From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #48 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 Monday, May 7 2001 Volume 04 : Number 048 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest forum opened (FIN). RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ to HW RE: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments [RQ-RULES] published source where a triggered, conditioned matrix for an area/event Re: [RQ-RULES] published source where a triggered, conditioned matrix for an area/event [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments [RQ-RULES] Combining sorcery and spirit magic [RQ-RULES] The trap was, Fireblade was an active spell in RQ2 [RQ-RULES] one adventurer cannot combine a spell with that of another adventurer RE: [RQ-RULES] Combining sorcery and spirit magic Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Combining sorcery and spirit magic 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:29:16 +0300 (EEST) From: Olli Kantola Subject: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest forum opened (FIN). A new RuneQuest forum has been opened at: http://pub12.ezboard.com/brunequest33769 Unfortunately it's for finns only. Furriners' are welcome if they can speak fluent finnish. ;) Olli Kantola *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:55:06 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] RQ to HW > > If he had a decent skill that wasn't represented, then I added > > a Hero Wars type ability for it. > Alain wrote: > What do you call a "decent" skill, i.e. what percentage range? Since we are dividing RQ skills by 3 to get HW skills, the minimum is between 30% and 36%. It needs to be a skill the character is interested in improving, or at least going to use, otherwise you are wasting space transferring it to HW. > I think any skill that would entitle a HW 13 level (starting > level for most abilities) could be eligible? A new skill starts at 12. 13 is generally only the starting level for a cultural keyword. The initial value for a profession or religion keyword is 17. Starting levels can be changed to match the power level chosen by the referee, so these are not absolute. > I am not sure HW 13 convert automatically to 65%, but I guess > this is the range? Why do you say this? Do you think 21 in HW equals 90% in RQ just because they are both called mastery? Once you play the game you will see that starting characters with skills between 12 and 17 with one at 25 and two at 21 are not any better than an average initiate in RQ with a bunch of skills between 35% and 50% and a couple near 60% with one at 70%. The main difference is the access to feats instead of battle magic, but your ability to use feats isn't any better than RQ battle magic. In the beginning they are only used to augment damage, armor, and attack values... can you say Bladesharp, Protection, and Shimmer? It is hard to directly compare RQ skills and HW abilities since RQ is an absolute percentage and HW is a sliding scale that compares an ability to it's resistance ability. If both are equal, you have slightly less than a 50% chance since ties are possible. What RQ calls Mastery is much closer to 30 or 40 in HW. For our game we set the conversion value at 3 so HW 30 <=> RQ 90%. Most RQ category bonuses need to be increased noticeably to approximate the HW ability to continue increasing without limit. This makes starting character in RQ slightly tougher, which doesn't hurt anyone, and with a bonus between 10 and 20, unlimited progression becomes feasible, though still difficult. 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: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:46:39 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments > > Conditions determine (amongst other things) *when* > > enchantments may be cast, and they can optionally > > restrict *who* can make the enchantment; what they > > *can't* do is specify that some non-existent non- > > entity cast the spell on your behalf. > > Then we should all read it more carefully. Right now I agree > that a > triggering condition can cast a spell whether a person is there or > not, and > I believe the rules support that. > Stancliff I do not remember a single published source where a trigged, conditioned matrix for an area/event did not have some pool of MP to fuel them. The ones I remeber all had a bound spirits. I would imagine that you could use a magic point matrix instead, but somebody would have to 'refuel' it at some point. If there are no MP then the effect should not work. IMO, the only way a matrix like that should be able to draw MP for someone is if it is attuned via RQ2 rules. Leon Kirshtein ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 13:02:57 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] published source where a triggered, conditioned matrix for an area/event >I do not remember a single published source where a triggered, conditioned >matrix for an area/event did not have some pool of MP to fuel them. The >ones I remember all had a bound spirits. I don't have my books with me. Which examples can you remember from published sources? I want to examine this further when I get home. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 07 May 2001 16:28:14 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] published source where a triggered, conditioned matrix for an area/event If memory service me right, Griffon Island supplement contains, a treasure room what if you walk in the spirits will cast Dominate spells on you and make you stick a Firebladed spike in your eye. Leon Kirshtein > >I do not remember a single published source where a triggered, conditioned > >matrix for an area/event did not have some pool of MP to fuel them. > The > >ones I remember all had a bound spirits. > > I don't have my books with me. Which examples can you remember from > > published sources? I want to examine this further when I get home. > > > Brad Furst > esoteric@teleport.com ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:18:30 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments > The archer thought it was nice, too, until the linked MP storage > matrix was empty and the GM ruled that the spell continued to go off > each time the bow was reloaded, all the while taking the MP from the > archer instead. I set up a nasty variation on this in RQ2 days. It was a spear that automatically cast Fanaticism on the wielder and Fireblade on itself at the start of a fight. The trap was, Fireblade was an active spell in RQ2 and it had to be maintained by the spear's wielder. If he got wounded, the spell went down and was automatically cast again. Once the spear ran out of stored magic, it drew on the wielder's POW. You could die that way. 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:18:31 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments >>I've always assumed that the enchantment was cast automatically in this >>situation. If not, enchantments placed to defend a site would always have >>to have a spirit bound into them to do the casting. > And the problem with this would be ...? Well, that would be a perfectly possible way to set up your world. But I can't recall seeing a published site that had spirits to cast its defences. OK, my version of the rules is the original AH DeLuxe set, and the relevant rules are under 'Conditions on Enchantments', page 56. I quote: 'Attack Conditions: An attack condition added to a spell causes it to be cast when a target defined by additional target conditions violates the space or touches the item'. On the face of it, an Attack Condition causes the spell to be cast automatically by the enchantment itself. There is the problem of working out the resistance roll - when needed I've taken it to be equal to the total POW expended in the enchantment. Just how this works will depend on how you interpret the rules on Target and User conditions. I remember some long arguments about these. > As I said: enchantments don't cast spells, users cast spells. > The enchantments just help you narrow down who those users can and can't be. > If you need a reference, it's called "Runequest, 3rd edition rules" -- the > chapter on Ritual Magic. I can't find any explicit statement of what you say in that chapter. Besides the passage I quoted above, the section on 'General Conditions and Definitions' (page 55 in my edition) includes the folowing: 'A place can also be Enchanted. Perhaps intruders will trip activation of one or more spells ...' 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:18:28 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Combining sorcery and spirit magic >Since one particular character in our party seemed to be the focus of >the opponents' magical attacks, another character cast Countermagic-4 >on him, unaware that Resist-Magic-8 was already in effect upon him. >How do you resolve subsequent magic attacks? There's a passage in the 'Common Magical Procedures and Concepts' section which might apply, page 11 in my rules, 'Combined Spells'. This is confusingly worded, but it starts by saying flatly 'one adventurer cannot combine a spell with that of another adventurer'. One way to interpret this is to say that Countermagic and Spell Resistance are incompatible, so the weaker spell is lost altogether. This may be stretching the rule wording, but IMO it gives a better result in terms of play balance. 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:46:05 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] The trap was, Fireblade was an active spell in RQ2 >I set up a nasty variation on this in RQ2 days. It was a spear that >automatically cast Fanaticism on the wielder and Fireblade on itself at the >start of a fight. The trap was, Fireblade was an active spell in RQ2 and >it had to be maintained by the spear's wielder. If he got wounded, the >spell went down and was automatically cast again. Once the spear ran out >of stored magic, it drew on the wielder's POW. You could die that way. I am not worthy of your evilness. You are the master. :-p Brad Furst Esoteric [A Working Title] esoteric@criticalpath.com (503)-265-1253 *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:53:19 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] one adventurer cannot combine a spell with that of another adventurer You're again reading RQ3 here, yes? >There's a passage in the 'Common Magical Procedures and Concepts' section >which might apply, page 11 in my rules, 'Combined Spells'. This is >confusingly worded, but it starts by saying flatly 'one adventurer cannot >combine a spell with that of another adventurer'. So if you've cast Vigor on yourself, I can't cast Strength on you? Without the remaining context, I wonder if this simply prohibits two characters from Stacking their spells together or prohibits two sorcerers from multispelling together. