From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #90 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 Wednesday, July 11 2001 Volume 04 : Number 090 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Ow! My eye! Re: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ RE: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry Re: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ Re: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry Re: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ Re: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry RE: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry 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 18:29:40 -0400 From: "Jim Bickmeyer" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Ow! My eye! Jim Lawrie >>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? What I do in that case is give an attack bonus. Maybe use a Scan roll to notice the weapon being prepared. Then depending on the level of success, award the attack bonus. As rule of thumb, Fumble +25%, Fail +20%, Success +10%, Special +5%, Crit 0%. The first time a Dwarven Repeater Crossbow was used the PC's were charging. I gave the attacker a +10% to the surprise effect of a firing so quickly. Maybe I should have reduced the PC's dodge instead. It is good for no more than two times on the PC's then they can start expecting it and it will be figured into any parry or dodge skills rolls or the abstractions of the attack roll. Maybe making the Scan roll more valuable. Any success is prevents an attack bonus, failure 5%, and Fumble 10%. > I wonder if there's any little rules tickles that could portray these facets? I once spent some effort in shields. The thing I noticed my player appreciated the most was higher AP shields due to superior quality. I am considering a quality shield that does not loose AP as quickly. Also the PC really like to find a Master Armour that will take the time to fix their superior shields and weapons of that last non-repairable AP. Jeremy Martin >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? In some situations yes. Adding a bonus for the surprise attack is the value. It is a risk but might be worth while. >(PS, nobody touched my shields question, must be too hard.) Patience one-eye. The Other 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:43:09 -0400 From: "Jim Bickmeyer" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C10970.2AA491E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Leon B Kirshtein=20 >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? Something that Steve Perrin does in his rules is allow the creation of = personal Mana storage. I think sacrificing 1 POW gains 10 Mana. The = object is the wizard staff or maybe a holy symbol. Some one might = scream to much MP for too little cost. But in Steve's rules you need = the ability to lines of magic. (forget his name) The ability costs a = full character point. Jim B - ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C10970.2AA491E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Leon B Kirshtein =
>My next=20 biggest question is do I make characters pay magic
>points for = casting=20 wizard and clerical spells, for now I am going with
>yes at 1pt = per level=20 of the spell; and will these spells take up Int
>- yes for = wizards?, no=20 for clerics?
Something that Steve Perrin does in his rules is allow the creation = of=20 personal Mana storage.  I think sacrificing 1 POW gains 10 = Mana.  The=20 object is the wizard staff or maybe a holy symbol.  Some one might = scream=20 to much MP for too little cost.  But in Steve's rules you need the = ability=20 to lines of magic. (forget his name)  The ability costs a full = character=20 point.
 
Jim B
- ------=_NextPart_000_0060_01C10970.2AA491E0-- *************************************************************************** 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, 11 Jul 2001 01:27:38 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry Bob Stancliff : > > 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... Actually yes. The guy says that armoured fighters tried to avoid doing any parrying at all, unless some vital piece of their armour went missing ; because using one of your moves to physically block an attack leaves you wide open for a quick follow-up move. Doesn't matter if you're a member of the SCA, but it sure did if you had actual armoured warriors doing their best to kill you with their swords. Apparently, the Attack/Parry style of fighting was developed by gentlemen as a kind of sport, as field armour went out of use, and then by Hollywood (for Erroll Flynn movies). Perhaps the RQ4 Maneuver skill was actually a very good idea (in disguise) ? But following these suggestions would also imply making armour much more effective, and also implies that D&D provides more realistic combat simulation than RQ !?!! 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 20:26:17 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ - ---- "Jim Bickmeyer" wrote: > Something that Steve Perrin does in his rules is allow the creation > of personal Mana storage. I think sacrificing 1 POW gains 10 Mana. > The object is the wizard staff or maybe a holy symbol. Some one might > scream to much MP for too little cost. But in Steve's rules you need > the ability to lines of magic. (forget his name) The ability costs > a full character point. > > Jim B I do something similar for sorcerers by allowing them to make 'storage devices'. These are basicly 1pt enchantment on an existing magical item which is capable of holding 5 MP until used. What I am thinking for my D&D spellcasters are power multipliers as in Rolemaster x2, x3, etc. These would allow spell casters to use MP equal to multiples of their power. 