From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest-Rules-Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #27 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest-Rules-Digest Thursday, March 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 027 RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank RE: [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Target Conditions Re: [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #24 [RQ-RULES] Lost Messages... [RQ-RULES] repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 1 [RQ-RULES] Target conditions, etc [RQ-RULES] RE: Detection 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: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 12:49:30 -0500 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank > RQ2 had Detection Blank, which RQ3 seemed to try to keep by way of CM. But with Detect Cream Bun boosted by 5 MP able to knock down most opponent's CM in one fell swoop, that is way too powerful. Our house rule is that Detect spells don't knock down countermagic. The rationale is that they cover an area and can affect multiple targets, so the 'knockdown' effect is too diffuse. A related issue: one published sorceror (Arlalten?) has an item with Resist Magic on its spells, then another Resist Magic on the first Resist Magic. This is intended to stop detect spells working, but my view is that however many Resist spells you stack, the outermost will always be detectable. It seems reasonable to have a specialist Resist spell which works -only- to prevent detection, but I haven't playtested it. Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 18:12:49 -0000 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank >then another Resist Magic on the first Resist Magic. This is intended >to stop detect spells working, but my view is that however many >Resist spells you stack, the outermost will always be detectable. One way of looking at it is that two Resist Magic spells can be interwoven so that they both protect each other, and the item being protected. There is no need to look at it as a stack of spells like a russian doll, but this is often a useful way of perceiving it in game terms. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/phibbs +--------------+ | Philip Hibbs +---------------------------------------------+ | What immortal hand or eye dare frame thy perfect symmetry? | +------------------------------------------------------------+ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 16:56:58 -0500 From: stancliff@commnections.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank RU>A related issue: one published sorceror (Arlalten?) has an item with Resist RU>Magic on its spells, then another Resist Magic on the first Resist Magic. RU>This is intended to stop detect spells working, but my view is that however RU>many Resist spells you stack, the outermost will always be detectable. As I recall, they admit that the outermost Resist is detectable as a magic spell, but the inner spells are completely invisible to all Detects until the Resists are knocked down. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 21:03:55 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Target Conditions Hibbs, Philip wrote: > > IMG, the Universal Truth Detector is certainly possible, but > creating it requires Forbidden God Learner Knowledge, in a > Gloranthan context, or a pact with a demon, or a point of POW > stolen from a Truth Spirit, or something tricky like that. Conditions IMC usually were pretty simple, either "only me" or "only adept level sorcerers", etc.. But if I had to rule on it, I'd say that there has to be a physical interaction between the target and the enchantment, and that the perceptions of the target color how the enchantment reacts. So if you were Illuminated but didn't know, you wouldn't be affected by a target condition that stated "Illuminates Only". But if you were a Lunar spy infiltrating an Orlanthi temple, you'd certainly register as an "enemy". Hughes, Newton wrote: > I would propose that the 'conditions' set in the enchantment are > instructions to a spirit bound into the item or location which the > spirit has to obey, and that the conditions would have to be > limited to distinctions that the spirit could perceive (whether > through Mindlink with the person holding the item, casting Detect > spells, or whatever.) Therefore only an illuminated spirit could > detect other illuminated spirits, etc. The bound spirit would be > free to obey the letter and not the spirit of the instructions, of > course. Well, one way of looking at it could be that the POW expended in the enchantment forms a proto-spirit colored by the creator, that watches over the item or area and interprets the creator's wishes. A MGF idea might be to allow a very old enchantment to achieve some level of sentience, and to begin interpreting it's conditions by its own criteria.... Hibbs, Philip wrote: > Sandy Petersen is no longer on the Rules Digest, but can > occasionally be raised form his slumber with specific questions. Actualy, Mr. Petersen was never a member of THIS list. (But he's more than welcome to join, of course! ). jarold davis wrote: > My confusion cropped up from RQ3's definition of CM > regarding Detect spells. That definition made CM a bit too strong > for spirit magic, IMO. Simple answer: bring back Detection Blank. Anyone need a copy of the spell description? