From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest-Rules-Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #12 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest-Rules-Digest Thursday, February 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 012 RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Shades Re: [RQ-RULES] Shades [RQ-RULES] Multispell Re: [RQ-RULES] Multispell [RQ-RULES] Illumination [RQ-RULES] More Illumination [RQ-RULES] Shades [RQ-RULES] Deadly Elementals Re: [RQ-RULES] Multispell Re: [RQ-RULES] Shades & the other Elementals 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. 4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready to stand by it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 20:32:45 EST From: JULIAKIR@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Shades Well I never had a problem. The usual tactic is ever to release a shade on top of your opponent or cast some mobility on it and send it in a straight line at your enemies. The supprise alone is worth a couple of rolls. Due to its low hit points I never extecpt it to last more than a round or two at the most in any case. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 17:33:45 -0800 (PST) From: allen wallace Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Shades I'm probably way behind thge times answering this but here goes. I would give your priest Command Cult Spirit-Shade-, and a binding enchantment to hold one. With some Temple support you should be able to mannage at least a six meter shade, which should destroy anything short of reasonably tough Rune levels without working up a sweat. As it is a cult spirit, as long as you're devout, I wouldn't give you much trouble controlling the beast. Hope this was some help, Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 00:02:42 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: [RQ-RULES] Multispell How do y'all work it when part of a multispell is dispelled? I've always worked it that the rest went on unaffected and unchanged, but I've heard arguments that the whole structure should collapse, or that the other spells in the mix should gain Intensity, etc. Thoughts? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 00:28:48 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Nolander Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Multispell - ---Tal Meta wrote: > > How do y'all work it when part of a multispell is dispelled? I've always > worked it that the rest went on unaffected and unchanged, The situation has never come up (yet...) in my campaign, but this is how I would play it. Erik Nolander _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 01:12:48 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Nolander Subject: [RQ-RULES] Illumination Hi, Well, as I wrote a few postings ago, I posed a question about Illumination on the GD. Since I only got a few responses, I'd like to continue the debate here, FWIW. Here goes: What I'd like to do, is address the question on the Nature of Illumination [gasps and sighs]. Yes, I know, it's another one in the series of Unanswerable Questions. My angle, though, is to concentrate on the rules-y bits. Mainly, what I am dissatisfied with is the way Illumination is presented in the current (RQ3) rules, i.e. in LoT and D:LoD. The convention of assigning a Riddle to a RuneQuest-skill is way too arbitrary and constrained IMHO. Now I know that the books stress the fact that skill checks alone cannot make you Illuminated, but this doesn't remove the skill=Riddle connection. What I'm proposing is to keep the Illumination skill/score as is mentioned in the rules. This starts at 0% (of course...), and can only be raised through the given ways: being posed Illuminating questions and understanding them. The understanding, I feel, must be left to the individual GM and player(s). That is, they must agree upon whether a given character has understood a certain Riddle. If the character "successfully" understands the Riddle, his/her Illumination score is raised by a certain amount. Every year at, say, Sacred Time (or whenever the GM thinks it's appropriate), the character checks against his Illumination score. If he/she succeeds, Hey Presto! Illumination is achieved! (These last bits are also in the rules, I think.) A rule that I thought of, to solve the understanding-bit, was to let each character's chance to understand a Riddle be equal to his/her Knowledge bonus. This would of course mean that certain characters (i.e., those with a Knowledge bonus of less than or equal to zero) could never be Illuminated, but I like that idea. Note that this also allows for involuntary (or "forced") Illumination, which I think is possible although rare. Tied in with this, I think there's a theoretically infinite number of Riddles. Why? Simply because I don't like the idea of a set number. Maybe these Riddles are the most famous, or maybe they are considered by the Orthodox Illuminati, sorry, Freudian slip, ILLUMINATED to be the canonical Riddles. For me, Illumination feels more like Zen-ish than straight Riddle-ish (but then, my understanding of Zen is fairly basic). Note: none of this has been playtested in any way. These are merely thoughts I have, and constructive criticism is very welcome! A Good Day to y'all, Erik Nolander _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:20:22 GMT From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: [RQ-RULES] More Illumination >> I agree (I think...). However, from a rules point-of-view, there >> isn't much difference between a Vow or a geas. An Illuminate would >> logically then have the same freedom with breaking Vows as he has >> with geases. > >>From what I've been led to believe via supplements and crosstalk on >>the >lists, Illumination basically lets you present whatever 'face' you >need to your deity in order to not be found wanting. When you break >a geas, you're breaking a contract with , who may >or may not be watching you every second. When you break a Vow, >there's nobody watching you but you... and how easy is it to hide >from yourself (forget I asked ). That's why I believe that the power ot avoid Vows is seperate from the power to avoid geases. The power to avoid geases comes from not having any guilt about breaking your taboos concerning your god. The power to avoid Vows is to cast aside the artifical shackles of a system that requires you to "prove" your self discipline by adhering to a set of Vows. >> Maybe the geas/Vow-breaking power is not automatic to all >> Illuminates (this may be in the rules - I don't have them with me >>at >> the moment). This power would only be available to the *really* >> Illuminated, whatever that means ;). > >Somebody was tossing around the idea that certain 'schools' of >illumination grant certain powers that others don't. Another idea >might be to establish 'degrees' of illumination, or let 'em sack POW >or something for each The rules as they are state that not all illuminates possess all the powers of Illumination. I play that those that achieve Illumination through hard work, and a bit of luck, get illuminated with all powers except the ability to teach riddles. Those that come up with a nifty way to become Illuminated quick either don't become Illuminated at all or just get one power. One player in my game started off as an Illuminate, but only received the first Illuminating power and must learn more riddles and more illuminating knowledge to gain the rest of them. Also, my group have come up with a way to abuse the Saint rules to gain Illumination. Firstly, they learn one riddle, or at least get one percent Illumination skill. Then they sacrifice for St. Daly and Arkat the Betrayer (I think - the version of Arkat that when invoked allows you a chance to become illuminated). Then they invoke both Arkat and Daly, get a roll to become illumianted and immediatley make it through the powers of St. Daly! Cunning, and costly in POW. BTW, if they do ever decide to actually pull this off they will receive only the one power : ) I think there are different schools of Illumination granting different powers (like Rashorana Illumination, Nysalorian Illumination, Metsylan Illumination etc...) has anybody seen "Cults of Life and Death" wherein the Cult of Eudaimon has Enlightenment, it's own version of Illumination???? Nikk E. Nikk Effingham eng7nje@leeds.ac.uk http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/ "If absolute power corrupts absolutely Where does that leave God?" -- George Daacon *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:11:40 GMT From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Shades SHADES: >OK, they may be useless in combat, but they could actually serve >more mundane purposes. For example, I'm sure that more than one >sorceror back in the Ol' West has his house/dwelling/tower kept at >an agreeable temperature, courtesy of Your Friendly Household Fire >Elemental. Who wouldn't fall for an ad like this one: Oh, there is that by all means. However, I was disscussing their reduction of combat potential from RQIII to RQII. I never really liked the idea of elementals being everywhere in RQ, it didn't seem right that the headman would walk over to the campfire, click his fingers and a salamander burst into life merely to cook his dinner..... >The pained looks from my players when the attacking salamander >ignored them to burn their arrows / bowstrings, or chose to spook the horses, causing them to bolt, rear, etc.. Now that is something I never considered. Foolish me! Salamanders away! I can even burn the important tomes and grimoires the players own *evil grin* On Gnomes: >How do you see it coming? Mobility spells make them into true >terrors. I play that you see them rumbling towards you like a Bugs Bunny cartoon, but also play with particulary harsh interpretation of the rules concerning how they inflict damage to you. I don't doubt the power of mobility spells, and many elementals my players have have cast upon them Resist Damage, but the elementals themselves aren't awe inspiring. >>, and the same for Slamanders. > >Very, Very Wrong (At least 1/2 of 3d6 per round to general hit >points with no armour) Sorry, I didn't remember that bit of the rules. Maybe Salamanders are more useful? Nikk E. Nikk Effingham eng7nje@leeds.ac.uk http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/ "If absolute power corrupts absolutely Where does that leave God?" -- George Daacon *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 09:38:59 -0800 (PST) From: "Michael A. Derry" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Deadly Elementals Nikk Effingham wrote: >>and Shades are just utterly useless JULIAKIR@aol.com dispels elemental myths: >Very Wrong. An area effect Fear spell useless? Derry response: Elementals have very good POW value. If they can attack even just a few people before being dispelled, they can be a much better way to spend POW than for individually-targeted divine spells. Plus the elemental's POW can easily be higher than the character's POW, making shade's Fear better than a character casting a Fear spell. Shades are great underground where they cannot be seen in the next chamber, but the troll's darksense can see you. Zoom! all the sudden you have a shade on you before you can react. Especially bad when the shades wait at the ceiling and come down or behind you just before the trolls attack. Hags, who can summon shades by spending MP, are very difficult to defeat. Yes each shade may only last a round, but by the seventh or eighth round of shade attacks in a row, who wants to stay and try to fight the hag they have not even seen yet? Nikk Effingham