From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #61 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Monday, 9 September 1996 Volume 03 : Number 061 TABLE OF CONTENTS Brad Furst RQ Rules Digest: V3 #56 David Dunham sorcerous elves Alain RAMEAU Feints albert@emerald.cybergate.com Sorcery cromlech cromlech@zip.com.au Sorcery Brad Stradley Sorcery David Cake Mindlink and Extension and Shield RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad Furst Date: Sat, 07 Sep 1996 14:25:46 -0700 Subject: Re: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #56 From: "Simon D. Hibbs" >You seem to imply that POW is like a physical raw material that one >character can 'give' to another and which can then be worked on to create >an enchantment. I assert that POW is sacrificed when people wed. The wedding creates another corporation [recognized by state and/or church] which has a life of its own. Each party in the marriage can share the POW or MP of the marriage. For me, for example, I already have experienced that I have given up a piece of my own life [POW] in order to share with another. This IS an example of Andrew's Multi-User Enchantment Ritual. My father belonged to a trade union. It took a piece of his life [POW] for which he got a return of other considerations. My mother belonged to an evangelical church; that took a piece of her life [POW] for which she thought she benefitted. Again "Simon D. Hibbs" is mistaken. >Your description of the process does correspond with some real world >rituals in form, but I would argue that such rituals involve the sacrifice >of magic points - not POW. I don't think the Ceremony skill has any other >uses which involve POW sacrifice. E.g. worship ceremonies only involve MP >sacrifice. In the examples above, the sacrifice is clearly permanent POW, _not_ temporary MP. >How can I give you a point of my POW? What does it look >like? How heavy is it? Simon, do not mistake physics for metaphysics. I expect that POW has the same appearance if Andrew's enchanter puts it into a magic item of his own as when he puts it into a Multi-User Ritual Enchantment. Yours is a spurious inquiry. How much do you encumber a RuneQuest character for its POW or MP? How heavy is it? Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com ------------------------------ From: David Dunham Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 14:06:18 -0700 Subject: Re: sorcerous elves In my non-Gloranthan campaign, elves didn't become sorcerers because they once used to, and it went horribly wrong. David Dunham Glorantha/RQ page: Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU@total.fr (Alain RAMEAU) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 10:35:27 +0200 Subject: Feints Malcolm Cohen said >> * waiting for an opportunity : the attacker add 1D10 to his Strike >> Rank. If the result is above 10, he loses his attack. If the result >>is 10 or less, he attacks at that SR and the defense of the >>adversary >> (parry or dodge) is halved. >Two criticisms: >(1) adds yet another die roll (on top of the optional >decision-making) >(2) too lethal. A reasonably big and fast attacker with a long >weapon (SR 5) >effectively gets to halve his opponents defence for a halving of his >own attack chance; making a smaller/slower/shorter-weaponed opponent >into mincemeat in relatively short order, even if said opponent is a >weapons master! This really does not make much sense to me, >basically because SR do not work well as "how long it takes" measures >[after having swung with the big weapon, one must wind it back up - >which does not matter in normal melee but a lot in this option]. (1) Yes, but this is not unsurmountable. (2) I do not agree : in your exemple, (a SR 5 attacker), he will lose his attack half of the time. With a standard weapon, a standard attacker (SR 6 or 7) will only have a chance to hit once on three rounds. During the same time, the defender will attack three times !And even if attacker hit, the defender is not defenseless, just halved defense ! >> * full attack : the attacker add 1SR, get one additionnal >bonus level >>(+0 becomes +1D4, +1D4 becomes +1D6, ...), but the >defense of the >> adversary (parry or dodge) is multiplied by 1.5. >[Hmm, what comes after +1d6? I assume something like >+1d6+2,+2d6,+2d6+2,+3d6] What comes after is 2D6, 3D6, 4D6, ... as per normal damage bonus table. >The trouble here is that a non-parrying non-dodging opponent gets >creamed. There are many situations where an opponent cannot >parry/dodge - just after a fumble, when fighting two attackers, when >berserk, etc. This option just wipes them out - consider a fighter >with 10-point armour who for some reason cannot parry one round, >being attacked by a wimp with a SR7 broadsword and no damage bonus; >under normal rules, he is ok unless someone specials, under this >option he will probably take 1d8+1+2d6+2 i.e. 6-23 points for a >NORMAL hit! Sorry ??? Where are those figures come from ? My option allows only one damage bonus shift, not one per SR ! So in your exemple, the damage will become 1D8+1+1D4, so between 3-13 points ! This option should be called, I agree, full out attack. I consider that, like in many heroic movies, the bad guy generally uses such an option when he sees that (as a result of fumble) the good guy had his weapon struck in the wood table and will lose his next parry. However, you can decide that if the attacker uses this option, he loses his parry/dodge option in that round (or halves it). >> * counter-attack : if the attacker has a lower SR than the adversary, >> he may suspend his attack until the next SR after >>the adversary's >> attack. If the adversary fails his attacks, the counter-attacker >> attack skill is multiplied by 1.5. >What about the 2-onto-1 situation? This looks unworkable unless the >adversary is specified at the beginning of the melee round (which is >not necessary under the normal rules). What are your "normal rules" ? For me, the adversary shall be designated at the beginning of each round, and change of intent costs 3 additional SR. >Since the SR really only affects who goes first (because after the >very first blow in a combat, each hits alternately), this looks like >an almost-free lunch for the fighter with the lower SR - by giving up >the initial blow of the combat he gets all his remaining blows to >land at 1.5 times the usual skill! >This is MUCH better than the Fanaticism spell! On this also, my