From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest-Rules-Digest)
To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM
Subject: RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #31
Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-runequest-rules@
Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@
Precedence: bulk


RuneQuest-Rules-Digest      Friday, March 6 1998      Volume 01 : Number 031




RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill Games.
All Rights Reserved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks
Re: [RQ-RULES] Re:Warding
Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks
Re: [RQ-RULES] enchantments
RE: [RQ-RULES] Spells
[RQ-RULES] Priestly DI
RE: [RQ-RULES] Priestly DI
Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks
RE: [RQ-RULES] Priestly DI
Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks
Re: [RQ-RULES] Spells
Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3
Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks
Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3
Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3
Re: [RQ-RULES] Enchantment conditions
Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3

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: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 10:50:20 -0500
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks

Jim Gould wrote:
> 
> Something we've tried in our current campaign (RQ3) is a simple 
> doubling of hit points, both by location and general. It seems to 
> reduce the gratuitous dagger-decapitations while maintaining the 
> dangerous flavor of the system. Any comments?

Ringworld! Thats been the one niggling point that bugs me about BRPG
systems... each of them calculates hit points slightly differently. I
generally use the old Stormbringer model (when I started, I had far more
SB stuff than RQ stuff, so most of my published materials were using
that system for stats).

I'm actually tempted to try that myself.


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 10:59:20 -0500
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re:Warding

Robert McArthur wrote:
> 
> I think it is MGF to have some sort of mechanism whereby wardings, 
> esp. in temples, to be breached without it being known.  After 
> all, the temple spirit will be around to take a look at odd 
> intervals I assume, although again for MGF the spirits are not
> always "awake"/on duty.

Most of the active temples my players wound up invading didn't have any
warding in place, but counted on the guardians instead. Sentient tigers
w/spells, magic/cult spirits, ghosts, you name it. One even had a statue
that was partially in the heroplane, that they had to "kill" in order to
keep the god it represented from awakening from his millenial slumber...


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 10:54:30 -0500
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks

stancliff@commnections.com wrote:

>    In my campaign, all of the powerful fighters have AT LEAST two
> Strengthening Enchants to increase their hit points.  This raises 
> their total hit points about 50% and makes a noticeable 
> difference.  The advantage is it requires no rules changes and it 
> draws about 1200L each out of their pockets.

My players never did follow up on this; they preferred burying
themselves inside iron armor or sorcerous ritual-boosted damage
resistance.

Until, that is, I hit the sorcerer with a guy who radiated a
magic-nullification aura, who waded right up to him and whacked him
soundly. Then they started fighting at range...


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 11:10:38 -0500
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] enchantments

Robert McArthur wrote:
> 
> It struct me today that enchantments really need a lot more work.  
> For example, I think that the humakti (and others) gifts, at least 
> some of them, are enchantments.  How else do you explain a sword 
> that can do double damage to <select your species here>?  Of 
> course, if a God 'gave' you an enchantment it is probably harder 
> to break - except by that God, especially when you go apostate.
> 
> Anyone interested in the thread?

I'm certainly willing to toss around some new ritual magic ideas. IMHO,
we did a bang up job on the <element>blade spells, and this might make
for a good followup. I have a suspicion that once Philip posts those
spells over on the GD, we might get a few more folks over here to see
what we're up to. (I suspect that the GTG/RQx division will be as
popular as the RQ3/RQ2 split was, thread wise, once GTG comes out.... )


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 17:01:50 -0000
From: "Hibbs, Philip" <philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Spells

>I have a suspicion that once Philip posts those
>spells over on the GD, 

I posted them on schedule, 9am yesterday morning. They haven't shown up
yet.

philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk   or   phibbs@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/phibbs
+--------------+
| Philip Hibbs +---------------------------------------------+
| What immortal hand or eye dare frame thy perfect symmetry? |
+------------------------------------------------------------+

***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:23:34 -0500 
From: stancliff@commnections.com
Subject: [RQ-RULES] Priestly DI

RU>>The High Priestess lost so much Pow, she had to step down
RU>>for two years to recover some of the lost Pow used by the goddess.
RU>This is precisely why priests could not get DI in RuneQuest 2, I can't
RU>remember if they can in RQ3.
   I don't recall priests having a restriction in RQ2, it was a divine
spell, and should have been renewable unless defined to be one-use.
   In RQ3, even initiates can have it, but for large cults, the full
priests and/or rune lords get 1d10 rolls instead of 1d100 (varies by
cult).
Bob Stancliff


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 18:32:09 -0000
From: "Hibbs, Philip" <philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk>
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Priestly DI

>>This is precisely why priests could not get DI in RuneQuest 2, I can't
>>remember if they can in RQ3.
>   I don't recall priests having a restriction in RQ2, it was a divine
>spell, and should have been renewable unless defined to be one-use.

