From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest)
To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com
Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #115
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 Friday, November 17 2000 Volume 03 : Number 115
RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Re: [RQ-RULES] Anyone for cricket?!
Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
[RQ-RULES] Re: Familiars
Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
[RQ-RULES] Familiars
Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
[RQ-RULES] RQ3 sorcery, and why I like it
RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
[RQ-RULES] Re: Familiars & magic items
RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
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, 15 Nov 2000 20:37:56 EST
From: MurfNMurf@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Anyone for cricket?!
In a message dated 11/15/00 5:51:08 PM Central Standard Time,
mcarthur@dstc.edu.au writes:
> Meirion Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > If anyone is interested, I have a scanned copy of a very old White Dwarf
> article giving the rules
> > for Elfball, a tongue-in-cheek adaptation of cricket for RQ2.
> >
> > I can't vouch for how well it plays, since I've never had a chance to use
> it!
> >
> > Its a 350k JPEG file.
> >
> > Drop me a line if your interested.
>
> Hi Meirion, I'd certainly be interested! Maybe even get and chance
> to play one of these days in the antipodes.
>
> Thanks
> Robert
>
>
Add me to whatever list your compiling there, Meirion.
-Ken-
***************************************************************************
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, 15 Nov 2000 21:12:42 EST
From: SPerrin@aol.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
- --part1_cb.b454832.27449c9a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 11/15/00 5:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
MurfNMurf@aol.com writes:
>
>
> >> If mundane creatures don't require INT to be made into familiars, then
>> they're complete creatures and not eligible for the spell in the first
>> place.
>>
>>
>
>
> Really? If thats right outta the book, then I think its completely
> offbase, as it makes it impossible for _any_ sort of animal to be made into
> a
> Familiar; whether otter, monkey, hawk, or whatever.
>
Ken, he's referring to variable INT instead of fixed INT. Of course the
creatures you named have INT, but it is fixed INT. They still require INT to
become truly Intelligent and therefore are candidates for familiarhood.
Steve Perrin, who thinks that fixed INT is one of Sandy's better
innovations...
- --part1_cb.b454832.27449c9a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 11/15/00 5:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
MurfNMurf@aol.com writes:
If mundane creatures don't require INT to be made into familiars, then
they're complete creatures and not eligible for the spell in the first
place.
Really? If thats right outta the book, then I think its completely
offbase, as it makes it impossible for _any_ sort of animal to be made into
a
Familiar; whether otter, monkey, hawk, or whatever.
Ken, he's referring to variable INT instead of fixed INT. Of course the
creatures you named have INT, but it is fixed INT. They still require INT to
become truly Intelligent and therefore are candidates for familiarhood.
Steve Perrin, who thinks that fixed INT is one of Sandy's better
innovations...
- --part1_cb.b454832.27449c9a_boundary--
***************************************************************************
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, 15 Nov 2000 20:53:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Kevin Rose
Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Familiars
Andrew Barton wrote:
> The problem with having multiple sorcerous familiars is that you have to
> give a point of INT to each creature. Get into a fight with a sorceror
> who has three more free INT than you do, and you'll have severe
> problems.
> If mundane creatures don't require INT to be made into familiars, then
> they're complete creatures and not eligible for the spell in the first
> place.
No, not if you are clever. Naiad's make just outstanding familiars. You
just have to sacrifice a point of size. The trick is to convince them
that this is a good idea. And having a GM foolish enough to allow it. . .
Kevin
***************************************************************************
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, 16 Nov 2000 11:47:01 -0500
From: Tal Meta
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
> Ken, he's referring to variable INT instead of fixed INT. Of course the
> creatures you named have INT, but it is fixed INT. They still require INT to
> become truly Intelligent and therefore are candidates for familiarhood.
>
> Steve Perrin, who thinks that fixed INT is one of Sandy's better
> innovations...
Of course, then there's my ultra-evil NPC sorcerer, who worships a demon
lord that grants him the Fix Intelligence spell, so he can turn his
enemies into his familiars...
- --
talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine
ICQ - 12594453
AIM - talmeta
Homepage -
***************************************************************************
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, 16 Nov 2000 11:40:00 -0700
From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]"
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
Tal Meta wrote:
>
> > Ken, he's referring to variable INT instead of fixed INT. Of course the
> > creatures you named have INT, but it is fixed INT. They still require INT to
> > become truly Intelligent and therefore are candidates for familiarhood.
