From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #63 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, June 4 2001 Volume 04 : Number 063 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengance RE: [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multiple spirit combat RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengeance [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions RE: [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multiple spirit combat [RQ-RULES] modified rules for shamans and other magic forms. 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, 4 Jun 2001 16:23:47 +0100 From: "Adam Benedict Canning" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengance > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 08:58:46 -0400 > From: Robert Stancliff > Subject: > > > More that the original had a good chance any steed could > > suffer from dying from the after effects [D&D > Saving throws > > not being generous.] > When you convert something out of D&D you > don't have to keep every > detail. Descriptions change to match the target > system's assumptions or > mechanics. If the animal is really dying from > shock, then high CON beasts > will survive more often. Perhaps you need a flat > percent that the animal > dies (25%??), or you reduce the multiplier enough > that even the toughest > mount can die... if x5 is too high, then make it > x4. That is low enough to > kill many (or most) bison and rhinos. That's roughly what I was trying to say. If its only horses that can be effected CONx4 [the original value] gives a kill rate high enough to discourage frivolous use. The Original value was CONx4, until the existence of 21+ CON creatures re-entered my consciousness. So CONx3 is looking more reasonable to me. > > As is though I wasn't going to let anything > beyond Horses > > and possibly Zebra be valid. > If the spell was coming from a horse cult, > that would make sense, > but Bab. Gor's only animal ties are through > Ernalda's other children. If > she can do this at all, the type of animal > shouldn't matter. Of course, I > am thinking in terms of my player with the Sun > County Bab. Gor who rides a > bison. Actually it was more that Horses are Sky creatures and thus BBG is less concerned about their survival than Erithra beasts which do have a tenuous earth connection. Thus she's happy to drug up horses on her infamous red beer even if they might not survive. Adam PS No comment on the second set of spells? I must be improving or slipping or something :) *************************************************************************** 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, 4 Jun 2001 11:52:37 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multiple spirit combat > Brad Furst wrote: > If a small group (a party of adventurers?) happens to have > more than one cooperative shaman present, can those multiple > shamans act in concert to find and defeat spirits? A certain amount of cooperation is certainly possible. One person can summon the spirit, and depending on your interpretation on the Summon spell, another person can step forward to fight the spirit, while a third person casts a very large Spirit Screen. Note that none of these positions require a shaman, but with the added defense of the fetch, a shaman has the best defense possible and, therefore, the best chance to win. With the addition of a few Spirit Block spells, some Dispel Magic, and one or two large bound ghosts with a Control Spell, it is very hard to lose unless you accidentally summon the Bad Man's meaner. older brother. In my game, spirits between 20 and 30 are often beaten by the players who are prepared to fight, and if a shaman is around, it is only slightly easier. > If a spirit engages an adventurer in spirit combat, can a > shaman('s fetch] participate also, double-teaming against > the hostile spirit? Not as I understand it, although the fetch could probably protect the shaman so that he can do something else. We do not play that the fetch is able to leave contact with the shaman's body unless a Discorporation ritual is cast. This does not prevent some other spirit from being sent to attack the hostile spirit and distract it. As I read the rules, Only one spirit can attack an embodied creature at a time, but the rules do not state how many disembodied spirits can fight each other at once. I would expect that every spirit can attack one other, and that several can attack the same one at the same time. I am not aware of a rule to cover this, so we have to extrapolate on the nature of spirits. We allow a spirit (usually a ghost), to be sent to protect a person who is being attacked by an enemy spirit. The ghost basically attacks the enemy spirit from behind and distracts it from the person, who then leaves while the spirits fight each other. On a related issue, I allow a fetch, or allied spirit in an object, to learn and throw Visibility, thereby entering the material plane. It hovers around the body of the shaman, or the inhabited object, and can be very imposing. This allows the fetch or ally more independence of action since it can throw spells directly (no concentration check), and can touch matrices to use their magic. The biggest drawback is that the fetch does not add it's MP's to the shaman's while both are in the material plane. This can make the shaman vulnerable to attack by spells, and the Visibility has to be dispelled or wear off before the fetch can return to the spirit Plane. > When a shaman hunts for a spirit to use or capture, I think > the rules examples usually demonstrate the Discorporation of > the shaman with the fetch remaining behind to guard the body > of the shaman in the absence of his spirit, yes? > Instead, since the fetch is already on the spirit plane, can > the fetch do the hunting and capture while the shaman's spirit > remains in his body on the material plane? This is definitely against the rules, but I agree with you that it makes much more sense. The fetch is supposed to be the shaman's soul that inhabits the Spirit Plane, so