From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1 #152 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Thursday, September 10 1998 Volume 01 : Number 152 RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" Re: [RQ-RULES] New spell Re: [RQ-RULES] Visibility Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" Re: [RQ-RULES] New spell 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, 9 Sep 1998 00:17:30 -0400 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" I inquired: > Is this spell redundant, too powerful, too wimpy? > > WOUNDART > 2 Points > Touch, Temporal > > This spell affects any single missile, > adding 1d8 damage to a successful hit. > The temporal nature of this spell means > that it can be cast onto a missile and > the spell will work once only if the > missile is used any time within the > spell's duration. It may be stacked > with Multimissile (affecting only the > first missile) or Firearrow or Speedart. Leon Kirshtein answered: >The general rule of thumb is take a look at similar spells already in >existence. Your spells is on the same level as Firearrow, at half benefit avg >4.5 vs 10, >The +1d8 is good but find another side benefit worth about 5pts or special >effect. Indeed I considered that someone would respond that it is too wimpy, since one could do 3d6 damage in a two-point Firearrow, which is much more than this two-point spell. >but has the additional benefit of stacking with other spells. >This, as a general rule this is a no-no. Bob Stancliff (Stancliff@commnections.com) argued the same: > In itself, this is a reasonable spell, and if it was 1d6 I might >suggest it be one point, but the biggest problem is that you want it to >add to other spirit magic missile spells. This violates a long standing >premise by Chaosium that the spells of one class of magic used for the >same purposes (like spirit magic missile spells) cannot ever be stacked. Is this a differnce between Chaosium and Avalon Hill? Is this a difference between Glorantha and non-Glorantha? I remember that some specific stackings were once upon a time ruled no-no, but with the advent of the AH:RQ3:errata and the publication of such precedents as _Dorastor_ (if not sooner), combining Protection with Countermagic became commonplace. Is it inherently necessary to rule against stacking? I can quickly concede to not mix "Woundart" with Firearrow, since the latter may be described as elementally changing the arrow from vegetable/mineral into fire. Why not combine with Multimissile? Its limitations are already built into the extra missiles which cannot Impale. The actual intention within the campaign research was to combine this with Speedart, in order to allow an archer to avoid the futility of fighting armored knights. At the time I thought two more points spent was a useful depletion of the party's magical resources. Why do hand held weapons have a precedent for graduated augmentation (Bladesharp 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8), but missiles have one and only one level of augmentation? Bob Stancliff (Stancliff@commnections.com) >A more interesting choice might be to make Speedart +2 and +10% and Variable. Simon Phipp" somewhat agreed: >Seems OK, except that most missile Spirit Magic spells are >incompatible, so I would say that it would not work with Multimisile, >Speedart, Firearrow or similar Spirit Magic spells. And again I would ask, "Why not?" Richard Ohlson responded: >Remember, you REALLY don't want your PC's getting a critical impale >with an arrow that could potentially do 3d6 +1d8 damage. That would be >what, 52 points of damage, ignoring armor, correct? _Firearrow_ does not Impale in RQ3, so a critical would be (2d8 + 2) + (my proposed +1d8). Nor are bonus multiplied or even added more than once in RQ. I think this would be topped out at 26 points of damage. And indeed, this was intended to punch through armor. In a critical, nearly all of your damage would be wasted anyway: "But an adventurer cannot take more thantwice the hit location damage possible to an arm or leg." So what difference whether 26 points of damage or 52 points of damage unless the target has [so many] AP? ... >So the extra damage doesn't make it easier to penetrate armor >which is the disadvantage built into missile fire in RQ. I didn't realize that the rules had such a disadvantage intentionally built into missile fire in RQ. Are you sure? Is it inherently necessary? Alain.RAMEAU@total.com (Alain RAMEAU) countered with his own question: >Is this spell a spirit magic one or a divine magic one? Yes, I meant Spirit Magic. I should have made that more clear. >A 1D8 fixed additional damages for all weapons would result as having >a thrown rock x4 damages (1D3+1D8) while a bow wuold only have a x2 >damage. Why not simply an effect of doubling damages, instead of a >fixed 1D8 ? You are correct. I could be persuaded to simply add again the weapon's normal damage. I would deliberately avoid the word "doubling" because too often players carelessly redouble as well as double each bonus. I repeat that characters are not allowed for the bonus multiplied or even added more than once in RQ. *************************************************************************** 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, 09 Sep 1998 07:54:22 PDT From: "Leon Kirshtein" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" >> Is this spell redundant, too powerful, too wimpy? >> >> WOUNDART >> 2 Points >> Touch, Temporal >> >> This spell affects any single missile, >> adding 1d8 damage to a successful hit. >> The temporal nature of this spell means >> that it can be cast onto a missile and >> the spell will work once only if the >> missile is used any time within the >> spell's duration. It may be stacked >> with Multimissile (affecting only the >> first missile) or Firearrow or Speedart. >>the biggest problem is that you want it to >>add to other spirit magic missile spells. This violates a long standing >>premise by Chaosium that the spells of one class of magic used for the >>same purposes (like spirit magic missile spells) cannot ever be stacked. > >Is this a differnce between Chaosium and Avalon Hill? Is this a difference >between Glorantha and non-Glorantha? I remember that some specific >stackings were once upon a time ruled no-no, but with the advent of the >AH:RQ3:errata and the publication of such precedents as _Dorastor_ (if not >sooner), combining Protection with Countermagic became commonplace. Yes, this true (and I do not like it) but the spells you are talking about Protection and Counter Magic do generally different things one prevents damage while the other prevent magic. With your spell you are in effect stacking the same spell, both Speedart and Woundart increase damage and THAT is not allowed. > I can quickly concede to not >mix "Woundart" with Firearrow, since the latter may be described as >elementally changing the arrow from vegetable/mineral into fire. Why not >combine with Multimissile? Its limitations are already built into the extra >missiles which cannot Impale. Multimissle can be interpreted differently by each GM and if you want to play it this way thats ok. I see tacking of Woundart and Multimissle as a lesser evil than stacking Woundart with any other damage enhancing spirit magic. > >The actual intention within the campaign research was to combine this with >Speedart, in order to allow an archer to avoid the futility of fighting >armored knights. A better way of doing this would be to give the spell ability to penetrate armor, something like that of firearms in COC. How about 2d6 armor penetration factor against armor (not Protection or Shield) for the spell, but no additional damage. In this case an arrow will still do 1d8+1 but will ignor on the average most phycal armor. >At the time I thought two more points spent was a useful >depletion of the party's magical resources. Just add or increase an encounter, or have them attacked by a couple of small spirits . > >Why do hand held weapons have a precedent for graduated augmentation >(Bladesharp 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8), but missiles have one and only one level of >augmentation? Well Multimissle is Variable. The general idea IMO is that you get a bigger bang with a one use spell like Speedart or Firearrow then for a spell which lasts for the full five minutes. I would cringe at the thought of a run of the mill militiaman or a trolkin being able to cast something like Speedart 4 which in all likelyhood double his chance to hit and triple his damage with the shot. And to make things worst he can them do it again, and possiably once more. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:05:06 -0500 From: stancliff@commnections.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" RU>I inquired: RU>> Is this spell redundant, too powerful, too wimpy? RU>> WOUNDART RU>> 2 Points RU>> Touch, Temporal In synopsis, Woundart would be redundant if the other spells could stack. Modifying that restriction might be the simplest solution instead of introducing a new spell. Allowing each additional spell to stack for +1MP casting cost would be rather fair. As a triggered instant effect, it is not wimpy, but is not too powerful either. 2MP for an additional die of damage compares fairly between Firearrow and Speedart, and I don't mind adding a d8 to a thrown rock either, the missile's damage is secondary to the strength of the magic. Spell effects along these lines spend a lot of MP's to make an arrow deadly in higher level campaigns where most PC's and even NPC's laugh at the fool with the bow. RU>>... This violates a long standing RU>>premise by Chaosium that the spells of one class of magic used for the RU>>same purposes (like spirit magic missile spells) cannot ever be stacked. This was to protect against abuse in low level campaigns, and to restrict against damage escalation. While they achieved that goal for missiles, they failed for other weapons. Missiles need an equalizer. RU>Is this a differnce between Chaosium and Avalon Hill? Is this a difference RU>between Glorantha and non-Glorantha? I remember that some specific RU>stackings were once upon a time ruled no-no, but with the advent of the RU>AH:RQ3:errata and the publication of such precedents as _Dorastor_ (if not RU>sooner), combining Protection with Countermagic became commonplace. Chaosium always retained some control over the development of RQ3, AH was primarily the publisher. The errata sheet admitted that Protection, Spirit Screen, and CounterMagic were different types of protections and should be allowed to stack. They never released the restiction regarding missile weapons, but did open the door for stacking Spirit, Divine, and Sorcery spells on the same person or weapon if a character could get access. This allows any weapon, including arrows, to be deadly, although arrows are still weaker than the rest. My campaign is finishing it's 5th year and has gotten quite high level even though the characters are just becoming Acolytes now, simply by combining a little sorcery with some strong spirit magic. I am thinking that balance could have been better maintained if the rules had forbidden different schools of magic being cast on the same item or person, and forbidding all Initiates from using any Spirit Magic that doesn't come from a friendly cult. RU>Why do hand held weapons have a precedent for graduated augmentation RU>(Bladesharp 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8), but missiles have one and only one level of RU>augmentation? RU>>A more interesting choice would make Speedart +2 and +10% and Variable. I am liking this idea more and more. It addresses your need, is simple, and works within the normal rules. An arrow can become quite deadly at the expense of a lot of MP's. I have observed MultiMissile for