Re: Wanasgard; animists; Truesword

From: David Dunham <david_at_...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:08:25 -0800


Tim

> > Wanasgard's sword [Dragon Point] (won [gambling]) can heal him.
>
> I note that "Can heal him" isn't specified in the list of abilities -
> presumably it does this at the rating you have for Dragonpoint under
> Equipment?

Correct. As a named magic item, it may end up with additional abilities during play.

> > He can [start fires with a glance].
>
> - Which presumably is the Integrated Spirit "Fire Starter", which is
> separate from the 5 (one use) fetishes he gets from being an Animist,
> which I note you don't mention anywhere in the write up... I'd sort
> of assumed the 5 fetishes was some sort of limit rather like the time
> requirement of a theists devotee/initiate keywords, rather than a
> bonus on top of the 100 words. This means, I suppose that one could
> write up a Telmori character and specifically mention that he has 3
> integrated wolf-spirits, and still get the 5 fetishes "for free"?

Correct on all counts. An animist no more has to spend words on his 5 fetishes than a devotee needs to list the feats (or affinities) he knows.

> > He dreams of gaining wings for his warhorse [Victory].
> >
> > A few comments about his abilities: I have a house rule that gives
> > members of the Warrior age group the abilities of the previous
> > Rider age group at a value of 12. Also, I've added three of the
> > Rider abilities to the Warrior keyword: Listen, Scan for Danger,
> > and Sleep in the Saddle. You'd have fewer abilities if you don't
> > use this house rule.
>
> I'd not considered it before, but it does make sense - Since all
> Warriors were previously riders it would seem strange if they
> suddenly forgot all their skills

I think a similar rule would apply for Hrestoli knights or anyone else who'd had similar caste/occupation mobility.

Andrew Dawson

> So are you advocating improving the ability rating of all permanent
> fetishes (1/day, 3/day, integrated) or just the integrated ones? I agree
> with the latter version and disagree with the former.

Actually, I probably advocate improving the ability rating of all fetishes (once we do some playing), but I meant to write that the rules support improving integrated fetishes but not limited-use ones.

Andrew Bean

> I can't see how shamans who trip over a big nasty spirit (i.e. a
> God or daimone or sorceror, etc) could survive.

By using Shamanic Escape.

Harry on Truesword Strike

> I was thinking of handling it this way:
> - Roll a simple contest between Truesword Strike and whatever the
> other is defending with (be it Magical defense or Close Combat or Run
> very fast, any can be applicable).
> - I'm tossing up a few options:- On a Victory, the truesword hits and
> the opponent is dead or On a Critical, the truesword hits and the
> other is dead or On a Complete Defeat, the truesword hits and the
> other is dead.
> - Keep in mind it's a strike, so it's one hit only.

No, it's not a mystic strike! It's a theist feat. It should not use mystic rules. Feats are not all or nothing -- a simple victory with a feat should never kill someone.

If the simple inclusion of the word "strike" meant this, then Orlanthi would improvise Lightning Strike, Issarians would improvise Strike Deal, etc. and the game would devolve into all-or-nothing rolls.

David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...>
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html> Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

Powered by hypermail