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 22:18:12 EST From: Delecti Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Detection Blank In a message dated 98-03-04 17:54:37 EST, you write: <> Bob writes: <> Actually I didn't read it that way Bob, though you may be right. I should look at it again. Delecti, Lord of the Upland Marsh aka Scott Knowles, USA Coordinator for The Chaos Society http://members.aol.com/delecti/UpMarsh.html Delecti@aol.com http://members.aol.com/Glorantha/chaossoc.html ChaosSociety@juno.com "What if life actually *was* fair, and we somehow deserved all the truly awful things that happened to us?" -- Marcus Cole, Babylon 5 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 22:37:48 EST From: JULIAKIR Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #24 In a message dated 98-03-04 04:00:23 EST, you write: << Do you play that an impaling firebladed rapier does 9d6? >> No, an impaling firebladed rapier will do 3d6+18. Leon *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 23:40:01 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: [RQ-RULES] Lost Messages... Well, if my 4 posts from earlier this evening don't show up by tomorrow morning, I'll repost them (one general comment and 3 posts recapping the RQ4 stuff.) (Bet I get this back first, though. ) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 11:56:21 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: [RQ-RULES] repost: RQ4 Stuff, part 1 From: JOVANOVIC@CUCCFA.CCC.COLUMBIA.EDU Subject: RQIV Survey (Damage) RQIV Damage Bonus, Weapon Damage, Armor and Hit Location Proposals [This document has been sent to those of you with Internet access that have expressed an interest in playtesting RQIV. To display the document correctly, use a monospaced font and a display mode that will give you at least 80 characters on a line. If you do not wish to receive any further such mailings, please let us know, and we will remove you from the mailing list.] The following document contains a number of proposed changes to the RQ damage system (a number of which based on comments from various playtesters). Since this particular set of changes would result in a significant change from the current rules, we are very interested in getting your feedback on whether you think they would be worth implementing. To give you some background, these changes were made in response to a number of comments on the RQIII damage system. The comments included complaints regarding the sudden jumps in the damage bonus table, and the odd mathematical progression of the current damage bonus table. The other major set of complaints had to do with the extreme amounts of damage RQIII weapons did. Essentially, given the ease of achieving a 1D4 damage bonus in RQIII (since an average human in RQIII has 13 SIZ, and would need but a 12 STR to obtain a 1D4 damage bonus) and the damage done by weapons, most weapons, even daggers, would incapacitate whatever location they struck on an average or above average (12-13 HP) human. An average dagger blow (1D4+2+1D4, or 7 points of damage) would sever or irrevocably maim the arm of an average human (with 3 HP arms). The weakest possible blow (4 points of damage) would automatically render the arm useless - there is no chance of a light wound occuring. A second set of comments came from a number of people that found keeping track of two hit location tables (Melee and Missile/Spell) an unnecessary complication. To address the first of these issues, we have developed and tested a series of changes to damage bonus, weapon damage and AP values for parry armor and armor. Damage bonus is smoother, has far less extreme breakpoints, and is much easier to apply. Weapon damage was reduced and simplified slightly (for the most part, by simply removing any adds to weapon dice, that is a 1D8+1 Broadsword would now do 1D8 damage). This makes rolling weapon damage faster and simpler (particularly useful for GMs), since now the GM generally need only roll 1D8+2, to calculate weapon and damage bonus damage, as opposed to RQIII, where a typical damage roll would be 1D8+1+1D4. The weapon die roll still retains a strong random element with respect to the amount of damage done - so one can still land a weak blow or a solid blow. However, since the total amount of damage done is slightly reduced by these changes, the results of weapon damage now seem slightly more realistic - a good dagger blow might well render an arm useless, but would not on the average sever or irrevocably maim the arm. A weak dagger blow might leave the arm still functional. Heavier weapons have more serious effects, but in general weapon damage seems to have a more realistic set of effects, and is simpler to calculate than in RQIII. To compensate for the slight decrease in weapon damage, weapon parry AP and armor AP were slightly reduced - typically by 2 AP - which brings armor values back in line with RQ2 values, for those of you familiar with RQ2. To address the second issue, we have a single hit location chart which combines the melee and missile hit location charts. Using the melee chart or missile/spell chart alone to cover both types of actions seemed unrealistic (if using the melee chart alone, spells and missiles tend to hit the legs most often, and the abdomen or chest very rarely, which seems unreasonable; if using the missile chart alone, head hits seemed too infrequent, and chest hits too frequent). Although we feel that both of these changes address some of the comments we've received and are improvements on the