From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #96 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Thursday, October 5 2000 Volume 03 : Number 096 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Jims take on Sanctify [RQ-RULES] Armour [RQ-RULES] Recovering runespells [RQ-RULES] Truestone RE: [RQ-RULES] Truestone RE: [RQ-RULES] Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour RE: [RQ-RULES] Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour RE: [RQ-RULES] Armour 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 Oct 2000 14:32:09 EDT From: IssariesGT@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Jims take on Sanctify In a message dated 10/4/00 6:14:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, talmeta@cybercomm.net writes: << Oh, I had a player do this, as well. The solution, IMC, was that when such Sanctified sites were left "open to the public", a servant of the deity involved (Corellon Larethian in this case) would seek out the creator of the site and rebuke him, often taking spells or points of POW in retribution. >> I also believe that Sanctify is an enchant spell. This would make them roll on their rspective enchant skill. Also, I believe that the spell counts as used as along as a particular area is enchanted and cannot be regained. kes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:12:54 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Armour >The list isn't slanted that way, but my perceptions of hand to hand fighting >were based on a man-to-man model, like the SCA. Most armor you see pictured >in period illustrations for ancients are for armies. Someone stooping for a >leg shot in a shield wall is leaving himself and his comrades wide open for a >chop from his target's buddies. Ancient army shields also tend to be large, >covering the thigh area, leaving only the knees and below for targets. But >gladiators had thigh armor (I forget the technical term) and greaves, because >they were fighting man to man and against oddball weapons like tridents. > >Sorry about the thinking like an American crack. I should have said "thinking >like a product of modern Western European culture." In an >Orlanthi/Saxon/Viking style culture, the priests and the chiefs can be >essentially the same people and the duties of the priest are the duties of >the chief. > >Steve Perrin, who hasn't worn thigh armor since he wrote RuneQuest... No worries!, I should have put an emoticon in there to show I wasn't offended! If no one minds, I'll crosspost my submission to the other list to show what I meant, but you've answered my point pretty clearly anyway. <<<< I've been studying up on ancient era armour recently, and one thing has struck me. Nearly no ancient peoples wore arm armour apart from gladiators. It's not really until the Carolingian period you see widespread use of armour covering the forarm, and before that (although the Cataphracti heavy cavalry wore head to toe scale, I'm talking widespread use) it's only confined to the upper arm. Obviously, it's going to tire you out swinging an arm encased in bronze, you could even say that you lose 1FP + (1FP x Weapon arm AP) per round but I don't think that's really the matter here. I think the location chart is all wrong. If you decide to use the 'slung shield' rule, then realistically your left arm should have half the armour value of the shield. There's a good reason for not armouring the left, and if we use the right armour = FP+1 rule there's a reason for your right, but are you *really* 25% more likely to strike a leg than an arm? Why aren't you hitting the bad guy in the guts anyway? You arm is anchored high on your body, so most swung weapons will tend to strike around that area. Stabs also tend to strike around this area, but could possibly reach the legs as well. If you look at all the ancient armours, nearly all of them have two characteristics. Firstly, the shoulder blade area is made up of a double thickness of armour to stop downward chops, and the frontal surface is toughened to stop a stab. Nearly all the armour is centred around the chest as well, now this makes sense 'cause that's where you vital organs are, but the ancients weren't stupid and would put armour where you far more naturally likely to be struck from a wild blow. Finally, if you've ever run a fist fight in RQ3 you know the hit location chart just doesn't do the trick, you punch your opponent in the face or torso and not the leg 40% of the time! I think the Melee hit location should be scrapped and just use the Missile hit locations, and even those are too limb specific for Melee (as they should be). Perhaps something like this? RLEG 01 LLEG 02 ABDO 03 - 08 CHEST 09 - 13 RARM 14 - 15 LARM 16 - 17 HEAD 18 - 20 This makes it a bit more deadly though, but you're not going to have the usual RQ3 battlefied covered in severed limbs. A last thought, most combat takes place in a rough skirmish line, is there really room to go swinging for low, leg blows there?>>>>>> As you've said, most armour was designed for wearing in pitched battles. In my campaign, guards do not generally wear armour (in that certain psuedo-celtic society) and all the armour is in fact used for war or raid. The complex fatigue calculation there isn't really meant to be used though! I use a different method for FP, I still deduct FPs but have a simplified result. For a more detailed look at it (because it's a interwoven part of my house rules) you'll have to go to: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/7031/RQ-rules.html Jim Lawrie *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:41:35 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Recovering runespells > My group allows a successful Worship to recover some spells since this idea was permitted in "River of Cradles". I think that was allowing a Divine spell matrix to be recharged at a Worship ceremony. That's a standard feature of the RQ3 magic rules, not a special for RoC. Certainly, that's how I play it in my campaign. One result is that you finally see players using POW to enchant Divine spell matrices of their own. They cost more than just sacrificing for the spell, but they're easier and quicker to recharge, and can be lent to others - useful if the only character with a Heal Body spell is the one lying unconscious and bleeding! Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:41:39 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Truestone > Frankly, the mechanism given for Truestone to store Divine magic always seemed a little lame and vague. I mean, what's the point? You can trade or acquire a Rune spell, but it's one-use unless you are a member of the appropriate cult or an associated one -- and even then, in some cases you either have to re-sacrifice POW (in which case, what's the point?), or maybe even can only have the spell as one-use. Kind of lame for such a supposedly powerful object. If it's been set by a member of your cult, it gives you a matrix for multiple Rune/Divine spells with no cost to enchant it. It can be recharged by anyone who has the spells reusably, and then taken away for use by someone else. If it was set by an enemy, you now have access to spells you could never normally get hold of. In the RQ 3 description there's a paragraph which is a 'GM's secret'. When designing a scenario, it's a way of giving your players one-use access to magic they couldn't normally have. Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:43:56 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Truestone > If it's been set by a member of your cult, it gives you a matrix > for multiple Rune/Divine spells with no cost to enchant it. It > can be recharged by anyone who has the spells reusably, and then > taken away for use by someone else. This is key to the purpose for Truestones... temples own them so that a priest's spells can go on a mission without a priest being endangered. They should lend them for important cult missions, and buy any the players have found. A player who insists on owning a truestone has to bargain with priests to charge it when there is no obvious or pressing need for the player to have the spells. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:54:55 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Armour > but are you *really* 25% more likely to strike a leg > than an arm? Why aren't you hitting the bad guy in the > guts anyway? When incapacitating your foe is more important than a single critical blow, then you will hit any target you can reach. If the person guards their torso as fully as you have admitted, then arms and legs become the best and easiest targets. The tables reflect the practicalities of battle, not some random scatter-shot effect of luck. > I think the Melee hit location should be scrapped and > just use the Missile hit locations, and even those are > too limb specific for Melee (as they should be). You are welcome to your opinion, but I agree with the design premise that people hit whatever they can reach, high or low, and legs are the easiest target. > A last thought, most combat takes place in a rough > skirmish line, is there really room to go swinging > for low, leg blows there?>>>>>> In skirmish? Absolutely! Also recall that hits from below roll a d10 location (you should include kicks), and hits from above roll a d10+10 (you should include fists and head butts). Therefore fists don't strike legs. The aimed blow rules are set up for your view of the person who always strikes for the body. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:05:15 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour >are you *really* 25% more likely to strike >a leg than an arm? Why aren't you hitting >the bad guy in the guts anyway? Because his sword and shield are in the way. I've done a bit of LRP fighting, and I found myself going for the legs all the time. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:24:51 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Armour > A last thought, most combat takes place in a rough > skirmish line, is there really room to go swinging > for low, leg blows there? This has never been the case in the RQ combats I've been in. The PC's _always_ attempt to get into the best position based on the terrain and the combat prowess of the PC, which usually has them scattered around and/or clustered back-to-back. Combat in our games has almost always worked out to one-on-one or one-on-two, but then we have always used the 'adventuring party' paradigm. Personally, I would find role-playing a common soldier in a battle company pretty boring. When you are fighting one-on-one in a melee that has the potential of throwing another opponent at you at any time, you want to incapacitate the one you're fighting as soon as possible. If that means taking out the legs, then all the better. With a sword in your hand, the legs are no harder to reach than the arms or head or any other body part. If there's a shield protecting the 'guts' then you go for something else. