Well, yes, ultimately a +20 is a +20 - the descriptions behind it may differ, but when the dice hist the table, there's no diffference.
> rules seems to allow you to add some stuff as augments, some other
> stuff as "edges", some other stuff as bonus to target number, some
> other stuff as extra action points, and some other stuff as weird
> "this-magic-only" bonuses. Many of these wouldn't even slow down game
You seem to be wanting a "magic system" where this particular abilty * always* adds a bonus, that one *always* gives a edge, etc. The way the rules are written, it's up to the player to decide how the bility will be used, and the narrator to approve (or "Yes but", or "No but" or not approve it). So somtimes this feat is merely an augment, sometiumes it is the "active" ability, sometimes it just gives an edge - all depoending o how the players describe it being used.
We made design decisions 'way back when *not* to describe each feat or spell or spirit, because A) that's not the spirit of the rules, B) it would add many more layers of complexity onto the rules (and despite appearacnes, we *did* try to maintain a less-complex set) and finally C) for purely financial reasons (Adding even a single paragraph for each Feat and Spell would have inflated the page count tremendously, making the book uneconomical - it would have died on it's $75 vine, because no-one would buy it.
> play. But as I said, at least in my group, we are prepared to face a
> little bit of extra fiddling. (I said "little". No-one want to go back
> to the level of detail where there are special rules for how
> accumulating gunsmoke can lower target number by 13.75%in prolonged
> indoor shootouts.)
And that, too is perfectly within the spirit of the rules. If yopu want to detail how each spell and feat works, more power to you. I tend to like the simplicity and infinite possibilities that not having a description gives me.
> I would also like the difference between "initiate Goran uses his 19
> Combat Affinity" and "devotee Matilda uses her 7W Truesword Feat", to
> be both greater, and more qualitative, than the difference between a +2
> and a +3 augment.
Actually, they already do - an initiate uses his magic as an augment - so Goran has a +2 to his Sword and Shield (making S&S, say, 1w). Matilda is using her feat as an active ability, so has a a 7w ability rating.
> 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
The difference between Active use and Augment-only, perhaps?
> 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.
This is wrong. Misapplied worship is harder to raise than "proper" worship, but if you have it at the same level as a "proper" worshipper, it has an equivalent effect. A 5w is a 5w, no matter how many hero points it took you to get there. It's just that the "proper" worshipper has twice as many abilities at 5w than the misapplied one (or has it at 12 w instead of 5w). And a Misapplied feat is just as "powerful" as a properly applied one.
> If you want to get your bureacracy on (to run your empire) Lankor Mhy
> doesn't have a thing on Buserian.
That's because of the affinities available - LM would be taking penalties to his feats trying to do the same sort of Bureaucratic magic as a specialised Bureaucratic God (I'm away from the desk, but I thought we had a specific Bureaucrat god in ILH2?)
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. (Of course, there are compensations. You
> have lots more flexibility. And as you're neither psychotic nor
> pathologically morbid, civilians will have more varied reactions to you
> than stuttering terror, and GM will allow you to have social skills and
> casual friendships and stuff.)
And as someone pointed out, those social skills can get the town on your side.
There is no such thing as a "straight-up fight"
> Well. If all magic works identically, and all it ever does is augment,
> then yes, absolutely. Everything is perfectly balanced.
> But if you allow "Fiery Aura 16W" to automatically attack everyone
> 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.
Sounds pretty *un* reasonable to me - but as the Narrator, you're certainly within your rights to allow it. But it does require that the narrator put aside some rules, so why are we bringing it up again?
> So, after this over-the-top example, I ask again: how game-unbalanced
> should special magic be allowed to be?
As unbalanced as you want them to be. Ideally, if you're allowing "Fiery Arua" to do all that, you're allowing other abilities the same latitude. Of course, a basic premise of HQ is that "an ability is an ability" - it doesn't matter if its magical or mundane. The only benefit to magic (besides letting you do "impossible" things, like fly, see thorough dirt, breathe underwater, etc). is the "Resistance 14" rule: a mundane "Jump high" and a magical "Leap over wall" have different resistances when you leap over a wall.
> What kinds of effects are reasonable when you go beyond straight
> augmenting?
Ideally, magic should be using the same rules as other abilities (except the "Resistance 14"). If you want magic to do more, then we really can't tell you where to stop, because you've already past that point. Add what feels right to * you*, but you're beyond the edges of the map, in "Here there be Dragons" Territory.
RR
Powered by hypermail