>I do think that HQ is a more advanced system than RQ (simpler, faster,
>more flexible) but I also think that old RQ got some things about
>Glorantha right. Bladesharp 4 is really less than Crush 4. The armoring
>magic of the wicked soulless sorcerers might be about as effective as
>that of the noble praxians, but it feels different because it works
>different, not just because the GM will give different descriptions of
>identical mechanics.
You can reproduce this sort of difference if you wish by using situational modifiers. Bladesharp magic can be less effective than Crush magic against armoured opponents. Personally I can't be bothered by discussing half a dozen minor adjustments for every contest but if that adds to your game then do it.
>Secondly -and this is why I used the Alkoth example- I don't think all
>Gloranthan magic should be equally powerful. There have been another
>thread concerning misapplied worship... Well, as far as I understand
>how Glorantha works, misapplied worship is intrinsically weaker than
>correctly applied worship. And as far as I understand it, deities of
>-for instance- violence, aren't necessarily balanced.
>If you want to get your bureacracy on (to run your empire) Lankor Mhy
>doesn't have a thing on Buserian. And if you're a follower of Natha or
>Orlanth adventurous, you should be seriously out of your depth if you
>go up in a straight fight against someone who follows Babeester or
>Humakt, not to speak about Shargash. Assuming of course, that you have
>the same number of masteries.
This is where I think you're going wrong, it's not the number of masteries which should be compared but the total hero points required to get to that point. Your psychotic killer, of whichever variety, will have spent them entirely on killing abilities while the follower of Destor or Natha will have some decent relationships to assist them. So they get the local townsfolk to help them run the psychotic killer out of town.
>Well. If all magic works identically, and all it ever does is augment,=20
>then yes, absolutely. Everything is perfectly balanced.
>But if you allow "Fiery Aura 16W" to automatically attack everyone=20
>within its radius with magical fire (which can only be resisted by
>anti-magical-fire magic) every round, doesn't lose action points by
>being merely resisted, and also reduce disadvantage of fighting against
>several opponents in the same way as a follower would, then game
>balance becomes an issue.
>Magic will do whatever the GM allows it to do. And (game balance aside)
>what I just described sounds about reasonable to me. Hey, come to think
>of it, everyone who fails to resist the fire should be distracted and
>blinded as well, and get a -4 penalty to their target numbers.
>
>So, after this over-the-top example, I ask again: how game-unbalanced
>should special magic be allowed to be?
>What kinds of effects are reasonable when you go beyond straight
>augmenting?
The unbalancing element is your decision that this particular magic can only be resisted by anti-magical-fire magic without any consideration of what the contest is about. At no point do the HQ rules say anything like this.
The opposition can use any ability which is reasonable considering their aim in the contest. So if your magician decides to inflict injury on anyone nearby a trollkin can decide they want to "run away and hide" opposing the 16W with their Cowardly 17 plus augments for Dodge, Run Fast, etc. Then the initiate of Kadone decides to drop some loose rocks or bits of building on the magician's head using her "Make Object Heavy" feat.
I know there can be a bit of a tendency, particularly with extended contests, to try and resolve tasks rather than attempts to act but it's not the way the rules work.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail