From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #98 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Thursday, May 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 098 RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Special Success Re: [RQ-RULES] Special Success [RQ-RULES] Special Damage RE: [RQ-RULES] Special Success RE: [RQ-RULES] Tapping Re: [RQ-RULES] Tapping Re: [RQ-RULES] Special Success RE: [RQ-RULES] Scrying [RQ-RULES] On Turning Touch spells into Ranged ones Re: [RQ-RULES] On Turning Touch spells into Ranged ones Re: [RQ-RULES] Scrying [RQ-RULES] Re: Renewing Divine Magic 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: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:22:00 +0100 From: "Terje Tollisen" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Special Success > What rules do you use for special success in combat for non-impaling > weapons? I tend to use both knokback and double dammage. But how about a critiacl. Does people use that a critical is both a critical and a special at the same time, resulting in maximum doubble dammage? I found this too deadly. - -Terry Tollisen *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 06:35:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Brad Furst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Special Success At 12:11 PM 5/14/98 +0100, PhilHibbs wrote: >What rules do you use for special success in combat for non-impaling >weapons? I always felt that RQ3 gave slashing and crushing weapons a poor >deal in comparison to impales, with just automatic knockback (although that >can be useful). RQ4 gave various bonuses, I think it was something like max >weapon damage for a Slash, and double damage bonus for a Crush (a bit unfair >on ducks and hobbits, though). Our campaign simply rolls weapon damage twice (adding damage bonus or magic just once) for specials regardless of weapon type. Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.com *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 14:34:51 +0000 From: "Simon Phipp" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Special Damage Philip Hibbs: > What rules do you use for special success in combat for non-impaling > weapons? I always felt that RQ3 gave slashing and crushing weapons a > poor deal in comparison to impales, with just automatic knockback > (although that can be useful). RQ4 gave various bonuses, I think it > was something like max weapon damage for a Slash, and double damage > bonus for a Crush (a bit unfair on ducks and hobbits, though). OK, here goes: RQ2 had no extra damage for non-impaling weapons. However, there were optional rules in the back of the book which gave the following rules: Impaling damage = max + rolled Slashing damage = rolled twice Crushing Weapons = rolled + maximum damage bonus. so taking a character with a 1D6 damage bonus using a 1 H Spear, a Bastard sword or a maul, on a special he would do 1D8 + 10 + 1 D6 with the spear, 2D10 + 2 + 1D6 with the sword and 2D8 + 6 with the maul. I found that this became unbalanced at high levels where people could easily generate large damage bonuses, so I altered crushing to roll damage bonus twice, so he would do 2D8 + 2D6. There was an article in Wyrms Footnotes, I think, which gave the Maximum weapon damage for specials. On criticals, RQ2 did normal damage direct, ignoring armour. I played that 1/100th %chance gave a Special Critical which did Special damage ignoring armour. RQ3 plays that Criticals do maximum weapon damage ignoring armour, which I find a bit gross. Hope that helps. *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 14:32:49 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Special Success Terje: >I tend to use both knokback and double dammage. >But how about a critiacl. Does people use that a critical is both a >critical and a special at the same time, resulting in maximum >doubble dammage? I found this too deadly. Yes, criticals are killers. According to the rules, impale chance for a 100% skill is 1-20, and critical is 1-5. These ranges overlap. Also, I think it says something like "if the critical is also an impale...", so officially, that is the rule. However, that is a *lot* of damage. RQ4 made an exception for fireblade, saying that impale damage is 4d6, not 6d6. RQ4 fireblade impales are horrid - I've seen large cliff toads killed on the third SR of a combat. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - William Blake *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 15:23:25 GMT From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Tapping > >Of course you COULD use it with Project Touch. But that's > >another story... > > Which leads me to ask, who allows touch spells to be cast through Project > Touch? This is not possible in Sandy's rules, as Project is Active, Not *quite* true. Using multispell you CAN multispell two active spells together and use them both at the same time. Of course, this would mean that casting a Project Touch spell would only make it "good" for one Tap, and you'd have to cast another multispell combination, but I'd still rule that it was possible. I don't think it affects game balance too much anyhow, especially as my PC's ain't got a snowballs hope in Zorak Zoran's Halls of getting hold of Tap! Nikk E. Nikk Effingham eng7nje@leeds.ac.uk http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/ "If absolute power corrupts absolutely Where does that leave God?" -- George Daacon *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 15:25:34 GMT