From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #53 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Tuesday, 24 January 1995 Volume 01 : Number 053 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to say "Yeah, I agree." Those who do will be lynched. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. RQR: will be prepended to it. 3. Do not engage in a point-by-point analysis or rebuttal of another person's message. It is too confusing for others to follow, qualifies as nit-picking, and it usually leads to flame wars. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Hugh Foster RQR: Spell matrices Brent Michael Krupp RQR: Spell matrices Nigel Smith RQR: Perception Blocks Nigel Smith RQR: Strength spells Loren Miller RQR: Perception Blocks Hugh Foster RQR: New-RQ test versions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 21 Jan 95 13:20:55 EST Subject: RQR: Spell matrices Flushed by the success of my request for suggestions about golems (gola?), here I go again. Can a sorcerer Summon, Control and Bind a spirit spell spirit, thus creating a Speeddart matrix item ? A spirit is a spirit, after all... Opinions (or rude RTFM corrections, I ain't proud!) please. ------------------------------ From: Brent Michael Krupp Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 10:34:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RQR: Spell matrices On 21 Jan 1995, Hugh Foster wrote: > Can a sorcerer Summon, Control and Bind a spirit spell > spirit, thus creating a Speeddart matrix item ? A spirit is > a spirit, after all... Opinions (or rude RTFM corrections, > I ain't proud!) please. No. The creature book clearly states that spell spirits have no ability to cast their own spells (which begs the question of what non-game convenience purpose they serve...), and I don't see why binding them would change this or suddenly make them into matrices. If you want to do something like this, Summon and Bind a magic spirit that knows the spirit spell you want it to have. Then have *it* cast the spells for you. A bound magic spirit that knows Heal 6 or so can be an amazingly powerful item for keeping characters alive in combat. Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu) "In the faculty of writing nonsense, stupidity is no match for genius." -- Walter Bagehot, 1826-1877 ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:44:18 +0000 Subject: RQR: Perception Blocks I may have missed the replies to my previous question about head armour reducing perception skills, but I don't think so. Do any of you apply any modifiers for eg. listening while wearing a plate helm? Do you just ignore the problem, or insist that they keep taking of their helms. Quivering with anticipation..... Nigel ------------------------------ From: ns10005@hermes.cam.ac.uk (Nigel Smith) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:44:10 +0000 Subject: Re: RQR: Strength spells Hi all, time for some thoughts on this. Hope it doesn't duplicate anything that has been posted in the meantime. I've removed attributions because I was getting confused over who was quoting who and when: >> Strength is a powerful combat spell especially when combined with >> bladesharp. As it should be... > It's effective but I usually find Bladesharp to be more effective still, >though Bladesharp is more specialized. The real problem is that a few points >of Bladesharp are accepted as standard, to be countered by some Protection, >and Strength and Bladesharp together unbalance this Unless countered by Shield, shield and armour. But power-gaming probably isn't the answer. How about, in the first instance, expense? >The example of GoG says a Bladesharp 3, costs 75 Silvers ( 30 + 3*15). ..if the spell is available directly from your cult. Thus Strength 5 costs 105 silvers. Not a lot of money by RQ2 standards, but RQ3 seems to imply lower monetary reward for an equivalent risk. Don't forget that if your player buys BS3 for 75 silvers he will still have to pay the full 105 Silvers for BS5. If the spell is only available through an associate cult, this rises to 250 Silvers for BS3 and 350 Silvers for BS5. Other methods of restricting access: Personally I don't like to say "You are just an initiate, so you can only have 4 pt spells, max". Restrictions are better imposed for the god's benefit, service from the priests being related to service to the cult. Cult priests spend most of their time looking after their flock, and waving money at them is no guarrantee(sp?) that they will re-prioritise in your favour. And while you wait there are living expenses, tithes, taxes, etc. - all designed to prevent the charcters from saving up their money. And don't forget that the character must beat the spell spirit in spirit combat to gain the spell. Cult spirits _usually_ have a POW of 1d3 per spell point, but you could make it tougher. The character would not remain possessed, since the priest would cast the spirit out, but would have to pay 2/3 the original price to try again (since the spell focus, 1/3 of the cost, could be used again), and would have to wait until the priest was free again. A final, desperate, play is to say that since a defeated spell spirit must return to the source of the spell to rejuvenate, no spirit for that level spell is available at the moment. Living expenses etc., and for the really troubled, theft of the character's money! Rather than resticting the player's (and therefore the NPC's) access to large spirit magic spells, I prefer to show the players that 'big spells aren't everything'. So they've cast Str 5 and BS 5? That's 10 MP blown and here come the offensive spells from the other team. ...or the party get attacked by a large bunch of trollkin. When the first is cut in half by a supernaturally powerful blow, the other trollkin will _not_ hang around for more. RUN AWAY! But, 5 minutes later when the party's spells have expired, guess what? Here come the trollkin again! Can the party still cast those spells, or do they wish that they had invested in better armour instead? ...or the enemy uses guerrilla missile tactics. No good being extra strong with extra damage if you can't close with your opponent. Mobility spells are a good game in this situation. ...or they are presented with a situation where other spells would be more useful, only they have used 10 INT points for the Str and BS 5. Often useful at the beginning of an adventure..."to gain entrance you must all learn the ritual of appeasement. Which spell point will you forget to make room?" ...and the already suggested Brain Fever. These are some of the tactics I've used already. I can think of more, and I am sure that you can as well, but we must keep some surprises for our players. This has grown out of all proportion, sorry about that. But my vote is for using the game system to guide players rather than imposing arbitary rules. Nigel ------------------------------ From: "Loren Miller" Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 11:47:23 EST Subject: Re: RQR: Perception Blocks From what I recall there are several things in the RQ2 rules about this. 1. Metal armor reduces sneak chances by some small amount, and chain and ring reduce it by almost twice as much. 2. Partial helms reduce perception skills by some amount and full helms reduce perception skills by twice as much. I think the actual numbers were -15 and -25 for sneak modifiers (move quietly in RQ2), and the same for perception modifiers. I would prefer to make the modifiers bigger, maybe -25 and -50, as I believe armor should have serious drawbacks as well as serious advantages (which it already has). - -- +++++++++++++++++++++++23 Loren Miller LOREN@marketing.wharton.upenn.edu Waiter! Reality check please! ------------------------------ From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com> Date: 23 Jan 95 16:55:51 EST Subject: RQR: New-RQ test versions >>as in RQAiG. << It's one thing to refer to rules we can get hold of, but refering to something 99% of us can't get like this is a bit cliquey, non ? For godsake could someone sort out the leaglity of these beta-test rules or else could the priviliged few stop coyly referring us to them ? Preferably the former. Nothing personal, guy. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #53 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists.