From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #4 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Wednesday, January 13 1999 Volume 02 : Number 004 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Sorcery [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence Re: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence [RQ-RULES] Re: New Volume of RQ Rules Digest Re: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence [RQ-RULES] Hold spells Re: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence [RQ-RULES] Sorcery Thoughts Re: [RQ-RULES] more sorcery thoughts 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, 13 Jan 1999 16:54:49 GMT From: "Nikk Effingham" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RE: Sorcery My versio of Hold is just like the original, you need as many levels of Hold as the highest Art level in the spell, and you can have but one Held spell at anyone time. It does not count towards presence, but as you only have one spell this makes Hold less powerful. I think having as many Held spells as you want, but having them equal only one presence is silly, over powered and will make sorcerors the tulers of Glorantha before the game year is out. And there are many versions of Sandy's rules, and just as many house rules. I like it that way. 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: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:45:48 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence Ever since I first heard about Sandy's rules, I have disliked the solution of eliminating Duration and adding a complicated Presence system. I don't really care if it is playable, it is still cumbersome. There are simpler ways of changing the old sorcery to fix the 'usually agreed problems', and this is another of those 'problems'. I am not going to argue the current definition of Hold and the Presence needed, since it is reasonably fair as written, and as was mentioned, the use of Permanence can reduce the Presence by requiring other costs. Having a pre-cast spell available for later use is the essence of a charged magic item; the bread and butter of the D&D magic system. It allows magic to be lent, found, or bought in controllable quantities less than permanent or than recoverable in X time. In Glorantha, the creation of a permanent and continuous spell effect requires some form of Divine Intervention. A permanent spell matrix that needs to be cast to use requires several points of POW to store all of the manipulations. A one-use item such as a Thunderstone or some Dwarven rituals require one POW to cast. There obviously has to be some 'Price' that can make these items cost effective, but not a cheap commodity. D&D described the making of a charged wand as a difficult enchantment to make the wand able to receive the charges, and then a simple, but tedious, ritual to put the charges into the wand. This is a circumventing of the current enchantment rules for the making of linked spell effects, but those are permanent reusable, and these are one shot charges. What some of you seem to be looking for is a new spell enchantment ritual, or a modification of the current one, that makes an object ready to receive charges by spending an amount of POW proportional to the strength of the spell that will be stored. Then it would be possible to go through a series of enchantment rituals of duration related to the strength of the spell that will cast the spell into the item. By assigning values to the parameters that I have left vague, a novice apprentice might be able to make a fairly weak spell battery in a couple of days, spending a few POW, and then spend a few weeks putting 20 charges into it due to the amount of Ceremony needed to succeed at the enchantment castings. A Magus might take a day to make a battery with a moderately complex spell effect, spending several POW, and then spend a week casting the charging enchantment 20 times. This will have a strong impact on any game that uses this rule since charged magic will probably become more accessible than matrices. The balance between POW costs, casting times, and the cost to recharge will drive the actual market factors. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) 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, 13 Jan 1999 12:37:42 -0600 From: "Paul Stolar" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence I prefer Sandy's system to the RQ3 system. Despite the accurate problems you noted, I find the RQ3 system much more open to abuse. In RQ3, there are no limits on how powerful a spell someone can have. And when the sorcerers get matrices, the problem becomes very severe. The sorcerers become juggernauts of destruction, with dam res 20, spell res 20, dam boost 20 etc up, no one can touch them, and their merest touch lops off arms. With SP's system, sorcerers are limited to how much majci they can up by their skill level. before, someone with a 1% chance to cast a spell could cast a spell with high enough duration and potency to be like a great sorcerer, provided they had enough INT and matrices. - -----Original Message----- From: Bob Stancliff To: runequest-rules@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 12:04 PM Subject: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence > Ever since I first heard about Sandy's rules, I have disliked the solution >of eliminating Duration and adding a complicated Presence system. I don't >really care if it is playable, it is still cumbersome. There are simpler >ways of changing the old sorcery to fix the 'usually agreed problems', and >this is another of those 'problems'. > I am not going to argue the current definition of Hold and the Presence >needed, since it is reasonably fair as written, and as was mentioned, the >use of Permanence can reduce the Presence by requiring other costs. > > Having a pre-cast spell available for later use is the essence of a >charged magic item; the bread and butter of the D&D magic system. It >allows magic to be lent, found, or