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 20:47:17 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ - ---- Robert Stancliff wrote: > > 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. ... and that is exactly where I want them to be fairly quickly. In one or possibly two play sessions. > > 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. A first level wizard can start making scrolls, potions can be made at as low as 3rd level, and so on. There is no real difference between this and strandard RQ. Any enchantments a begining character will make will be fairly low powered, very rarely more than 3pts. > > > 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. Well under this system the limits and possibilities are the same since it utilizes the same measuring stick - skills. > > 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. Why would you say so? I would think that 2pt may make these spells too powerful? A Countermagic 6 would only be able to defend against a thrid level spell. > I am getting tired of spells taking INT. I do not have a problem with spells taking up INT, however my wizards will not have an easy access to Int spirits so this can become a big problem. On the other hand the spells are said to 'memorized' so they should be related to the person's INT ??? 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: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:45:14 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" 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 Sorry guys, can you repost that interview's URL? I meant to save it and now it's disappeared off into the ether, and I'd like to comment on this debate. I know Eggerton Castle states that modern fencing is rather odd, you wouldn't trust your life to a fancy combination attack. Fighters in life or death duels circled around and dashed in for a possible killing stroke, the beat feet to get out of range, rather than dancing about each other inside the 'death circle'. Offhand daggers weren't used for parrying, but for vicious stabs when the opponents had inevitably closed too far, although 'proffessional' fighters developed the parry dagger into a defensive devise it seems it still ended up being used the same way. Good old Eggerton (and his mate George Silver, another good read) are widely reknowned for being biased though! Jim Lawrie (I'm going off memory here though, nobody sue) *************************************************************************** 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 23:11:43 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] D&D3 in RQ Leon B Kirshtein wrote: > > 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. Same here, though my players have finally talked me into coming up with a skill point system for my game. I already had one in place for creating starting characters, so will probably just extend the progression to existing characters (i.e. if it cost you 3 points to buy "Familiar" (15%) with a skill, improving it will cost 3 points until "Novice" (30%) is reached (1d6 would still be rolled for skill % increase). Membership in certain cults or guilds might allow 'price breaks' as far as skill increases were concerned. I plan on reviewing the D&D Feats for possible cult skills, as well. - -- 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: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:13:36 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" 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 Just read the interview, Mr Oakeshot postulates that as few surviving blades have nicks in the edge, edge parrying with swords was rare. I'm not too sure about this, but Mr Oakeshot is a recognised authority (by the HACA at least), and his words would certainly carry more weight than mine! The only time I can really see this as being a problem is during the white harness era of the late medieval/early renaissance period when shields were discarded. Until then, an armoured man wasn't covered enough to do without a shield, as it was important to cover those less well armoured or totally unarmoured bits when the axes were swinging. It really is very hard to dodge when sitting aside a horse, and apart from the Swiss, Landesknechts, English and a few others, the heavily armed chaps still rode into battle and hoped to be astride their horse at the end of it. Saddle swords (also called hand-and-a-half swords or bastard swords) often show a bit of abuse, trying to hurt a guy inside plate will do that, and it's a bit difficult to see if the swords were used for parrying or not. You could do this with combat : Everyone declares their intent as usual. ("I will attack that critter and parry/dodge it's spear.") You roll 1d4 and add it to you weapons SR. The GM calls out the SRs and the rolls are made. What if you didn't get a hit (went over 10 SRs)? You could say : Too bad, there was never a valid opening. If you adopted that, you could say 'To attack a given location, add 1d10 to your SR, if you exceed 10 SRs, there was no opening for that location and you danced around for the round. Or Allow the attack to continue into the next round. In fact, you can do away with rounds totally, and just count SRs from '1' to 'n', rounds don't really do much anyway. This would only work in battles without forty Imperial troops all casting different spells of course . . . . 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, 11 Jul 2001 08:18:21 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Attack, Parry > > Valid point, but isn't as much of an issue with sword/shield... > Julian: > Actually yes. The guy says that armored fighters tried to > avoid doing any parrying at all, unless some vital piece of > their armor went missing ; because using one of your moves > to physically block an attack leaves you wide open for a > quick follow-up move. I suggest that you read the article again. It was quite precise in discussing the avoidance of parrying a weapon with your sword. It made it clear that sword parry made you vulnerable and damaged your sword, at least if you edge parry. It stated that avoiding a blow (dodging) was far superior to a sword parry. No other technique or weapon was mentioned, and shields were never brought into the discussion (to the best of my memory). The reason the article went in this direction was that they were pointing out the gross flaw in old movies of having renaissance style sword duels with middle age weapons. People just didn't fight sword to sword without shields in the earlier periods because the weapon blunted and nicked too easily and thrusting was not a used tactic with the larger and heavier swords. These parrying sword styles did not become normal until the gentlemen's duels with foils or rapiers when better quality steel could take a hit from a light weapon such as another rapier and not be damaged. That's what I got out of the article. 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 V4 #90 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.