From: Rob Mace (email@example.com)
Date: Mon 14 Jun 1993 - 14:53:10 EEST
David Hall writes:
> What is required is the same approach as with Shamanistic spirit cults and
> Pantheonistic religions/cults. Basic generic sorcery rules should exist,
> but they cannot just be presented standalone as they were in RQ3. Each
> sorcery sect or group will use those rules in a different way: by having a
> different spell list, different attitudes to who can use sorcery (or who
> goes to heaven, or attitudes to women, or worship of icons, etc.), or even
> a weird and unique type of magic. Ideally, I'm looking for a Cults of Prax
> of sorcery, but with all the other innovations that were in Gods of
> Glorantha. And in long-form.
There can't just be different spell lists for the different sorcery groups. There needs to be some reason why each group gets limited to that set of spells. The divine magic spell lists have the simple reason that that is what the god can/will provide. If sorcery is more of a technology then their must be reasons why that tech does not spread. I know groups will work to protect their secrets but as long as a single individual can hold some set of knowledge it is very difficult to keep it from spreading. Also if you as a GM are not blessed with players that have no power gamer aspects, they will try to find ways to get the set of spells they want. This can be tough for less experienced GMs to deal with.
Seeing how poorly the RQ3 bit about sorcerers and cultist do not work together because they disbelieve/distrust/hate/etc. each other has worked, I think something a bit stronger is needed. PCs often tend toward pragmatism.
I think it would be good if the rules were generic to Gloranthan sorcerers and then an example group like the Malkioni was given and you could see how the rule were expanded/modified for them. This would be much like the cult stuff in RQ2.
My point was that you are not at zero chance to hit. And since I have done it and seen it done with a pike of about 3m then I know it can be done. I am not saying that it is easy but it is a lot better then just waiting around for your opponent to get through your parry. Disengaging to full pike range is a lot harder. Here is how it might be done against someone using a broad sword.
When your opponent gets inside your range charge forward sliding your hand up the shaft of the pike. You might have to basically throw your pike backwards as you do this. The idea here is to move inside your opponents optimum range since they are already inside yours. You want to choke up on the pike until it is the about short sword length. When you contact your opponent you need to press your off weapon hand shoulder into the upper arm of their sword arm. This makes it hard for them to get an effective blow in. If you can't get your shoulder against their arm you can also press their shield and hide behind it. You hold your weapon hand back and low behind your self and thrust as you have or make openings. Since you are pressed against them they have a hard time seeing your thrusts. If they decide to backup quickly to try and get away from your press you might be able to change course actually disengage.
Anyway you will probably die but at least you have a chance. Also melee situations change all this quite a bit. To avoid this type of situation I generally carry a light mace or short sword as backup. Sometimes I will intentionally let someone charge past my spear or pike time just to meet them up close with the mace. Doing what is not expected plays a big part in winning a combat.
> This much I do concede. I like John Medway's idea of no parry and
> holding the shield fixed so it covers locations like in missile combat.
As long as your opponent can move it is almost impossible to immobilize a shield purely by pressing. The only way is to grab it with one of your weapons or your shield and then you are giving up the use of that your self. You might want to do this for a second or so, but generally not longer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:31:09 EEST