bought in controllable quantities less >than permanent or than recoverable in X time. > In Glorantha, the creation of a permanent and continuous spell effect >requires some form of Divine Intervention. A permanent spell matrix that >needs to be cast to use requires several points of POW to store all of the >manipulations. A one-use item such as a Thunderstone or some Dwarven >rituals require one POW to cast. There obviously has to be some 'Price' >that can make these items cost effective, but not a cheap commodity. > D&D described the making of a charged wand as a difficult enchantment to >make the wand able to receive the charges, and then a simple, but tedious, >ritual to put the charges into the wand. This is a circumventing of the >current enchantment rules for the making of linked spell effects, but those >are permanent reusable, and these are one shot charges. > > What some of you seem to be looking for is a new spell enchantment ritual, >or a modification of the current one, that makes an object ready to receive >charges by spending an amount of POW proportional to the strength of the >spell that will be stored. Then it would be possible to go through a >series of enchantment rituals of duration related to the strength of the >spell that will cast the spell into the item. > By assigning values to the parameters that I have left vague, a novice >apprentice might be able to make a fairly weak spell battery in a couple of >days, spending a few POW, and then spend a few weeks putting 20 charges >into it due to the amount of Ceremony needed to succeed at the enchantment >castings. A Magus might take a day to make a battery with a moderately >complex spell effect, spending several POW, and then spend a week casting >the charging enchantment 20 times. > This will have a strong impact on any game that uses this rule since >charged magic will probably become more accessible than matrices. The >balance between POW costs, casting times, and the cost to recharge will >drive the actual market factors. >Bob Stancliff >(stanclif@ufl.edu) >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. > *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jan 1999 13:51:41 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New Volume of RQ Rules Digest Fernando Blesa wrote: > > Tal, > > Have you seen the name of the last RQ Rules Digest? > > > Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V1999 #1 > > Two issues ago (you?) started volume 2, but now we are at volume 1999! I suspect that someone at MPGN came though and "thoughtfully" updated my config file for me, not realizing that I was the only list admin on any of the other MPGN lists I'm on who actually updated his config files ON TIME. This will be fixed posthaste! (I admit to a certain degree of agitation here....) - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jan 1999 14:19:42 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence Bob Stancliff wrote: > > What some of you seem to be looking for is a new spell enchantment ritual, > or a modification of the current one, that makes an object ready to receive > charges by spending an amount of POW proportional to the strength of the > spell that will be stored. Then it would be possible to go through a > series of enchantment rituals of duration related to the strength of the > spell that will cast the spell into the item. Yes, but a Held spell is not a "magic wand" that anyone can use (though, admittedly, I could figure out a way to create one using my own spin on the rules, though I'd employ Time and Condition, rather than Hold). In order to employ a Held spell, the sorcerer has to make the gesture, as it were, not his paxman or some peasant off the fields. One of Sandy's early Saint writeups included a Saint who granted additional Hold "slots" for sorcerers, but he has since moved away from having the Saints be Sorcery-oriented and made them more Culture-supporting. He also eased the restrictions on Held spells, with the same gesture - though expending a point of POW to gain an additional Held spell (at the time) was not unreasonable IMO. > This will have a strong impact on any game that uses this rule since > charged magic will probably become more accessible than matrices. The > balance between POW costs, casting times, and the cost to recharge will > drive the actual market factors. True. IMC, though, a living sorcerer can be targetted by the Curse enchantment if one of this enchantments falls into the wrong hands, thus curtailing the retail sorcery market before it's born. - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jan 1999 14:30:28 -0500 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Hold spells > basically if you try hard enough, you can cast any spell eventually, therefore you just write down the spells that you want to 'precast', and skill %ages become pointless. Unless you make fumbles dangerous. One approach would be to rule that on a fumble you -think- you've succeeded, only discovering otherwise when you come to use the spell. 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, 13 Jan 1999 16:07:49 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Hold vs. Presence > I find the RQ3 system much more open to abuse. In RQ3, there are no > limits on how powerful a spell someone can have. The limit is Free INT + Matrix strength... for a human, the limit for Free INT is 18, and the effective limit for Matrix strength is about 12 (without making the character totally unplayable). This gives a limit of roughly 30. > when the sorcerers get matrices, the problem becomes very severe. Yes, the matrices are making the power levels worse, but as an upper limit, these are not 'bad' numbers. > sorcerers become juggernauts of destruction, with dam res 20, spell res 20, > dam boost 20 etc up, no one can touch them, and their merest touch lops off arms. By combining good armor with strong Spirit Magic and a little Damage Boost my players are getting 20+AP and attacks of 30-40 HP before throwing Truesword. That