From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Tapping > >Which leads me to ask, who allows touch spells to be cast through Project > >Touch? This is not possible in Sandy's rules, as Project is Active, > > No, it isn't impossible due to Project being active. Yes it is, once the active spell is cast you cannot cast another spell without lapsing the Project Touch. > It's impossible because Tap is a touch spell, and the Art of > Range cannot be used to manipulate these. But you are not using range, the range is still touch, just that your touch is now defined by the end of the Project spell. > You could, in fact, enchant your Project Touch spell to carry > around a Tap spell, or any other spell in fact. Do you mean using POW to make the Project spell permanent? You could feasbily Hold a Tap spell, but still could not release it through an Active Project Spell. Nikk E. Nikk Effingham eng7nje@leeds.ac.uk http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/ "If absolute power corrupts absolutely Where does that leave God?" -- George Daacon *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 15:30:33 GMT From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Special Success > What rules do you use for special success in combat for non-impaling > weapons? I always felt that RQ3 gave slashing and crushing weapons a poor > deal in comparison to impales, with just automatic knockback (although that > can be useful). RQ4 gave various bonuses, I think it was something like max > weapon damage for a Slash, and double damage bonus for a Crush (a bit unfair > on ducks and hobbits, though). I play that natural weapons have no Special result, a Slashing weapon does maximum weapon damage plus damage bonus on a Special (which is 16+db with a Greatsword!) and if you are hit with a Special result from a Crushing Weapon you must make a DEXx3 to remain standing or fall over. In my game I don't use knockback, too clumsy and time consuming for such little game effect. Nikk Nikk Effingham eng7nje@leeds.ac.uk http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Lair/7556/ "If absolute power corrupts absolutely Where does that leave God?" -- George Daacon *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 15:43:44 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Scrying My Scrying Enchantment example stated: >His chance >of success is accordingly reduced to 92%. In case anyone is confused by this, this is another rule of mine whereby if a sorceror execeeds his manipulation ability, each point over the limit subtracts 10% from his chance of success, a failure counts as a fumble (lose spell MPs), and a real fumble causes loss of GHP equal to the excess points. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - William Blake *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 14:33:59 -0400 From: Lord Julian <113661.3343@compuserve.com> Subject: [RQ-RULES] On Turning Touch spells into Ranged ones From: Julian Lord >>>Which leads me to ask, who allows touch spells to be cast through Project >>>Touch? This is not possible in Sandy's rules, as Project is Active, >> >> No, it isn't impossible due to Project being active. >> It's impossible because Tap is a touch spell, and the Art of >> Range cannot be used to manipulate these. >But you are not using range, the range is still touch, just that your >touch is now defined by the end of the Project spell. No it isn't, at least not in the version of Sandy's sorcery I have. You describe the RQ3 Project (sense). >> You could, in fact, enchant your Project Touch spell to carry >> around a Tap spell, or any other spell in fact. >Do you mean using POW to make the Project spell permanent? You could >feasbily Hold a Tap spell, but still could not release it through an >Active Project Spell. Sorcerors have several quite easy ways of bypassing the "only- - -one-active-spell-going-at-a-time" rule. Multispell is the obvious one; having bound spirits controlling the extra spell(s) the most costly but versatile one, especially when combined with Enchantment conditions. There are others. There would be problems with many attack spells, though, if the multispell option was used. What would be the duration of the combination of three spells; one active, one transient, and one instant? It is not easy to turn a Touch spell into a Ranged one. It *is* possible, but difficult. P. Hibbs threw a quote at me. Here's another: (from Project [sense]) (emphasis mine) "Since the Projected sense is active, the caster cannot himself cast spells through it. Someone in mind link could do so, but _such_spells_ _must_have_Range_enough_to_reach_the_viewpoint's_distant_location_ (wherever it is)." ie it IS possible for an imaginative sorceror (ie any professional Adept worth his salt) to find some means of casting an active spell through the Project spell's viewpoint, (or of somehow conjuring such a spell through the Project touch, if my words bother anyone) provided it were a Ranged spell. Tap isn't a Ranged spell, so the _effective_ limitation against long-distance tapping is the fact that Tap is a Touch spell. Seems logical, when you think about it, no? The only way that a sorceror could cast Tap through a Project [sense] would be to enchant the viewpoint so that the viewpoint itself were to cast the spell. Several options are available for a sorceror who wanted to do this. He could turn his viewpoint into a Tap matrix with a triggering condition and a reserve of MPs. He could bind a magic spirit which knew the Tap spell into the Project Touch. These