From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #89 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 Tuesday, July 10 2001 Volume 04 : Number 089 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] THe Sorcerer's Apprentice Re: [RQ-RULES] Shields n' other thoughts Re: [RQ-RULES] Canon Cultists etc [RQ-RULES] Stormbringer [RQ-RULES] Re: Stormbringer [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry [RQ-RULES] Ow! My eye! RE: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ [RQ-RULES] Game design issues - Free INT 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:40:53 +0300 From: "Mikko Korhonen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] THe Sorcerer's Apprentice Hi Ken, RQ3 supplement in Glorantha, Strangers in Prax, had a wizard's familiar quite similar to broom in Fantasia. Arlatan the magus had a familiar in a magical staff, that could take many shapes, for example grow arms if necessary. If i remember correctly, the spells needed to create such a familiar were (in RQ3 terms): - - Magic spirit Binding Enchantment - - Spell Matrix Enchantment(for matrixes) - - Form/Set Bronze (for complicated shapes) - - Animate Bronze (for "normal" things) - - Fly - - Haste - - Create Familiar spells(DEX, STR, CON), as staff allready has SIZ, Magic Spirit has INT&POW Hope this helps... Cheers, Mikko Korhonen - -----Original Message----- From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com [mailto:owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com]On Behalf Of MurfNMurf@aol.com Sent: 9. heinakuuta 2001 23:03 To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] THe Sorcerer's Apprentice Hiya gang, Having watched _Fantasia_ a while back, I got to wondering if the RQ (or Sandy's) Sorcery Rules could be used to recreate the whole animated broom shtick. Anyone have a clearer idea than me about just which spells would be involved? For those of you not familiar with the sequence, _welcome to Earth!_ Anyhow, the broom is not only Animated, but given a pair of arms as well. Then the thing is also self-aware enough to move around under its own power, understand some pretty simple directions, and then perform the task without any supervision (I'm not even gonna get into the whole thing where the splintered bits of broom grow into identical animated brooms, though). -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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:46:40 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Shields n' other thoughts So Parrying with Shield (penalties for not holding it properly so you can hold the dagger?), then hit with a secondary, smaller weapon in the hopes that they don't see it and can't parry? I'd probably allow it... Of course, a Fireblade would make it pretty visible... Jeremy Jim Lawrie wrote: > > > I'd say Scan roll, though I'm not sure what they'd do... > > > > By RQ rules, you only get two actions per round. Thus, for the > dagger-wielder, > > he'd have to skip his parry to be able to attack with a second weapon... > So > > he'd give up a parry against his opponent's primary weapon for a surprise > attack > > with a secondary weapon. > > > > Not really worth it, is it? > > > > ? > > > > Jeremy > > What if they don't attack with the 'onhand' weapon? > > Jim again > > > > > > A last thought, has anyone come up with a rule for faking opponents > in > > > melee with hidden weapons or techniques? The classic > dagger-behind-the-targe > > > of the Scots is a good example, would an opponent require a Search roll > to > > > be allowed a parry of the surprise dagger? > > > > > > 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. > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com > with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Jul 2001 11:40:17 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Canon Cultists etc Dalfitch : > Is Hero Wars being rewritten? Yes > Hope so.... Hope they do it *well* ... > I hate the current rules. Ditto. Julian *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Jul 2001 11:52:28 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] Stormbringer Has anyone looked at the new edition of Stormbringer? Know of any interesting changes to the rules ? Julian *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Jul 2001 12:33:33 +0200 From: Alexandre Lanciani Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Stormbringer Il giorno 10-07-2001 11:52, Julian Lord, julian.lord@wanadoo.fr ha scritto: > Has anyone looked at the new edition of Stormbringer? > > Know of any interesting changes to the rules ? > > Julian AFAIK the rules are the same as Elric's. They just changed the name because this one sounds better (or, rather, because Elric! was a bit appalling). But I didn't look at it, so this is just rumor. What I'm really looking forward to is the Hawkmoon supplement, because I like Elric's rules (as they're both the newest and IMO the best BRP's incarnation) and the Tragic Millennium setting. - -- Regards, Alexandre. "What came first, the idea or the perception of the idea?" *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Jul 2001 13:07:32 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry There's some interesting stuff at : http://www.thehaca.com/oakeshottinterview.htm Affects my understanding of how combat should be run in RQ. No more Attack, Parry, Attack, Parry, Attack, Parry, ... What do you think would be a fun way of simulating combat as described in this interview ? Julian Lord *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Jul 2001 22:13:22 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Ow! My eye! Well, one of my fave PC's has developed a little problem. He's had his left eye put out. Now, with modern magical surgery they way it is these