> >
> > Steve Perrin, who thinks that fixed INT is one of Sandy's better
> > innovations...
>
> Of course, then there's my ultra-evil NPC sorcerer, who worships a demon
> lord that grants him the Fix Intelligence spell, so he can turn his
> enemies into his familiars...
Ooooh, you BAD! ;-)
Stephen Posey
slposey@concentric.net
***************************************************************************
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, 16 Nov 2000 14:45:30 -0500
From: Andrew Barton
Subject: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
> Really? If thats right outta the book, then I think its completely
offbase, as it makes it impossible for _any_ sort of animal to be made into
a
Familiar; whether otter, monkey, hawk, or whatever.
The definition of complete/incomplete is at the beginning of the
Creatures book. It says that animals are incomplete because
they have fixed INT.
A Create Familiar spell has to start with an incomplete creature
and end with a complete one. So you can make animals into
familiars, but you have to put at least one point of INT into
them. The advantage is that they add this to their fixed INT
value, and the total is now normal INT.
My Byzantine sorceror paid a lot of money to have a realistic
wooden puppet made, called in a major favour with a shaman
to get a high-power spirit which had INT and POW, bound the
spirit into the puppet then gave it
at least one point of each physical characteristic. This
weakened him physically, but gave him an excellent familiar
without costing him any INT.
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:10:25 +0000
From: Michael Cule
Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
In message <200011161445_MC2-BB1C-3EF@compuserve.com>, Andrew Barton
writes
> This
>weakened him physically, but gave him an excellent familiar
>without costing him any INT.
The RQ4 draft rules changed things so that only POW was needed to create
a Familiar, an amendment that I'm mightily in favour of: it never made
sense to have the sorcerer sacrifice INT, his most precious possession.
My favourite familiar for villainous sorcerers is the Succubus. But a
well made mummy can be very useful for long-lived sorcerers as long as
you don't mind the dust and smell of embalming fluid.
- --
Michael Cule
***************************************************************************
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, 17 Nov 2000 11:47:28 +1100
From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie"
Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ3 sorcery, and why I like it
>The RQ4 draft rules changed things so that only POW was needed to create
>a Familiar, an amendment that I'm mightily in favour of: it never made
>sense to have the sorcerer sacrifice INT, his most precious possession.
We had a more or less standard house rule, your sorceror could have up
to but not exceeding INT 16, although I had a personal ceiling of INT 15,
(as a GM I'd want to *see* that INT 18 being rolled, first time)
Also, Elves and Dragonewt sorcerors were frowned apon, although I did
see a high INT outlaw crested Dragonnewt played well who was verging on
adept status.
I personally had no problems with the RQ3 sorcery, but it did need very
careful scrutiny and control, players had to have a calendar which showed
their long duration spells and recast dates and were vulnerable to the odd
neutralise magic that made them redo the lot again. We played in a highly
nonstandard Ralios, sorcerors were organised into colleges and guilds and
there was a strong prohihition against sharing spells, most people disliked
sorcerors and their chances at social interaction were lower which is a big
slam for a roleplayer. We also had the common people seen to by 'hedge
wizards' of the more orthodox western faiths, so they had almost no chance
to sell their powers, forcing them to administer land in a fuedal capacity
to maintain a decent lifestyle which really cut into time available for them
to study. It's unrestricted studytime that is the beginning of the end for a
campaign, if they can study all they like they'll be summoning and binding
things like a conveyor belt, and then they will have a huge MP battery
backing them up.
Jim
***************************************************************************
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, 16 Nov 2000 20:18:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Terje Tollisen
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
>A Create Familiar spell has to start with an incomplete creature
>and end with a complete one. So you can make animals into
>familiars, but you have to put at least one point of INT into
>them. The advantage is that they add this to their fixed INT
>value, and the total is now normal INT.
So, would anyone alow a PC to start off the spell with an animal and a
spirit, and then bind the spirit into the animal to form a complete
(possesed) creature. A possible loop hole for power gamers?
- -Terje, lurker
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
***************************************************************************
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, 17 Nov 2000 13:08:19 +0100
From: "jean.paul.lhuillier"
Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Familiars & magic items
Hello everyone:
Andrew Barton :
> A Create Familiar spell has to start with an incomplete creature
> and end with a complete one. So you can make animals into
> familiars, but you have to put at least one point of INT into
> them. The advantage is that they add this to their fixed INT
> value, and the total is now normal INT.