several years and feel that the Impale restriction was also a mistake and should be released. RU>>So the extra damage doesn't make it easier to penetrate armor RU>>which is the disadvantage built into missile fire in RQ. RU>I didn't realize that the rules had such a disadvantage intentionally built RU>into missile fire in RQ. Are you sure? Is it inherently necessary? No, it doesn't really. The weapons and armor rules were balanced in the absence of magic, but strong Protection spells and weak arrow boosting spells have broken that balance in regards to missiles. Ready access to spirit magic quickly unbalances the have's from the have-not's in all of the published adventures. As I have said in the past; the published characters are all written for young, new parties in beginning campaigns. They just don't work as the players start accumulating spell support and large MP storage. Considering the actual preparation and casting time for Summon or Spellteaching, the cost of learning spells should be reevaluated up noticably. The caster is dedicating one to two days to do nothing else. Bob Stancliff (Stancliff@commnections.com) (http://commnections.com/upgrades) *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Sep 1998 08:12:16 +0100 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" >Why do hand held weapons have a precedent for graduated >augmentation (Bladesharp 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8), but missiles have >one and only one level of augmentation? Missiles are one-use, so the spell is less effective, so working out a worthwhile point progression that doesn't become overpowered is difficult. I thought of this: Boltsharp variable, temporal, touch At one point, this spell adds +1d6 to the damage done by the missile, but each additional +1d6 costs incrementally more points, so 3 points yields +2d6, 6 points gives +3d6, and 10 points gives +4d6. This spell is incompatible with other spirit magic weapon enhancing spells. >>so I would say that it would not work with Multimisile, >>Speedart, Firearrow or similar Spirit Magic spells. >And again I would ask, "Why not?" Game balance. Give someone a +1d8 spell and Multimissile 6, and it becomes ridiculous. You are effectively getting an extra +1d8 per magic point, which is far more efficient than any other spirit spell. Unless you rule that the +1d8 only applies to the first missile, which I think is much more acceptable. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk or phibbs@compuserve.com http://members.tripod.com/~PhilHibbs/ Any view of things that is not strange is false - Neil Gaiman, Sandman *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Sep 1998 12:20:43 -0700 From: "Jarold Davis" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New spell > ><< Is this spell redundant, too powerful, too wimpy? > WOUNDART > 2 Points Seems too powerful. An elf in our campaign seems to roll a lot of impales with her bow, making it deadly enough without magic. And call me a killjoy, but many weapon enhancing Spirit spells are now unavailable (i.e. Bladesharp) because they seemed to make the game a bit boring. My fault as GM that BS was too easy to get in the first place, I spose, but it does seem to help our overall game at this point. *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Sep 1998 12:25:53 -0700 From: "Jarold Davis" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Visibility In addition to other replies, I believe Visibility can only be cast on "Self", meaning otherworld beings use it if they're feeling cranky and just want to spook someone, not necessarily attack in spirit combat. *************************************************************************** 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, 9 Sep 1998 12:36:00 -0700 From: "Jarold Davis" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: "Woundart" >>Why do hand held weapons have a precedent for graduated >>augmentation (Bladesharp 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8), but missiles have >>one and only one level of augmentation? > Was that tried in old version of RQ? Griffin Mountain showed some NPC's with Speedart 2 or Speedart 3, etc. It's been refered to as a typo in one old Chaosium article. *************************************************************************** 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, 10 Sep 1998 11:26:50 -0500 From: stancliff@commnections.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New spell RU>><< Is this spell redundant, too powerful, too wimpy? RU>> WOUNDART RU>> 2 Points RU>Seems too powerful. An elf in our campaign seems to roll a lot of impales RU>with her bow, making it deadly enough without magic. Several of my characters are almost impale immune with armor + protection > 14AP. A common statement from the toughest players is "don't bother rolling damage unless you have a crit". There needs to be an equalizer for arrows, after all, they were decisive at places like Agincourt. RU>And call me a killjoy, but many weapon enhancing Spirit spells are RU>now unavailable (i.e. Bladesharp) because they seemed to make RU>the game a bit boring. Wow, you ARE a killjoy. I can see making all of the damage spells more expensive to reduce weapon inflation, but dropping them from the game is steep. I can seriously see making spirit magic incompatible with divine magic or sorcery to stop the use of multiple sources of damage enhancement, but how can you say that Bladesharp is boring? The increased risk of severed limbs can curdle the blood of any player. Bob Stancliff (Stancliff@commnections.com) (http://commnections.com/upgrades) *************************************************************************** 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 #152 ************************************* *************************************************************************** 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.