From: owner-runequest-rules@ (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #19 Reply-To: runequest-rules@mpgn.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@ Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@ Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Wednesday, January 27 1999 Volume 02 : Number 019 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS RE: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules [RQ-RULES] Yanafel Tarnils RE: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Yanafel Tarnils Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Yanafel Tarnils [RQ-RULES] Elven sorcerors [RQ-RULES] Sorcerous familiars [RQ-RULES] Summoning RE: [RQ-RULES] Character starting experience [RQ-RULES] Rules Contradiction Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:15:22 -0000 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules >the Babeester Gor (with a poleax) would take two attack actions >and split the first for three total attacks on SR 4, 7, and 10. That's not allowed, the second attack option must be with a separate weapon, IIRC. >the same spells from different forms of >magic DO stack. I think they overlap, so Bladesharp 6 and Damage Boosting 10 gives +30 to hit and +10 damage. That may be Sandy's rules, though. >I would strongly recommend changing Resist Damage to occur after armor Resist Damage is somewhat crap, so I can kind of see the justification for this. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Failure is not an option, it's integral to the o/s. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:43:25 +0100 From: "Terje Tollisen" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Yanafel Tarnils Can somebody give me any detail on Yanafel Tarnils ? I know it is a Lunar cult for warriors and soldier, and that it has similarities with the Humakt cult. Are there any writ ups for it on the web? - -Terje "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." -Tanenbaum ********************* Terje Tollisen Kjelsaasveien 99 0491 OSLO Norway ********************* *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:12:55 -0000 From: Ashley Munday Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules As a contrary example to Bob's "Cradle Hack-A-Thon", some of the group I play in have Adventurers that have been around 15 game years and none of them would be able to handle "The Cradle." Usually 4 to one odds (with competent warriors) scares seven bails of shit out of us and we head for the hills. Ash *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:12:55 -0000 From: Ashley Munday Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Yanafel Tarnils Don't know about the web - tales 17 had one I think. Ash -----Original Message----- From: Terje Tollisen [mailto:tollist@ca30s.iu.hioslo.no] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 5:43 PM To: runequest-rules@MPGN.COM Subject: [RQ-RULES] Yanafel Tarnils Can somebody give me any detail on Yanafel Tarnils ? I know it is a Lunar cult for warriors and soldier, and that it has similarities with the Humakt cult. Are there any writ ups for it on the web? -Terje "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." -Tanenbaum ********************* Terje Tollisen Kjelsaasveien 99 0491 OSLO Norway ********************* *************************************************************************** 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:32:43 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules > philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk responds: > >the Babeester Gor (with a poleax) would take two attack actions > >and split the first for three total attacks on SR 4, 7, and 10. > That's not allowed, the second attack option must be with a separate weapon, Good point in RQ3. We have been bringing in RQ4 rules and have allowed this with a % penalty for all of the attacks, but we have also had players who kick for the second action using martial arts and have spells on their boots and enchanted lead toe guards. On a good roll they can get 2d6+strength+spell adds. > >the same spells from different forms of magic DO stack. > I think they overlap, so Bladesharp 6 and Damage Boosting 10 gives +30 to > hit and +10 damage. That may be Sandy's rules, though. Probably Sandy's rules, not RQ magic book. None of us play the same game... every campaign has house rules, variants, and revisions. 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:34:46 PST From: "Leon Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules >From: "Bob Stancliff" > No, actually, the problem is that the same spells from different forms of >magic DO stack. There are no restrictions to having Bladesharp, Damage >Boost, and Truesword on at the same time, or Spirit Screen, Spirit Block, >and Resist Spirit!! I have seen it played both ways and it is rude either awy. > I would strongly suggest that if you are starting a new campaign, do not >let the spells of differing forms of magic add together, and forbid theists >from learning or using any magic that is not from their cult or an 'allied' >or 'friendly' cult in the same pantheon (neutral or enemy cult magic is out >even for magic items). Good luck if they are playing Lunars! Besides, using your enemies magic against them is kind of fun. I would also suggest a 'rune point' system or >recoverable initiate rune magic (once per year) to encourage occasional >rune magic usage