The first most interesting Familiars, I think, were to be found in Griffin
Island with that ol'chap Halcyon Var Enkorth's menagerie*: Frangeling
(cutest), the ring (simple but efficient), the StoorWorm (monsteresque). I
also liked that wooden flying platform (what a look for a sorceror). I think
there was also a nice small puppet in the Monster Coliseum Box (litterally
:-). Mike Dawson's malleable tiny statue from Strangers in Prax is also
clever.
My own glorantan sorceror achieved a particularly weird creation: She
"stasised" a huge shade (char. STR, SIZ, POW) then composed special
semi-corporeal binding enchantements *inside* the shade to hold a Wraith (CON,
INT). She sacrified some of her DEX, a point of CHA & a point of INT to merge
the 2 creatures and render the incomplete "thing" complete.
It was a total heretical experiment, but she was a real stigian witch,
venerating Subere and all. The process left her drained and kind of deranged
forever though (lost SAN, etc.).
My last (unfinished) attempt with Familiars, was the total absorbtion of the
wizard's CHAR by the Familiar. I mean my sorceror, transfered all his Char to
the familiar until all he got left was 1pt in all char, a small living blub of
flesh carried by the Familiar. We can say that the Familiar had become the
sorceror. The result was that the new creature's only weakness was the
sorceror himself. . . .
- --Jean-paul LHUILLIER
***************************************************************************
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, 17 Nov 2000 09:56:21 -0500
From: "Bob Stancliff"
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
> This discussion reminds me of a situation in my most recent
> RQ campaign where a budding Rune Lord of a Non-Gloranthan
> jester cult was looking for a familiar/bound spirit. He left
> it up to me, since the god was given to rather random actions.
> After much rumination, I ended up handing him an anteater.
My trickster brought a carefully selected herdman when he went to ask for
an allied spirit. I allowed it, but the other players eventually started
complaining about the extra character being around and they didn't want to
share treasure with an allied spirit. Personally, I found it very
amusing, which is the primary purpose for tricksters. Eventually he was
killed and I didn't let him return.
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:16:54 -0500
From: "Bob Stancliff"
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
>The problem with having multiple sorcerous familiars is that you have
>to give a point of INT to each creature. Get into a fight with a
>sorcerer who has three more free INT than you do, and you'll have
>severe problems.
I disagree, but I can't speak from experience. Under RQ3 rules,
familiars can allow you to free all of your INT, which would give you a
big advantage over the guy with 3 more INT, but only 1 familiar. We use
some of the RQ4 draft rules which removed the need for free INT, so the
issue is lost on our game.
>If mundane creatures don't require INT to be made into familiars, then
>they're complete creatures and not eligible for the spell in the first
>place.
This is a misconception. There are several incomplete creatures,
primarily semi-bodied spirits like nymphs, chonchons and hellions, with
full/normal INT of their own. The stat that has to be enchanted in this
case is usually SIZ or CON. "Strangers in Prax" had two examples of
familiars that started as magic spirits and were given solid bodies. The
big advantage here is that most of the sacrificed stats can be recovered
by training, and losing SIZ is not harmful to a sorcerer (unless his
familiars die regularly).
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:26:00 -0500
From: "Bob Stancliff"
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
>The Species maximum is that of the species in each characteristic,
>except INT if it was fixed. There is 21. After all, it gets
>a rolled INT of 3D6. Of course, if you are asking about the
>char eristic that didn't exist, then there is a bit more of a
>problem. Maybe half again?
An allied spirit has a 3d6 Int, but animal familiars are defined by the
number of Int sacrificed by the sorcerer. Species max wouldn't matter for
a stat like Int, but it clearly makes a difference for Pow. Many animals
have low Pow and this would greatly hamper stat rolls.
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:45:19 -0500
From: "Bob Stancliff"
Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Familiars
>So, would anyone allow a PC to start off the spell with an animal and a
>spirit, and then bind the spirit into the animal to form a complete
>(possessed) creature. A possible loop hole for power gamers?
No, I wouldn't. In RQ3 a spirit cannot be bound into a live creature.
The create familiar spells require inanimate material for the body of a
disembodied creature. Having a spirit possess a creature will not make it
a familiar, though it is essentially complete. In my game we don't allow
ghosts to stay in a body that is not similar to it's original body.
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.
------------------------------
End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #115
*************************************
***************************************************************************
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.