I don't remember the details, but I'm sure I read somewhere that priests
don't get DI, and I also remember discussing it with my group, and
coming to the conclusion that it was because they had to keep their POW
above 15 or 16 in order to remain a priest. Thinking about it, it must
have been RQ3, because DI was a spell in RQ2.

philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk   or   phibbs@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/phibbs
+--------------+
| Philip Hibbs +---------------------------------------------+
| What immortal hand or eye dare frame thy perfect symmetry? |
+------------------------------------------------------------+

***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 13:41:36 -0500 
From: stancliff@commnections.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks

RU>My players never did follow up on this; they preferred burying
RU>themselves inside iron armor or sorcerous ritual-boosted damage
RU>resistance.
   IMC the DmgResists have less than 20% chances of working because the
lead players dish out 22-26 pts per hit.  The spell is only useful for
light weapons and arrows.
   Most of the players won't wear plate due to the encumberance, but
they get adequate protection by making light natural scalemail out of
dream dragons and enhanced cuirbouilli out of giantskin or the Spotted
Shark from 'Strangers in Prax'.  They consider Protection 4 to be a
light casting and several carry Prot 6 or 7!
   The big nuisances are damage to parrying weapons and repeated
knockbacks.
Bob Stancliff


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:37:12 -0500 
From: stancliff@commnections.com
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Priestly DI

RU>I don't remember the details, but I'm sure I read somewhere that priests
RU>don't get DI, and I also remember discussing it with my group, and
RU>coming to the conclusion that it was because they had to keep their POW
RU>above 15 or 16 in order to remain a priest. Thinking about it, it must
RU>have been RQ3, because DI was a spell in RQ2.
   In RQ2, rune lords had to have a 15 Pow and priests had to have a 17
Pow.  The Divine Intervention spell existed so that priests were less
likely to drop their Pow doing a DI.  I think they could still do a
normal DI, but if their Pow went too low they would lose their position
(that might be wrong).
   In RQ3, any initiate or higher can do a d100 DI unless they are out
of contact with the god.  A few of the largest cults give lords and/or
priests a d10 DI because the god can use the magic power gained from all
of the initiates to give special attention to the rune levels.

   I have considered making DI's more likely just to let the players
burn Pow and need to train it back.  I have also considered putting the
DI spell back into the common divine list to give a guaranteed call with
a Pow loss proportional to the request.
Bob Stancliff


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 17:58:46 -0500
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks

stancliff@commnections.com wrote:

>   IMC the DmgResists have less than 20% chances of working because 
> the lead players dish out 22-26 pts per hit.  The spell is only 
> useful for light weapons and arrows.

I think my players were using better Resists... the sorcerer in the
party had no fear of keeping 3/4 of his Presence tied up in Damage
Resist / Magic Resist 19 Multispell 2...

>    Most of the players won't wear plate due to the encumberance, 
> but they get adequate protection by making light natural scalemail 
> out of dream dragons and enhanced cuirbouilli out of giantskin or 
> the Spotted Shark from 'Strangers in Prax'.  

!! My players were afraid of trolls... taking on a dragon (even a dream
dragon) would have had them running for the hills. The first night I ran
a sample combat, dropping the "toughest" member of the party into an
arena, naked, with his choice of weapons, facing a lone troll... after a
critical sling shot crippled his arm, the whole party had a healthy
respect for combat in RQ...
***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 18:00:51 -0500
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Spells

Hibbs, Philip wrote:
> 
> >I have a suspicion that once Philip posts those
> >spells over on the GD,
> 
> I posted them on schedule, 9am yesterday morning. They haven't 
> shown up yet.

Despair not; as you no doubt noticed, the posts I made Wednesday arrived
this morning, AFTER I reposted them... where in the aether they went, I
dunno... (at least if things bounce, I get a notice... when they get
lost, I'm just left wondering.)
***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:05:58 -0800 (PST)
From: allen wallace <alwallac@linknet.kitsap.lib.wa.us>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3

Am I the only one bothered by the ratio of damage between a fist attack
and weapon attacks? The RQ4 lists make it worse, now a fist still does 1d3
as compared to that shortsword at 1d4. How does anyone else justify or
correct this. I'm leaning towards lethal and non lethal attack types. Non
lethal attacks will do fatigue damage except on specials and crits. 