reading of the rules is different from yours. The SR order is used each round, not only at the beginning of the combat ! >> * lethal hit : the attacker may increase the damage done by 1 point >> for each 10% of decrease of his attack skill. For exemple, a 60% >> attacker can add +3 damages if he hits with only 30% attack. If the >> roll is above such reduced percentage (even if under the original >> attack skill), the attack is missed. >I assume that the 10% decrease is applied as per usual penalties, >i.e. the crit/spec chances go down with it. Correct. >Hmm, there is no glancing blow possible for this? >Also, there is already a combat option ("full attack") for increasing >damage, why have two doing such similar things. >Actually, I do not mind this one so much (it is much better than >"full attack") but it does make high skill levels much more deadly >against low-level opps (because since they do not need the crit/spec >chance so much, they just lower their attack chance to c. 95% and >take the damage increase). >It seems odd when one considers a 50% fighter vs a 100% fighter who >is using this option. They both hit half the time, but the 100% >fighter does +5 damage! I find this difficult to imagine. If +1 per 10% seems to strong, you can use +1 per 20% decrease instead. But for me, a 100% fighter knows better than a 50% one the lethal hits and can therefore inflict higher damages through his blows. Alain. ------------------------------ From: albert@emerald.cybergate.com Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 09:45:57 +0000 Subject: Sorcery The sorcery magic system in RQ is unbalanced and easily abused by players. What modifications can you guys suggest to make it work better? As of now I use it only as an NPC magic system. Albert Ramirez, J.D. : An essay a day helps keep the bar albert@cybergate.com : graders at bay. "Trucha con la lucha" : ------------------------------ From: cromlech Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:37:43 +1100 Subject: Re: Sorcery If used correctly its not unbalanced Ill show you how. I use RQ3 sorcery My sorcerer has 16 int (Very high) he has over 30 spells. So he only has 14 free int after Int sprits (he had to make them him self) He has generally 56% chance to cast spells - his enc. (in combat he has 22 enc.) so he very rarely cast spells in combat. His friend a Rune lord of Yanafar tarnels has 27 points of devine magic now including 3 mind blasts and true sword, His sprit magic includes strength so his Damage bonus is 2d6 in combat he has fire blade (3d6 damage sword) he cast true sword on the fire blade 6d6+2d6 for 8d6 when he attacks he is size 18 he can kill 3 men a round (great sword split attack) each man takes 8d6 now back to my sorceror he cast damage boost 14 he uses a heavy mace 1d10+15 impressive he gets 1d4 damage bonus also he is out of magic points. So we have me 1d10+15 and Rune lord 8d6 he also has a sprit with heal 6 and mind blast I have a Hag as a familar that has 13 hp and is easy to kill so it takes care of my house (In a strange and evil way) Now to limit sorceros you need to do this 1. Gm assinges spells dont give them cast back or mystic vission make them find them. 2. Dont give out huge amounts of stored magic points to sorceros or binding enchantments. 3. Give the sorceror equal enemys to fight as the other characters dost let them stand back make the enemy come to them. 4. Sorcers have to train for years to get good run a strict campain so they can't 5. Now you should have a dead sorcerer if he fights alot that cant cast spells. ------------------------------ From: Brad Stradley Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 20:34:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Sorcery How does one create a Intellegence spirit? ------------------------------ From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:20:12 +0800 Subject: Re: Mindlink and Extension and Shield >1. Mindlink: can Mindlink be used to stack divine magic: > Yep, I think it can. > >2. Extension: does this really double duration each time? And how does >it stack? > Yep. Exponentially. So, why don't large groups of priests get together and create supermen? According to the rules as they stand, there is not really a good reason. The rules fix we came up (I think it was mostly Loren and I that were advocating it, but I don't know whose it was originally) back in RQ4/RQ:AIG days was that any divine spells could not be recovered until after the duration had ended. Which makes no difference at all for almost everyone, because the 15 minute duration is tiny compared to the normal recovery time (measured in days), but does plug this particular rort, and seems to make good sense. Of course, they can then still do it, but they probably wouldn't. Creating an Instahero, who will still probably get quickly kicked by a real hero (who would, for example, probably unleash a POW 50 spirit on someone with a near-permanent Shield 50), is probably less useful than having 100 decent warriors with Shield 1 (and the 100 people in question would certainly prefer that option). >3. Shield: Can one critical past it (and how?) ? Yep. Criticals ignore Shield. And Protection. And almost all other defensive magics and armour The sole exceptions that I know of are - a) the Mostali spell Stabilise Armour (?) is specially designed to make armour protect against criticals. b) in RQ:AIG, Damage Resistance worked against criticals. However, as most criticals are always specials and thus do lots of damage, the chances are that criticals would blow through Damage Resistance unhindered anyway. Actually, I suspect the Dragonnewt magic of Draconic Armour also protects against criticals, but as all it does is transfer damage from HPs to MPs, its of limited use. Its also virtually unavailable to PCs, of course. And I have a working assumption that most heroic level types have some sort of magic out to stop criticals. > Does is >extend out to cover the character's clothes, etc. (Like the shields in >Dune...) > I think its stated that defensive magic protects before armour. In which case, yes, it covers the characters clothes. Damage Resistance in RQ:AIG, again, protected after armour, and so didn't. > > >Thanks, > >Hal hbowman@morgan.edu ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V3 #61 ****************************** 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. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html