are only two examples of how to go about it. A big limitation is that this would be a very costly spell to cast and to maintain. A sorceror who had that kind of skill would also have far more urgent things to do with his magic than costly long-distance tapping. He wouldn't even get any MPs in return for the large POW expenditure involved in making such an enchantment. He wouldn't be in direct control of the spell. He could start plugging in some long Range mind link magic, but it would hardly be worth the effort. IMO the use of Illusions is a far better, and more elegant way of turning touch spells into ranged ones. You do more of the above, except you also make it all into one big illusion. Green lightning, clouds of blood, disembodied hands, etc. etc. Much nicer, 'cos it turns these dry game mechanics into heroic fantasy. This is Black Magic. Don't suggest it to your players. n.b. Spells can be enchanted using the ritual magic rules. Enchantment Runes must exist somewhere. The enchantment of spells or of other immaterial objects could be ruled to be more difficult than that of material things, for pure game balance reasons. Not IMG. *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 22:33:58 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] On Turning Touch spells into Ranged ones Lord Julian wrote: > > There would be problems with many attack spells, though, if > the multispell option was used. What would be the duration of > the combination of three spells; one active, one transient, > and one instant? Same rule that say that all spells in a multispell have the same chance of success vs. a target; I've resolved to play that if one part of a multispell breaks down/gets dispelled/lapses/whatever the whole thing collapses. In the above, if the transient component lapses, the entire spell lapses. > spell to cast and to maintain. A sorceror who had that kind of skill would > also have far more urgent things to do with his magic than costly > long-distance tapping. He wouldn't even get any MPs in return > for the large POW expenditure involved in making such an enchantment. FWIW, the sorcerer's I've run as NPCs and seen ysed as PCs, when they're out to accomplish these sorts of tricks, it's against opponents of equal or greater power, that they're seeking to outmaneuver. It's seldom about getting a few MPs, and more about weakening an enemy the night before a big confrontation. > IMO the use of Illusions is a far better, and more elegant way > of turning touch spells into ranged ones. You do more of the above, > except you also make it all into one big illusion. Green lightning, > clouds of blood, disembodied hands, etc. etc. Much nicer, 'cos it > turns these dry game mechanics into heroic fantasy. > This is Black Magic. Don't suggest it to your players. Use it on your players. Let them figure out how you did it. > n.b. Spells can be enchanted using the ritual magic rules. Enchantment > Runes must exist somewhere. The enchantment of spells or of other > immaterial objects could be ruled to be more difficult than that of > material things, for pure game balance reasons. Not IMG. A solidified piece of air makes an excellent 'hidden rune', as does a carefully arranged shadow. *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 22:36:34 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Scrying Hibbs, Philip wrote: > > In case anyone is confused by this, this is another rule of mine whereby if > a sorceror execeeds his manipulation ability, each point over the limit > subtracts 10% from his chance of success, a failure counts as a fumble (lose > spell MPs), and a real fumble causes loss of GHP equal to the excess points. I like this... I think I'll incorporate this into my house rules, as well. Do you use this for sorcery only, or for other types of magic as well? *************************************************************************** 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, 14 May 1998 22:46:33 -0400 From: "James Bickmeyer" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Renewing Divine Magic JULIAKIR wrote >I do not allow initiates to sacrifice for spells which are one use to priests. >They are one use to rune levels for a reason and are to important to give to >initiates. I will not allow this either. >Note, according to the rules initiates can not renew spells since >they are lost them used. I find that doing it the other way gives me acolyte >and priest characters with too much divine magic to start. I have never had a PC make priest IMC so I don't see a problem. They have reached the skill level needed, but not the rune magic. They always seem to find a need to cast it during some adventure or another. If these guys ever make it to priest, then they can expect to have their adventuring days limited. If they have a lot of magic, then fine. I am looking for more magic in my game any ways. Sure I could make matrixes and magic items more popular. But I want more contact with the gods. More reason to care about their gods. Now to really rock someones boat. I have lowered the restrictions on availability of magic at temples by one step. Small temples now have the spells of medium and medium those of large. Shrines are still the one spell. More magic is more fun. And if it all goes south then I will just have to deal with it. Jim Bickmeyer *************************************************************************** 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 #98 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.