16
\$\begingroup\$

In Barbarians of Lemuria, the Arcane Power [AP] cost of a spell can be reduced by adding requirements, such as a special item, line of sight, or obvious technique. On page 49 we have:

Obvious Technique: The caster must gesture, chant, dance or make strange sounds during the brief casting process.

Since there is an "or" in there, a spell could have an obvious technique of a gesture without a "magic word", or a magic word with no gesture.

If the spell has a gesture and a magic word, are those two obvious techniques, or two parts of the same? If they are two obvious techniques, are you allowed two of the same requirement type to reduce spell AP?

By way of example:

Methyn Sarr knows that Krongar is in the palace, and will certainly want revenge on her. In the grand hall there is a huge chandelier secured by rope tied off to the wall. She will trick Krongar into stopping under the chandelier and use a spell she devised to untie the rope. This is ruled as more complicated than a cantrip, so is a spell of the first magnitude. When casting the spell, Methyn points her ring and index finger at the rope and says "Shazam!"

Does the spell cost Methyn 4 AP for obvious technique, or 3 for two obvious techniques (the hand gesture and the magic word)?

\$\endgroup\$
0

2 Answers 2

1
\$\begingroup\$

Reading through the page, it appears that "Obvious Technique" is a single item in a bullet pointed list of options. The given example in the book below the section listing those options is also:

Example: Methyn Sarr (Witch Queen of the Fire Coast) unleashes a javelin-like bolt of flame at Krongar. The GM considers this a First Magnitude spell for the Witch Queen and she has line of sight (appropriate for a bolt of fire) and Obvious Technique (she’s always putting on a show). The cost is reduced to 3 Arcane Power and the GM thinks the flame is worth 1d6 damage for Krongar.

For your example, it's possible that pointing at the target would likewise be "Line of Sight" and the magic word would be "Obvious Technique", reducing it to 3 because two requirements are being used.

\$\endgroup\$
-3
\$\begingroup\$

No.

None of the other casting requirements stack and no mention is made of an exception for Obvious Technique. Also in the rules the term used is "technique" in the singular not "techniques." This indicates it is a singular technique not multiple techniques.

\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Any references? \$\endgroup\$ Jun 12, 2018 at 19:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It's made by inference from the rest of the modifiers and the fact that English has plural nouns - which are here unused. It's deductive reasoning. All the rest of the casting requirements are unstacked and no exception is specified. When given the opportunity to clarify in the rules for Everywhen, the author still made no mention of an exception, still kept the singular. \$\endgroup\$
    – gomad
    Jun 13, 2018 at 13:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ Maybe you could point that out in your answer by quoting from other rules? \$\endgroup\$ Jun 13, 2018 at 13:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @gomad hello, would you mind to improve your answer as suggested by Voromir Kadien? We want our answers to be backed-up :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Jun 16, 2019 at 15:44

You must log in to answer this question.