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:39:37 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour > This has never been the case in the RQ combats I've been in. The PC's >_always_ attempt to get into the best position based on the terrain and the >combat prowess of the PC, which usually has them scattered around and/or >clustered back-to-back. Combat in our games has almost always worked out to >one-on-one or one-on-two, but then we have always used the 'adventuring >party' paradigm. Personally, I would find role-playing a common soldier in >a battle company pretty boring. > When you are fighting one-on-one in a melee that has the potential of >throwing another opponent at you at any time, you want to incapacitate the >one you're fighting as soon as possible. If that means taking out the legs, >then all the better. With a sword in your hand, the legs are no harder to >reach than the arms or head or any other body part. If there's a shield >protecting the 'guts' then you go for something else. > >Rich Allen That's the best thing about forums, is finding out how other players interact. Ours always attack in a fairly disciplined shield line if they can, because they know from bitter experience that being cut off and surrounded is usually a terminal move. Of course, if they're playing less disciplined characters they often go off and be more individual in combat, but sooner or later they learn the value of a formation that can't be outflanked. Even the unruly Franks favoured it when possible. Looking at the weapons that span the ancient era, I'd say by far the bulk of combatants are armed with a spear. The LRP and SCA events I've seen (but I admit, I have not taken part in) rarely seem to use spears, in fact I've never seen them use them. The classic 1H spear attack style seems to have held the spear high and stabbed down. It seems to me that the trick in killing a man with a spear in this is to feint his shield out of line and drive the spear into the collarbone area. If you go for his legs, you are moving your spear down past his shield, inviting a parry. I'd only use it as feint and I'm sure the ancients would too. : ) Please don't think I'm a gadfly on this topic, I think you've all made very valid points and I've definitely taken them on board. I fenced Foil and Sabre for years, and while they're stylised sports, they work on the basis of killing blows. These being the safest options, as they don't allow for a stab in the back later. Jim Lawrie *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:18:54 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Armour In a message dated 10/5/00 2:02:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jimpeta@primus.com.au writes: > Looking at the weapons that span the ancient era, I'd say by far the > bulk of combatants are armed with a spear. The LRP and SCA events I've seen > (but I admit, I have not taken part in) rarely seem to use spears, in fact > I've never seen them use them. You obviously haven't seen an SCA war, in which the pikes are an integral part. Again, this is the difference between war and "adventurous combat." Also, the spear is a very simple weapon, you just poke. Therefore, the conscripts who haven't had the luxury of training with weapons every day are issued a spear and you hope they poke first. That said, there is a minority of SCA fighters who prefer the spear (usually used two-handed, but not pike length) and use it almost exclusively. The cover of the RQ 3rd edition (at least in the United States) is actually a portrait of two SCA fighters who are friends of the artist, Jody Lee. An interesting note is that in "real" SCA life, she was a sword and shield fighter and her husband was the spearman. And for those who might be interested, the lady is now fantasy writer Kate Elliot. I highly recommend her current fantasy series (whose title escapes me but the next one should be out soon). The sword and similarly lengthed weapons are for single combat hand to hand work, and there you take a leg and keep moving. If you are stuck in a shield line, you go for the vital spots, agreed. You also do as was suggested before, and roll d10+10 for hit location. If you are insistent on saying that the attacker should go for vital spots, I again agree. That's what RQ parry and dodge are for. If you got your attack PAST the parry and dodge, then you are more likely to have hit an extremity than the head or abdomen. Just assume that all blows to head and abdomen were the ones that were parried or dodged. Steve Perrin, who appreciates the discussion. I haven't had to think about this stuff in years... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:29:39 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Armour > Looking at the weapons that span the ancient era, I'd say by far the > bulk of combatants are armed with a spear. The problem with looking at the 'ancient era' is that it only applies to Earth's history and those campaigns that mimic it. The campaigns I have played in do not mirror Earth's history; to each his own! In the campaign settings of my RPG group, the sword and the battle axe are the dominant melee weapons by a long margin. Spears are used by some of the primitive tribesmen, but mostly that's because they can't afford to make their own swords and so are only experienced in the weapons they grew up with. Actually, thinking on it a bit more, I suppose that the armies in our worlds would probably be armed with more appropriate weapons, but armies are background story to us. Normally the characters are off in the wilderness exploring a ruin, rescuing a kidnapped maiden, or some other cliché plot, and there are no armies in sight. If an army does show up during the game, it's usually seen off in the distance, or something to be avoided by the PCs. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #96 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of Hasbro/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.