wrote: >, and the same for Slamanders. [elementals are useless thread] JULIAKIR responds again: >Very, Very Wrong (At least 1/2 of 3d6 per round to general hit points with no >armour) Derry response: Salamanders are the fireballs of RuneQuest. Guaranteed damage in an area of effect. Remember total hit point damage cannot be healed with Heal spells, making even light damage a big problem. Usually, salamanders have enough hit points when combined with a protection spell that their attacks The best elementals (and the hardest to get) are lunes. They are similar to shades, but with an extra success level. They are very deadly, if you can get them on target: big red glowing areas are much more noticeable than shadow areas (shades). Even small lunes can move through (from behind) and attack a group of Sartarite rebels moving on a hill trail, disabling most of them in a single round. Michael Derry 408-973-1162 derry@jugenstil.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 16:18:36 -0600 From: "Michael A. Pastorello" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Multispell At 12:02 AM 2/5/98 -0500, you wrote: >How do y'all work it when part of a multispell is dispelled? I've always >worked it that the rest went on unaffected and unchanged, but I've heard >arguments that the whole structure should collapse, or that the other >spells in the mix should gain Intensity, etc. Well in my game it depends on the multispell. If you are just tying 2 spells together for convenience only the spell aimed at collapses with a loss of all of it, the other spell does not gan anything. If the spell that is attacked is like protective circle, the whole thing comes down, however the resistance is done against the whole value of all the spells that were combined with protective circle. This is the way we play it. Hope it helps. Mike pastorel@texnet.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 20:41:23 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Shades & the other Elementals JULIAKIR@aol.com wrote: > Well I never had a problem. The usual tactic is ever to release a > shade on top of your opponent or cast some mobility on it and send > it in a straight line at your enemies. It is with great chagrin that I admit that aside from the expected (summon, dominate, bind) spells, I'd never even considered using other spells on the elementals. This brings a whole new diabolical light on things. (And I'm greatly chagrined that I didn't do it while I dragged my group thru 'the Temple of Elemental Evil' back around xmas time. But then again, they were paranoid enough with the seven factions fighting over who got to have the honor of killing them...) Nikk Effingham wrote: > Oh, there is that by all means. However, I was disscussing their > reduction of combat potential from RQIII to RQII. I never really > liked the idea of elementals being everywhere in RQ, it didn't > seem right that the headman would walk over to the campfire, > click his fingers and a salamander burst into life merely to cook > his dinner..... Depends on your campaign, I guess. Some elementals make interesting familiars, and (now that my brain is adding spell effects) excellent guard beasts. > >the horses, causing them to bolt, rear, etc.. > > Now that is something I never considered. Foolish me! Salamanders > away! I can even burn the important tomes and grimoires the > players own *evil grin* Almost anything flamable is fair game, really. Flasks of oil / floors of tar anyone? > Gnomes > I play that you see them rumbling towards you like a Bugs Bunny > cartoon, but also play with particulary harsh interpretation of > the rules concerning how they inflict damage to you. Can always opt for the 'earthen man' style of gnome, that pummels things with it's fists. Michael A. Derry wrote: > Elementals have very good POW value. Plus the elemental's POW can > easily be higher than the character's POW, making shade's Fear > better than a character casting a Fear spell. Well, the big ones have good POW, leastwise, which kinda goes with them spreading out to form the area-effect fear spell. Hmm! More on that later. > Hags, who can summon shades by spending MP, are very difficult to > defeat. Yes each shade may only last a round, but by the seventh > or eighth round of shade attacks in a row, who wants to stay and > try to fight the hag they have not even seen yet? Now THIS brings back memories. First time I ran a RQ event at a con, the scenario called for a shade. One of the less experienced players (and I'm being generous here) had just participated in running a hag off of her squat, and was idling about, foolishly trying to parley his character's 1% summon skill into calling up a demon (this was partly my fault; in the intro I'd told the players that one of RQ's strengths was that your character could attempt ANY action...) anyway, when the hag sent one of her shades to 'answer' his summons, I played it like he'd succeeded, and everybody scattered into the swamp. Sadly, the shade killed him . > The best elementals (and the hardest to get) are lunes. They are > similar to shades, but with an extra success level. They are very > deadly, if you can get them on target: big red glowing areas are > much more noticeable than shadow areas (shades). Selenes are better still; harder to get, true, but they're invisible. :) - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Former sysop / netgod, now 'net bum. Do I look like someone who cares what GOD thinks?! / I have no webpage. / Curiosity killed the cat... Loathesome rituals BROUGHT IT BACK! / Will work for cash. / Insert Nifty ASCII graphic here. / Give me Slack, or give me Food. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #12 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of Avalon Hill Games. 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.