[Runequest] Multispell (RQ 3)
dave at difference.com.au
Fri Feb 12 13:46:04 EST 2010
At 11:25 AM +1100 12/2/10, Lev Lafayette wrote:
>The rare occasions that sorcerers have appeared in my various RQ games
>hasn't been a problem. They're very rare, sort of spooky and very
Sorcerers are no problem at all as long as they are NPCs, and
as long as competent NPC sorcerers decide not to provide the PCs with
their services (such as buffing them up with a bunch of enhancement
spells that lst for years). RQ3 sorcery sucks for PCs in multiple
ways. Mostly, by not being much fun - getting an interesting range of
spells and skills to a decent level is incredibly time consuming and
tedious in the basic rules.
I've tried to run games set in sorcery using areas under RQ3
rules. I don't recommend it, and I'd absolutely go for some other set
of rules if I was to do so again.
>But I've just started running the Artelan scenario from Strangers in
>Prax, which includes a duel between some pretty tough wizards and for
>the first time I find myself scratching my head over the RQ3 errata for
>the sorcery multispell skill. The errata seems to makes them
>significantly - and unreasonably - stronger than the core rules.
>The only reference (having searched through the archives of this list
>and its predecessors) that there is a potential problem was a remark by
>Paul Reilly in 1993 who wrote: "I think the RQ errata gave a good
>Multispell. Certainly the old one needed to be fixed desperately - look
>at Phantom magics for an example."
>I am failing to see the problem. Can someone point it out to me?
I think the issue is essentially that the old multispell was
of very limited use, nearly but not quite pointless. If you combined
two spells, the main effect of multispell was to delay the first
spell so it went off at the same time as the first, which most of the
time wasn't an advantage at all. There was a small advantage in that
you only had to pay the Dex SR penalty once, but that certainly
didn't seem really worth it - especially as the use of multispell
would in many cases be reducing your cast chance unless you were an
expert. So it didn't save you any MPs, and it saved you only a
marginal amount of time on any decent power spell. The only real
reason to have multispell in original RQ3 seemed to be to cast spells
that required it, the only one of which I know of is Protective
The rules claimed that Multispell could also be used to
combine spells that are specified to be incompatible - but I couldn't
actually find any spells that were specified to be incompatible,
which made that use of multispell seem a bit pointless.
The reference to Phantom is that to create a reasonable
multi-sense illusion with Phantom was absurdly time consuming and
draining, because you'd pay the full manipulation cost for each
sense. Though admittedly RQ3 illusions suck for all forms of magic.
So, yes, multispell is significantly stronger than the core
rules, because the core rules version was almost pointlessly weak.
And yes, multispell is powerful under the errata. As it should be,
sorcerous manipulations are supposed to be the reason why experienced
sorcerers are a force to be reckoned with. And multispells are still
generally very slow and consume lots of MPs compared to other forms
More information about the Runequest