Discorporation should allow the fetch to move about and act as the spiritual body of the shaman. I have enforced this rule in my game and have been rather pleased with the results. It makes the shaman a dangerous power in the spirit world since the fetch can get very large, and the fetch is able to hunt on the inner planes without the extreme risk normally involved. It also means that when you meet one of the very large spirits, it is probably a fetch, or a combined shaman/fetch that has died. Since a shaman can now bring back very large captured spirits, I enforce a rule from RQ4 that every fraction of 20 stat points in a spirit requires 1 POW in that portion of the bind you want to keep it in. A 15 POW Power Spirit requires a 1 POW bind, but a 24 POW Power Spirit requires a 2 POW bind. A normal ghost requires 1 POW each for INT and POW, but if you want a ghost with POW over 20, it will take 1 POW for INT and 2 POW for POW. This makes Elemental binds very expensive. The Elemental only has three stats, but if you want it to be a useful size and strength, it can take as much as 6 POW to enchant. This is usually in a 1/2/3 POW configuration, though you can get reasonable results with a 5 POW bind in a 1/2/2 mix. The order of the specific stats is often based on the type of Elemental you want to capture, though the Binding Enchantment is not actually specific to elemental type, only to spirit type. *************************************************************************** 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, 4 Jun 2001 12:35:52 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Spell criticism : Steed of Vengeance > So CONx3 is looking more reasonable to me. That will certainly make to animals one-use. In fact, a person who wants to use the spell often will buy up worn-out old nags, and give them one chance for glory before the glue pots. > Actually it was more that Horses are Sky creatures and thus > BBG is less concerned about their survival than Eritha > beasts which do have a tenuous earth connection. I don't actually see Bab.Gor worrying about it either way. She will either get the healthiest animal she can or she will get disposable replacements. > PS: No comment on the second set of spells? I must be > improving or slipping or something :) As you said earlier, the first bunch converted the best... Actually, I have never added a spell to my game that wasn't printed in a Chaosium publication, so new spells don't mean much to me. I find that they dilute the distinctness of the different magic styles. I'm sure I will relax this view as I shift more toward the Hero Wars style of magic, but I am in no hurry. I can't decide whether I would be happier with modifying RQ to be more like HW, or making a Champions supplement to bridge between the differences of the two Chaosium games. We have recently permitted Initiates to regain their rune magic once per year on High Holy Day. If I could get more player support, I would allow priests to have a rune point pool to cast spells from a list of learned spells. They would learn the spells individually, and each would go on the list of effects they can ask for at the time of casting, then the POW goes into the rune point pool. Champions would allow a freeform magic to be developed that would give a framework for how much control a person has over the magical world. He would start with specific spells and, as experience increases, eventually be able to modify feats at will. The Champions style is much closer to Hero Wars generally, and if that is your whole desire, then it shouldn't be all that hard to convert. I wanted to keep more aspects of the RQ system, so I have needed more rules to support the style of RQ skills. 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: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:09:31 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions > Under the official rules, I would certainly say no. As > Greg changes his position, I would say it is much more likely > to be true. > ... With the transition to HW he may have > invalidated all the material on illusions ever written, and > completely changed the nature of the spells or feats. Greg has often said that the RQ rules weren't a particularly good fit with his vision for Glorantha. I imagine this is one reason he takes part in the discussion on the HW list, which I don't think he ever did on the others. I also think his current approach is a better one for any rules system. It removes most of the old chestnuts like whether the gaze of an illusory basilisk can slay you. I remember the Fantasy Trip authors were at one stage reduced to saying: this is how the rules for illusions of elementals work. Yes, we know they're illogical, and mages in the game world have been puzzled about them for centuries. But they have to be like that or the game gets horribly unbalanced. 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, 04 Jun 2001 12:34:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Michael C. Morrison 8-543-4706" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Gloranthan Illusions *** Reply to note of Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:01:19 -0400 (EDT) *** by runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Bob Stancliff writes: > More important, Greg doesn't address the specific issue >of overlaying normal objects with a contradictory glamour and >how this will react. With the transition to HW he may have >invalidated all the material on illusions ever written, and >completely changed the nature of the spells or feats. Indeed, from an RQ point of view, why would you ever learn any other kind of spell than illusion? "I need a fire ... here are some illusory sparks to start one!" No need for Ignite. Extinguish becomes an illusory spray of water or dirt or wind or ... The illusion was real (for a while), so the fire is really out. "Hey, my sword isn't sharp enough ... an illusion of a *really* sharp sword!" Bladesharp only lasts a short time, so too the illusion ... etc. What about more powerful spells like Teleport? Just a brief illusion of doing so. How about an Elemental? I can imagine it, so it appears and acts (no need to Command it, it's my creation). Expand your mind, and you can create an illusion of anything, for a while. Maybe Greg proposes that all Gloranthan magic is really a form of (Gloranthan) illusion? It's almost all temporary, but real. Only things like healing last, and Greg seems to think that healing is much less common that RQ made it seem. All in all, sounds right given his Trickster nature ... But it really strikes me as much too powerful, at least for RQ. Perhaps HW, with its more cinematic feel, can more easily absorb this kind of magic simply as "feats", and bypass the distinction between spell and illusion? ... Michael - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael C. Morrison IBM Software Solutions Phone (408)463-4706 Data Replication Silicon Valley Laboratory FAX (408)463-4763 Lotus Notes ID: MCMORRIS at IBMUSM55 IBMLink: MORRISON@TORIBM Internet ID: MMORRISON@VNET.IBM.COM or USIB47H4@IBMMAIL.COM IBM Mail Exchange: USIB47H4 at IBMMAIL or USIB4MCM at IBMMAIL X.400 Address: G=mcmgm; S=morrison; P=ibmmail; A=ibmx400; C=us - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** 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, 04 Jun 2001 12:47:12 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] multiple shamans, multiple spirit combat At 11:52 AM 6/4/01 -0400, you wrote: > > Instead, since the fetch is already on the spirit plane, can > > the fetch do the hunting and capture while the shaman's spirit > > remains in his body on the material plane? > This is definitely against the rules, but I agree with you that it >makes much more sense. The fetch is supposed to be the shaman's soul that >inhabits the Spirit Plane, so Discorporation should allow the fetch to move >about and act as the spiritual body of the shaman. > I have enforced this rule in my game and have been rather pleased >with the results. Are you saying here that although the published rules disallow this, your playtested house rules allow it with use of Discorporation ritual? 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, 4 Jun 2001 16:49:38 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: [RQ-RULES] modified rules for shamans and other magic forms. > > > Instead, since the fetch is already on the spirit plane, can > > > the fetch do the hunting and capture while the shaman's spirit > > > remains in his body on the material plane? > > I have enforced this rule in my game and have been rather pleased > > with the results. > Are you saying here that although the published rules disallow this, > your play tested house rules allow it with use of Discorporation ritual? > Brad Furst Precisely! In my concept, the shaman is maintaining the Discorporation ritual by playing drums and/or rattles. Instead of the fetch seeing through his eyes, he is seeing through it's senses. If he quits, the ritual is aborted and the fetch is forced back. He has some ability to communicate with students to prepare matrices and other materials to aid in capturing defeated spirits. Everything he expects to need has to be close at hand or it could break his concentration. I agree with the opinion expressed by many that sorcery was stronger than the other styles of magic. While the three are different, they should be roughly equivalent. To equalize these slightly I changed sorcery so that the manipulation limit is based on "the lowest skill being used to cast the spell / 5%". This allows a wizard to be very tough, but an apprentice can only cast weak spells until he has had a great deal of training. The sorcery spells advance quickly, but the manipulation skills takes a long time or intense effort. On a side note: we have changed Resist Damage so that it is applied last instead of first. Armor takes the brunt of the blow and Resist Damage tries to negate the remainder. With Divine magic we have started allowing Initiates to regain their spells once a year, they are no longer truly one-use. This will create a long term increase in the amount of divine magic used in the game and will mean that when a player finally qualifies as a priest, he will probably have enough spells already known. In the long run, this method will probably make Divine magic too strong unless access to spirit spells are either greatly restricted or they are converted to Divine magic style spells. I also have few qualms about making a player character an Acolyte. I picture them much the way HW does Devotees. They are exemplary worshippers of the god and have a stronger affinity to magic. They can fill in for a priest on many occasions, and exhibit a devotion that most people are not willing to achieve. As long as they support themselves, they are an asset to the cult and embody the truest image of the god on earth, since lords and priests tend to be too busy with their duties to really live like their god. The way my players use binds, and especially captured ghosts, we have already toughened spirit magic quite a bit. By making shamans stronger on the spirit plane, they gain the ability to dominate their surroundings instead of furtively searching for weak victims. The main things missing are specialty crafting of shamanic rituals, and an easier method for maintaining spirit cults. All of these could use a clearer vision for hero questing, but that will have to be developed by individual player groups, since the creators have moved on to the new system. A lot of the fan and HW material on hero questing has been useful as long as you play down 'super skills' and worry more about story elements and individual initiative and cleverness. My biggest objection is when a myth reads more like a bedtime story for a three year old than it does a retelling of a great victory in the life of a god or hero. In other words, the stories are simplistic and the rewards don't seem to match the effort invested. *************************************************************************** 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 #63 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.