silly rules lawyer arguments based on them, it gives you the potential to have fun with 'folk magic' style extra uses for the spells. And it seems a lot more consistent with normal RQ practice.
My argument is that there is no reason for the restrictions (any reasonably played group os Hoplites will form Shield Walls anyway) and leads to all sorts of silly complications.
> a) The spell enhances the tactic rather than encouraging it. The tactic was
> there before the spell ever was.
>
but the restrictions are there only to enforce the tactic. Take the
restrictions away and the spell still enhances their tactics just the same,
plus allows your players more latitude to think of interesting things to do
with it.
now back to my scheduled opponent, Nick, who seems to have some very interesting things to say
> I find it slightly absurd, given the premises of Spirit Magic, that I can
> surreptitiously cast Fanaticism on someone else, or cast Bladesharp on a sword
> I'm not wielding, or that Countermagic should block Heal spells, or that
> Yelmalions should have to drop their spears if someone casts Fireblade on them,
> etc. etc. If I were reworking the magic rules, this kind of guff would (by and
> large) go out of the window.
>
Which is an interesting resolution to our discussion - disagreement appears to be inevitable, as nothing in my spirit magic or my Glorantha argues against any of this. Not that I lay claim to being correct (I'm correct in my game, Nick in his) even though I have the RQ rules on my side - but our conception of what should be possible with magic is obviously very different.
I guess I see magic as almost a spiritual technology - once the effect is brought into being (which is a primarily internal act) then you can whatever you can think of, while Nick sees it as more of a psychological and concensual realm.
> > If they are trained Hoplites, they don't need spells to form Shield Walls
>
> How does this differ from saying: "If they are trained healers, they don't need
> spells to cure diseases"; or "If they are trained swordsmen, they don't need
> spells to improve their sword skills." Dave seem to be attacking the very
> concept of RuneQuest cults granting enhancing magic to their members.
>
I think you overstate my position a little. My point is that trained professionals will pursue the approriate non-magical activities without having to have it enforced via magical restrictions. Chalana Arroy healing doesn't enforce that it only works if the caster wears white robes, has healing herbs about their person, or the patient gets plenty of bed rest. Other game mechanics or restrictions make these quite reasonable things to do anyway. Similarly, if the Hoplites are already going to march about in a shield wall (as Hoplites do) then why write gratuitous restrictions into the spell descriptions to force them to do so?
> (BTW, if Granite Phalanx is "silly", what did you think of the dodging
> phalangites of Sun County? :-)
>
Well, yes, they are silly too. But I have no real problem with the Phalanx as a whole. Personally I like your recently suggested Shield Wall combat option (whereby they, already 2HSpear and Shielding, move close together so that their comrades shields cover their exposed arms). This gives them a good reason to form a shield wall in rules terms ('cause if they don't their weapon arms get chopped off), and also gives them a good reason to want to use Standfast when they are in a shield wall (because getting knocked back exposes your comrades). Then they brace and attack. Sounds reasonable. And their spells seem reasonable with the hoplite specific restrictions removed.
I've certainly stirred things up, anyway. Here's Peter Metcalfe
[why do Hoplites need spells to make them want to form shield walls]
> Because a) Gloranthans make no distinction between extreme pyschological
> states and magicially induced ones.
Well, thats debateable. Must be, Nick and I where debating it just then. I still think they do. But I am not sure its relevent. I don't see 'having more armour points' or 'being more difficult to knockback' as being particularly psychological in nature.
> b) being in a hoplite or other tight order group formation does
> have some benefits that are not present in looser units.
Exactly, which benefits they should get wether or not they have Hoplite spells as well. I think of spells as a way to simulate magic, not as a way to get around having to simulate everything else.
Sorry if I am boring everybody stupid.
Cheers
Dave
Powered by hypermail