current set of rules, we're not sure whether people currently playing RQ2 or RQIII feel that their advantages outweigh their disadvantages, namely that they would force conversion of PC and NPC damage bonus and weapon damage statistics in current RQIII games and in published RQIII scenarios. Thus the reason for the distribution of this document - following the rules changes described below is a simple two question survey. We would greatly appreciate receiving your responses to the survey. Thank you, Oliver Jovanovic DAMAGE BONUS Damage Min. Avg. STR+SIZ Bonus STR+SIZ 1-5 -4 1 6-10 -3 3 11-25 -2 6 16-20 -1 8 21-25 0 11 26-30 +1 13 31-35 +2 16 36-40 +3 18 41-45 +4 21 46-50 +5 23 51-55 +6 26 56-60 +7 28 Each +5 add 1 Footnote to Damage Bonus Table Damage bonus for large creatures (or any creature) can be simply calculated by dividing the creatures STR+SIZ by 5, rounding up, and subtracting 5. [This set of changes is meant to smooth out the progression of the damage bonus, eliminate the extreme breakpoints, and simplify and speed the calculation of damage. The progression at higher levels is very similar to RQIII (1D6 per 16 points, or 3.5 per 16 points in RQIII, vs. 3 per 15 points or 3.2 per 16 points).] *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:39:29 -0500 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Target conditions, etc An interesting range of takes on how target conditions work. I'm reminded that the 'negative' wording given in the RQ3 magic book has interesting effects. Suppose you capture a site from an enemy cult that has an enchantment protecting its doors, which attacks any non-member of the cult that enters. By the way the rule is worded, you can broaden the target condition so that members of your cult are also -not- attacked. This gives you an enchantment that doesn't protect against the original owners, but does work just as well for you against all other intruders as it did for the previous inhabitants. A related question - has anyone come up with a complete rationale of how Detect Enemy spells work? Can someone register as your enemy if he doesn't know you exist? If not, the spell doesn't detect sentries when you're sneaking into a camp. If he does, a one-point spirit magic spell is capable of predicting a person's reaction to a future event. Another test case: I'm having truce talks with an enemy tribe. Do the opposing leader's guardsmen register as enemies if they intend to keep the truce, even though they fully intend to kill me as soon as the truce is over? In Land of Ninja, a whole scenario depends on a trusted retainer who is plotting the downfall of his lord. Any reason why he wouldn't have detected as an enemy? Andrew Barton *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 18:33:49 -0000 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] RE: Detection Andrew Barton: >has anyone come up with a complete rationale of how >Detect Enemy spells work? No, I (as referee) work it out on a case by case basis. >Can someone register as your enemy if he doesn't >know you exist? No, they have to intend harm. Merely being a member of an enemy tribe is not good enough. They might think that you are a hundred miles away, but if they harbour ill intent specifically towards you or your companions, then they still detect. If they are guarding against your army, and you are sneaking in, then they might show up, that's a grey area. IMO, the primary purpose of the spell is to determine if someone is your emeny, rather than pointing out all the potential emenies in the area. IIRC, the spell causes a fetish to point to the nearest enemy, then the next after that, etc. If you can see a person, or know accurately where they are, you can cause the fetish to determine their hostile intent towards you. If you do not know where a person is, but you know they are or would be generally hostile towards you, you can cause the fetish to locate them for you. If you don't know if there is anyone around, it will only point out people that are specifically aware of your presence, and intend harm. So, it would point out ambushers, but not camp guards. >I'm having truce talks with an enemy tribe. Do the opposing >leader's guardsmen register as enemies if they intend to keep the >truce, even though they fully intend to kill me as soon as the truce >is over? I'd say the fetish twitches a little, but does not provide a clear indication. Andrew Barton: >In Land of Ninja, a whole scenario depends on a trusted retainer who >is plotting the downfall of his lord. Any reason why he wouldn't >have detected as an enemy? Yes, he probably knows Detection Blank, or has an evil sorcerous ally that has cast Spell Resistance on him, or he has some strange ninja non-detection-as-enemy mind power. If the plot requires it, then provide it. Magic, especially spirit magic, is not an exact science. It has flaws and loopholes that the game system cannot easily simulate without becoming overly complex. Detect Enemy, IMO, is really useful for war or adventuring, but not so good for intrigue. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/phibbs +--------------+ | Philip Hibbs +---------------------------------------------+ | What immortal hand or eye dare frame thy perfect symmetry? | +------------------------------------------------------------+ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest-Rules-Digest V1 #27 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of 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.