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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: Mon, 7 May 2001 18:10:34 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Combining sorcery and spirit magic > There's a passage in the 'Common Magical Procedures and > Concepts' section which might apply, page 11 in my rules, > 'Combined Spells'. This is confusingly worded, but it > starts by saying flatly 'one adventurer cannot combine > a spell with that of another adventurer'. Sorry, Andrew, this refers to two people trying to get a combined spell effect by throwing two spells simultaneously. It could be an attempt to stack two divine spells, or combine two sorcery spells to get a certain special effect. 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: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:00:56 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments On Mon, 7 May 2001 17:18:31 -0400, Andrew Barton wrote: >'Attack Conditions: An attack condition added to a spell causes it to be >cast when a target defined by additional target conditions violates the >space or touches the item'. > >On the face of it, an Attack Condition causes the spell to be cast >automatically by the enchantment itself. There is the problem of working >out the resistance roll - when needed I've taken it to be equal to the >total POW expended in the enchantment. Actually, all the rule says is that the spell is cast. It doesn't say who or what is casting it. It's a *long* extrapolation to assume that it's the "enchantment casting automatically" from that one reference. >I can't find any explicit statement of what you say in that chapter. It's what it doesn't say that proves my point. >'A place can also be Enchanted. Perhaps intruders will trip activation of >one or more spells ...' And these spells are cast by ...? Let's put it this way: *your* assumption requires that the rules fail to detail exactly how a non-sentient enchantment can cast spells, what percentage chances apply, etc. *My* assumption requires that the rules don't permit it at all, and thus don't need any additional rules defining exactly how it's not permitted. I stand by my comments. As the rules are worded, if you want something to be cast "automatically", you need to provide the *caster* as well as everything else *in the enchantment* -- i.e., a bound spirit, or some reasonable equivalent. It's your game, play it as you like. Just be clear on when you're using *published* rules and when you're using *house* rules. There's never going to be an "official" clarification no matter how much we argue, so arguing about it seems pretty pointless to me. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I never thought the Apocalypse would be so annoying." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:05:55 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Combining sorcery and spirit magic On Mon, 7 May 2001 17:18:28 -0400, Andrew Barton wrote: >>Since one particular character in our party seemed to be the focus of >>the opponents' magical attacks, another character cast Countermagic-4 >>on him, unaware that Resist-Magic-8 was already in effect upon him. >>How do you resolve subsequent magic attacks? > >There's a passage in the 'Common Magical Procedures and Concepts' section >which might apply, page 11 in my rules, 'Combined Spells'. This is >confusingly worded, but it starts by saying flatly 'one adventurer cannot >combine a spell with that of another adventurer'. > >One way to interpret this is to say that Countermagic and Spell Resistance >are incompatible, so the weaker spell is lost altogether. > >This may be stretching the rule wording, but IMO it gives a better result >in terms of play balance. It's a very *bad* way of interpreting it. Your argument logically concludes that you can never combine the results of two different types of magic, which is flatly contradicted by numerous examples to the contrary within the rules themselves. "Protection" and "Damage Resistance" is just the most obvious example; there are plenty of others. The *sensible* way of interpreting the passage you quote is that two or more people can't cast two or more spells together in such a fashion that they end up with one big super-spell. (And while that's fine as a general rule, I think there are examples of, say, Lunar Magic, that contradict that principle.) - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I never thought the Apocalypse would be so annoying." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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 V4 #48 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.