sorcerer is peanut butter! They are far more of a problem than your fear of 20 pt manipulations because they are already pushing the limits of the game system as Acolytes and advanced Initiates... they kill enemy Rune Lords in about five rounds (or force DI's). It is hard to make encounters for them because their only weakness is from spells, and they have good defenses there as well. Most normal encounter are of no consequence because they can only be hurt on a crit. and they remove the location of anything they hit (literal truth). They are ready for the Hero Wars as of 1618. I let half of them ride off in the Cradle with Argrath just to get them out of the way for two years. > With SP's system, sorcerers are limited to how much magic they can put up by > their skill level. Before, someone with a 1% chance to cast a spell could [eventually] > cast a spell with high enough duration and potency to be like a great > sorcerer, provided they had enough INT and matrices. This points out the only real problem with the RQ3 rules... using Free INT as the limit. Instead of going to the extreme that Sandy did, I just suggest that you say: 1) Manipulation limit = Lowest Skill% Used / 5 2) Total continuing spells = INT (or maybe INT x 2) With these changes the system works, you need no Presence, and Duration becomes a mixed blessing since a sorcerer can't afford to sell many long term spells unless he charges a fortune. In the final word you have to ask what power level you are willing to tolerate. For a low level game where Cuirbouilli is useful you might limit Spirit Magic to spells in mind with NO spirit support, and limit Sorcery to Skill% / 10. For a medium level game you can allow the PC's to make some kinds of magic items: allow Magic, Spell, and Int Spirit Binds, limit spell spirits to Int 5 or 6, give sorcerers Skill% / 8, but never allow Spirit, Divine, or Sorcery spells to stack on the other types. For a more heroic game you allow full creativity with matrices including friendly Ancestors in Ghost binds, allow all of the god's blood crystals, let spell spirits get up to 10 or 12, use Rune Points for Divine magic, give sorcerers Skill% / 5, and allow other favors like recharging (or buying) divine matrices from other cults (for a suitable price). Whatever you allow will be pushed near the limits by someone, you have the task of keeping up. Always remember that the toughest RQ module published was designed for a group of moderate (50%) level players no matter how tough they claim it to be. The rest are for beginners. Bob Stancliff (stanclif@ufl.edu) 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, 13 Jan 1999 16:08:34 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: [RQ-RULES] Sorcery Thoughts One thing that came to me today while thinking about Hold, etc., was a spell I'd posted to Loren's RQR (or was it on the GD, in the interregnum?), a few days before I'd heard of Sandy's system. The spell in question, _Spell Hook_, allowed you to hang several other spells on it's framework (ala Protective Circle) and then release them as needed. Hold seemed alot more elegant to me at the time, so I never gave it much more thought. Now, with the vows of Abjure , I was thinking of maybe a series of spells that emulate the various Arts (especially useful for those sects that might not have access to a lesser known Art). You'd have to multispell this with another spell, of course, so you probably wouldn't get the same kind of skill levels you could if you knew it as a straight skill, but it might still add some interesting effects. - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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, 13 Jan 1999 17:21:27 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] more sorcery thoughts mab@ssdnt01.bnsc.rl.ac.uk wrote: > > I was thinking about this, and trying to see what the advantage for > Multispelling would be. It seems 'right' to me that if you Multispell > spells like this, then you can only release the Multispell as one block > of spells. To do it like this costs 9 Presence, whereas if you cast and > held 3 x (Intensity 3, Hold 3) spells, they are going to take up 18 > Presence, but the advantage is that you can release them individually. That's the way I read Multispell as well. For my own purposes, I've also ruled that a "block" of Multispelled spells acts in all ways as a single spell, not just in the casting/resistance phase. (i.e. if you multispell resist damage, castback, and fly on yourself, and somone successfully targets the fly with a neutralize magic, the other two spells fail when the "block" unravels). > While I was thinking about all this, I was wondering about use of Presence > generally, and I started to think about some sort of Enchantment that creates > Presence. > > Then you could cast a spell, using your Hold skill to put it into the item, and > it would Hold the spell until it was released to create a one-shot magic item. Hmm. You get almost the same effect by creating a spell matrix for the spell (each additional point adds +10% (1 Art level) to the caster's chance. Might be useful for rapid release, though. > Maybe this could also be used as a way to give non-sorcerors a way to gain > Presence without all that tedious learning stuff and Vows? > Ooh, now there's a thought...the sorcerors union would be out on strike... Anyone can use a spell matrix (that doesn't have restrictions, anyway), and gets a skill of 10% per point invested in the matrix useful with Intensity (or any other Art they know). - -- talmeta@bellatlantic.net - Heretic & Dilettante ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta1 Homepage - *************************************************************************** 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 V2 #4 *********************************** *************************************************************************** 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 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.