			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: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:19:22 -0500 
From: stancliff@commnections.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] My 2 clacks

RU>I think my players were using better Resists... the sorcerer in the
RU>party had no fear of keeping 3/4 of his Presence tied up in Damage
RU>Resist / Magic Resist 19 Multispell 2...
   You are using some variation of Steve's sorcery rules.  In RQ3 no
sorcerer can cast a spell with more than Intensity 18, less if he wants
duration too.  Your spell only has a 25% chance of success against a 24
point attack... not very good.

RU>!! My players were afraid of trolls... taking on a dragon (even a dream
RU>dragon) would have had them running for the hills. The first night I ran
RU>a sample combat, dropping the "toughest" member of the party into an
RU>arena, naked, with his choice of weapons, facing a lone troll... after a
RU>critical sling shot crippled his arm, the whole party had a healthy
RU>respect for combat in RQ...
   When I ran the Borderlands, the players attacked the newtlings in
5-eyes temple with an ambush through Krang's cave.  They didn't know he
was there until it was too late to back out.  The 23 yr old Agimori with
the 55% great sword got in front, took the first breath attack, and hit
him three rounds straight, killing him with a crit.  Krang couldn't get
in a return attack because the first two attacks both knocked him back
before his strike rank.  It should have been worse, but we ran the rules
the way we knew them.
Bob Stancliff


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:23:48 -0500 
From: stancliff@commnections.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3

RU>Am I the only one bothered by the ratio of damage between a fist attack
RU>and weapon attacks? The RQ4 lists make it worse, now a fist still does 1d3
RU>as compared to that shortsword at 1d4. How does anyone else justify or
RU>correct this. I'm leaning towards lethal and non lethal attack types. Non
RU>lethal attacks will do fatigue damage except on specials and crits.
   The RQ4 rules also defined a list of weapons and natural attacks that
do half of their damage as non-lethal or knock-out damage.
Bob Stancliff


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 20:34:19 -0500
From: Tal Meta <talmeta@cybercomm.net>
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3

allen wallace wrote:
> 
> Am I the only one bothered by the ratio of damage between a fist 
> attack and weapon attacks? The RQ4 lists make it worse, now a fist 
> still does 1d3 as compared to that shortsword at 1d4. How does 
> anyone else justify or correct this. I'm leaning towards lethal 
> and non lethal attack types. Non lethal attacks will do fatigue 
> damage except on specials and crits.

Well, I'm not one of the legions of net.ninja.masters, but I do know
enough martial arts to know that someone who wants to -can- kill with
their bare hands, and with surprising ease. If anything, kung fu flicks
offend me because SOMEBODY ought to be seriously hurt after the second
or third hit.

What might work is this: use the martial arts skill to define whether a
physical attack is doing stun type damage or 'killing' damage (i.e. a
guy with Fist 75% and MA 50% who rolls a 45 can elect to either
physically harm his opponent for actual damage or to do Fatigue damage
like you suggested above).
***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:36:40 -0500 
From: stancliff@commnections.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Enchantment conditions

   I have finished reviewing the RQ3 rules about 'targeting' conditions.
 The wording of the rule makes it logically undefined if anyone tries to
change the condition enchantment.  When I combine this with the fact
that only 'link spell' conditions and 'user' conditions actually say
that their conditions can be modified at a later date, I must conclude
that 'targeting' conditions can never be changed.
   The sentence near the bottom of the previous column... "Once a
condition has been added to an enchantment, it can never be removed or
expanded, though later the enchanter can further restrict it.", seems to
me to refer to 'user' conditions, which specifically state that they can
be further restricted at another time.


***************************************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line
'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 20:53:52 -0500 
From: stancliff@commnections.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 3

RU>Well, I'm not one of the legions of net.ninja.masters, but I do know
RU>enough martial arts to know that someone who wants to -can- kill with
RU>their bare hands, and with surprising ease. If anything, kung fu flicks
RU>offend me because SOMEBODY ought to be seriously hurt after the second
RU>or third hit.
   Very true observation... even when those guys really throw the
punches, most of them are not hitting vital targets.  See my previous
comment about RQ4 light weapons.
   I have noticed, though, that it is not the 1d3 punch that breaks the
guy's arm... it is the 1d6 damage bonus!  Very bad, very bad... yeah
bad.  ;>)


***************************************************************************
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 #31
************************************

***************************************************************************
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.