days, this doesn't have to be a permanent thing. He's a sea faring trader though, and I know it's cliché, but the eye patch thing sounds kinda cool! I was thinking on everyones take on a sudden lack of depth perception, and what effects they might have. Firstly, my SCA heavy trainer has a massive case of right eye dominance, and he's one of the best fighters here abouts, so I don't think it'll overly effect his hand to hand skills but I'm sure it'll effect his ranged weapons. Here's my ideas : 1) Halve his missile skills or 2) Halve his missile ranges. Thoughts? Jim Lawrie (PS, nobody touched my shields question, must be too hard.) *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Jul 2001 09:55:30 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry > Affects my understanding of how combat should be run in RQ. > No more Attack, Parry, Attack, Parry, Attack, Parry, ... > What do you think would be a fun way of simulating combat as > described in this interview ? Valid point, but isn't as much of an issue with sword/shield... you avoid sword parry anyway. With 2-handed weapons, it is certainly more appropriate to learn Dodge and still avoid parrying. 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, 10 Jul 2001 11:17:42 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ I have decided to merge in D&D3 into my 'Gateway' campaing (I use Gloranthan cults and cultures outside of Glorantha) as abilities (feats) and magic for Malkioni worshippers. I will allow a starting character to pick a class and he will get the skills and feats(converted to RQ) and spells as a first level. After that his skills would progress as per RQ but his magic and feats would still be based on level progression. To make the characters more magic capable and to fit in better in my world, I am adding the Bard magic ability to all classes. Since I really dislike the exp point system, I have came up with with two alternatives, which I would like you guys to critic or see if you can come up with something else. The first system would require a character to sacrifice a POW equal to the level he is attaining. Exp: A fifth level cleric would need to sacrifice 6POW to become a seventh level cleric. Or a 2/3 Fighter/Thief would also need to sacrifice 6POW to to gain a new level. The second system would require a character to sacrifice only 1POW for each additional level, but would require them to have lvl x 10% in five class skills before they can do so. That is it for now. Let me know what you think. Leon Kirshtein (No good deed shall go unpunished.) ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:36:52 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ > The first system would require a character to sacrifice a > POW equal to the level he is attaining. Exp: A fifth level > cleric would need to sacrifice 6POW to become a sixth level > cleric. Or a 2/3 Fighter/Thief would also need to sacrifice > 6POW to to gain a new level. Having no knowledge of D&D3, I feel fully qualified to state that I hate this option. It associates advancement with serious drops in POW which is counter-productive and counter-intuitive. > The second system would require a character to sacrifice only > 1 POW for each additional level, but would require them to > have lvl x 10% in five class skills before they can do so. This is much less of a hardship and it ties level advancement (whatever that's worth) to actual skill. Considering that skill increases slow down as skill improves, this is probably too easy at low levels and too hard later on. I suggest setting your minimum skill for first level to be 30% or 40% so that lower levels take longer and higher levels have meaning. I'm confident there are other problems that will appear during play. 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, 10 Jul 2001 16:30:58 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ - ---- Robert Stancliff wrote: > Having no knowledge of D&D3, I feel fully qualified to state that > I hate > this option. It associates advancement with serious drops in POW > which is counter-productive and counter-intuitive. Yes. I do not like this option as well, but I thought I would post it just to have something to compare. > > > The second system would require a character to sacrifice only > > 1 POW for each additional level, but would require them to > > have lvl x 10% in five class skills before they can do so. > This is much less of a hardship and it ties level advancement (whatever > that's worth) to actual skill. Considering that skill increases slow > down > as skill improves, this is probably too easy at low levels and too > hard > later on. I suggest setting your minimum skill for first level to > be 30% or > 40% so that lower levels take longer and higher levels have meaning. Raising the limit would make things worse at later levels. The way I figure, a starting character should have a fairly easy time up to level 4 (unless he switches classes, and it is not too bad even then). The way I figure it this is an approximation of power levels between D&D3 and RQ: D&D3 lvl - RQ definition - General/Main Skills 1-2 - Lay member - Litle or no magic/30's 3-4 - Initiate - Some magic/40's 5-7 - Acolyte/Priest - Good magic/50-70 9-11 - Exp Priest/RL - Good magic/100 12+ - High Priest/Heros - Great magic/100+ At 9th level players will access to 5th level spells, which are fairly potent, and are capable of making Misc Magic Items, Rods, Potions, and Scrolls. I think most of the best play time will be from level 3 to 10. Beyond that things are fairly hard, but at 10% increments you are really never to far away from your next level. > I'm confident there are other problems that will appear during play. Ofcourse!! What is why I am trying to iron out as much as I can now before I start. My next biggest question is do I make characters pay magic points for casting wizard and clerical spells, for now I am going with yes at 1pt per level of the spell; and will these spells take up Int - - yes for wizards?, no for clerics? And bunch of other things as well. Leon Kirshtein (No good deed shall go unpunished.) ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 17:41:56 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ > D&D3 lvl - RQ definition - General/Main Skills > 1-2 - Lay member - Little or no magic/30's > 3-4 - Initiate - Some magic/40's > 5-7 - Acolyte/Priest - Good magic/50-70 > 9-11 - Exp Priest/RL - Good magic/100 > 12+ - High Priest/Heroes - Great magic/100+ Even a 15 year old RQ character will usually start with his common skills over 25% and several can reach as high as 40%. By your system, it should be fairly easy to begin at level 3 or 4. It is also very easy in RQ to get most skill up near 40% just with research or training at a very modest time cost. > At 9th level players will access to 5th level spells, which > are fairly potent, and are capable of making Misc Magic Items, > Rods, Potions, and Scrolls. I had characters making POW spirit binds and Strengthening enchantments when their best skills were about 50%. They researched Ceremony, Enchant and Summon into the 30's, got a couple of essential spells, and started investing POW for self improvement instead of Divine magic. Enough Ceremony can modify the Enchant skill into the 60's and is a reasonable risk. > I think most of the best play time will be from level 3 to 10. > Beyond that things are fairly hard, but at 10% increments you > are really never too far away from your next level. Most of your time in RQ is certainly spent over 70%. Skill gains level off so sharply and 90% masteries are hard to reach. I've had a character who has spent over a year trying to get his Rune Lord skill from 80 to 90%. He keeps failing the rolls... and he has decent modifiers. > My next biggest question is do I make characters pay magic > points for casting wizard and clerical spells, for now I am > going with yes at 1pt per level of the spell; and will these > spells take up Int - yes for wizards?, no for clerics? I would think that 2MP per level might balance better. I am getting tired of spells taking INT. I want to tie heroic magic effects to the runes of known spells, but it isn't fair for Theists to have an unlimited number of spells while restricting Sorcery and Animist users. I am trending in the direction of HW where all magic effects are essentially skills, though they are gained by different processes for different magic styles. Many people have argued that INT based spell restrictions are not logical, but it has always been a simple means to restrict character power. There must be reasonable alternatives that will be more flexible without getting out of hand due to power-gaming. 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, 10 Jul 2001 18:28:55 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: [RQ-RULES] Game design issues - Free INT To elaborate on my recent comment to the RQ-Rules list... I am getting tired of spells taking INT. I want to tie heroic magic effects to the runes of known spells, but it isn't fair for Theists to have an unlimited number of spells while restricting Sorcery and Animist users. I am trending in the direction of HW where all magic effects are essentially skills, though they are gained by different processes for different magic styles. Many people have argued that INT based spell restrictions are not logical, but it has always been a simple means to restrict character power. There must be reasonable alternatives that will be more flexible without getting out of hand due to power-gaming. Perhaps animists could internalize one spell spirit per INT at intensity 1, then increase the intensity with POW investments to the spirit. Or even drop this INT restriction since it will take time for intensities to be raised to abusive levels. Perhaps your maximum intensity is INT/2 but you can have as many spells as you can learn. I like that. I suppose Sorcerers should get knowledge credit for the spells known by familiars, this would side-step my objection. Eventually a sorcerer will have most of the spells his school can teach. Alternatively, you just let him learn as many spells as desired since he can only cast one at a time. Familiars are a means to get more spells cast quickly. POW could be invested to add a point of free manipulation to a known spell so that much more costly spells can be cast. There could be an INT limit for each type of manipulation in the spell so that there are no intensity 25 spells being cast, but you might manage 16 intensities, 12 range extensions, and 15 multi-spells. In my game we limit total manipulations to weakest (used) sorcery skill%/5 which seems to work very well though I can't prove it is balanced to the other styles (it seems fair). The number of spells currently functioning could be limited by INT so large multi-spells become essential to have many simultaneous spells acting. Has anyone considered making multi-spell have a doubling effect so that an entire battalion could be boosted by one very manipulated spell. I have some reservation to the sorcery, divine and spirit magic users sharing spells to make uber-warriors, but we have been doing it since early in the campaign and I know no rules restricting it. "Strangers in Prax" even used the idea in a story, and RQ has a long history of mixing divine and battle magic. Robert Stancliff stanclif@ufl.edu *************************************************************************** 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 #89 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.