Iron

From: David Cake <davidc_at_cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:23:35 +0800


[in reply to my suggestion that knights might get spells cast on them and then don their anti-magic iron armour]
>Which is on par IMHO with the suggestion in the Runemasters supplement
>(RQII) that people cast fireblade on treetrunks wielded by giants to
>reduce the damage to only 3d6. If it is antimagic when affecting spells
>cast at a person (not necessarily through the armour according to da
>roolz), then it should also affect the spells the person has on him.

        Well, we don't have any real general rule for anti-magic in Glorantha - whose to say the rules as written don't mimic the way the anti-magic of unenchanted iron works? The anti-magic of truestone and adamant affects existing magic, true - but that is a far more powerful effect than the reduction in cast chance of unenchanted iron. Anti-magic spells like countermagic, on the other hand, are strictly divided between those that affect existing spells and those that stop new spells - suggesting the division is a real one, which suggests that it is certainly possible that unenchanted iron works only one way.

        Anyway, the fireblade example was bad because it was a bad rule, not because exploiting it was necessarily something that your players shouldn't do. Which is why they changed it for RQ3. So, Peter, suggest rules changes!
(personally, I think its a reasonable explanation - because it means that unenchanted iron armour is viable, alleviating the requirement for enormous POW sacrifice for iron armour. And yes, I like the POW sacrifice mechanic - I think making Iron enchanted is a process (a sort of magical tempering) that should be permanent, I dislike enchanting iron becoming another spell like mechanic).

        Cheers

                David


Powered by hypermail