instead of saving it all for priesthood. The recoverable initiate rune magic even once per year makes the characters that more dangerous them they do become acolytes or priests. >The hero force included an Orlanth acolyte, a Eurmal >acolyte (with Strikes) All Eurmals are acolytes and you are asking for trouble by giving them that spell. , a Babeester Gor (with Axe Trance), and a Path of >Immanent Mastery human/dragon How did he fit into this group of Barbarians? with spells extended for over a week (he >never left dragon form). One Dismiss Magic should take care of this nicely. > The armor ranged from AP5 on limbs to AP10 otherwise. Very resonable. The Protection >spells ranged from 5 to 8. The Bladesharp spells ranged from 4 to 7. >Everyone had Strength 3, Vigor 2+, Coordinate 3+, and Endurance. Most of >the spells were cast by bound spirits so encumbrance mattered very little. Sounds about right for their level. >Three of the heroes were augmented by Damage Boost 5 lasting one or two >seasons, some Resist Spirit, and one of them had a Truesword matrix. > With four NPC spearmen for backup, they defended the front third of the >boat (the strongest point of attack), and took no losses. One or two would >go down on occasion, but I usually had to critical to hurt them. Dido for me at this level. They each >had 2 to 4 Strengthening Enchantments they had cast on each other over the >last two game years, and even a critical wouldn't put them out of the fight >permanently. Yes but they should put the character down for a short while anyway. > The damage monster had a 2H Sword (2d8?) + Truesword (2d8) + Strength >(2d6) + BldShrp 7 + DmgBoost 5. He would cut through the Hoplite Shield, >the Chainmail, and the location, on every hit (with an attack of 145%). He >was intentionally running toward any Yanafel Tarnils leaders to claim >personal combat. I am supprised you let him get away with this. After the first time he does this his weapon would be targeted in most campaings I seen. I Neutralize Magic 10 would have 30% of taking down his weapon enhancements leaving him with 2d8+2d6 and a more managable attack of 110%. Not even to mention the fact that he would be a prime target for enemy spell casters. (I would hate to see him specialed by a Madness spell!) He and the Babeester Gor (with a poleax) would take two >attack actions and split the first for three total attacks on SR 4, 7, and >10. These two had the best defenses and could ignore the first 16 to 18 >points of damage. Unless one criticals and leaves the spear in the wound. > The Lunar hoplites had Fireblade on spears with 1d6 Strength. It was 4d6, >but no impales. We always gave impales for Fireblade, is there a reason you don't? > > The story is strung out over five major fights and the Lunars were trashed >in every case. They are suppose to get trashed it is just a matter of by how much. They couldn't get enough men on board to keep up with >attrition except at the point outside Pavis where the other Orlanthi >defenders are forced to retreat below deck. Even then I had trouble >convincing them that retreat was needed. My most useful tactic was for >four soldiers to grapple one hero and try to pin him. A good tactic to use. But to even out the odds you must dish-out a healthy dose of Dispell, Dismiss, and Neutralize spells and watch the party run for cover. I also had to keep proving to them >that they were still vulnerable to magic even though they had CounterMagic >4 to 6 up. A Mindblast will take care of that Counter Magic at the very least. Another interesting tactic is to target the parties spirits by attacking them in spirit combat with other spirits. This will at the very least reduce their magic point and prevent them recasting spells on the party. > All told, it was very tedious and confusing, but the players loved it... >being a 'rune level' against normal soldiers can give you a feeling of >great power, Congrads, it sounds like everybody had lots of fun and therefore you didn't do too bad. and the players have already proved that they can kill most >rune lords unless powerful attack spells are successfully used against >them. I will piont out that the enemy rune levels can use the same tactics against the party. It is all the matter of who has better information and can therefore better prepare for the batle. Leon Kirshtein ______________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:39:54 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Yanafel Tarnils > Can somebody give me any detail on Yanafel Tarnils ? > I know it is a Lunar cult for warriors and soldier, and that it has > similarities with the Humakt cult. Are there any writ ups for it on the > web? > -Terje There might be, someone has certainly done a fanzine article for it by now. Yanafel Tarnils was a Humakti who went renegade and won freedom from his cult restrictions by using Red Goddess hero-questing. We make a rough variant by starting with Humakt, dropping the resurrection restriction and the anti-undead powers, and then making it red moon variable as per the 7 Mothers write-up in the Cults book. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:27:50 -0500 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Elven sorcerors > Also notice that elves have heightened POW limits and high INT, if one learned sorcery he would be quite a terror to 'normal' humans, and could exceed these examples by a few more points. As I mentioned earlier, in duels between high level sorcerors I've found that having the higher free INT is a huge advantage. This means that GMs need to consider very carefully before allowing elven sorcerors into their worlds. In Glorantha, Greg has stated that the nature of elves is strongly opposed to the necessary world-view to learn sorcery - the opposition between Grower and Maker. Chaotic sorcery-using elves are described in the Dorastor book, but I'm not sure they exist in my Glorantha. 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:27:48 -0500 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerous familiars Simon Hibbs makes some valid points, but one I take issue with: > You can use Ceremony to increase your chances with the Enchant skill roll so that it's maxed out, dramaticaly reducing the risks. Not so much for an enchanter working solo (which was where this discussion started). For Ritual spells, the time periods needed for ceremony are in hours. With help from your friends and a secure environment, rituals lasting several days may be possible. For a solo worker, the practical limit is 21 hours of ceremony, giving a 7D6 bonus to skill. After that, fatigue penalties outweigh the gains from ceremony. An sorceror approaching Adept level is likely to have a 75% skill in Enchant, so with ceremony can achieve a 95% success chance. A character at the beginning of his career will be taking much bigger risks. > In later life, the lower Free INT can be ameliorated by using spell matrices, The rules as written only allow you to put Intensity into matrices, which don't help as much when using long-range projections. OTOH, Halcyon as written up in Griffin Island has matrices which contain range and duration. > It's largely down to the GM and the style of campaign That's certainly so. One big failing of the RQ3 rules was that they presented the sorcery rules in a vacuum, without saying anything about the social context and professional organisations in which sorcerors work. 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 15:27:52 -0500 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Summoning > How about Drain to get the spirit down to 0 MPs? Drain reduces fatigue, not MPs. There is a Hrestoli spell (Drain Soul) which takes away MPs but you have to succeed in an MP contest for it to work, and you have to use more of your own MPs to fuel the spell than the spirit loses. This approach can work for characters that have access to the necessary spell, but it needs a lot of resources. Dominate requires you to overcome the target's MP's with the Intensity of the spell, rather than your own MPs. If you know you're going to have to deal with a particular strong spirit, you could make a high-power matrix to handle it. This doesn't help with high-power spirits you summon accidentally, unless you have hundreds of POW worth of matrices to hand ... even then, you might not get the spell off in time to save you. 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: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:36:47 -0600 From: "Rich Allen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Character starting experience > RQ3 Deluxe Rules, SCpg# 93/MBpg# 9, to whit: "Total Magic Points (For > sorcerers, total magic points equal the intensity of the spell plus > extra magic points used to boost the spell plus manipulation costs)" OK, I give up. I'm actually no rules lawyer (yeah, I know, big suprise) and I don't normally quote passages of rules. I was trying to make a point, and it has been made, and I'll shut up now. Rich Allen *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Jan 1999 09:59:16 -0000 From: "Hibbs, Philip" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Rules Contradiction I found a direct contradiction in the RQ rules at the weekend. Under the Divine Magic procedure, it says that spells are cast on the caster's DEX SR, and a second spell can be cast on DEX SR + 3 after that. Under Illusions, it says that these spells and Extension are the only exceptions to the rule that only one divine magic spell can be cast in a melee round. It seems to me that the rule about only one spell per MR was dropped, but the exception to a now obsolete rule was kept. philip.hibbs@tnt.co.uk http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Failure is not an option, it's integral to the o/s. *************************************************************************** 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, 27 Jan 1999 09:36:27 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Sorcerery rules > As a contrary example to Bob's "Cradle Hack-A-Thon", some of the group I > play in have Adventurers that have been around 15 game years and none of > them would be able to handle "The Cradle." Usually 4 to one odds (with > competent warriors) scares seven bails of shit out of us and we head for the > hills. > Ash It is a very interesting scenario series to try to run. Most of the fighting never got much more than 1:1, or 3:2 in local areas. The soldiers had a few 2 or 3 point spells up, but against rune level spirit magicians, the balance of power is in the defenders favor. Knockback alone will send many back into the river. Also, each attack ends as soon as all of the boarding ladders and ropes are removed, so this keeps the many hundreds of troops potentially available from ever getting on board. The Cradle plays as a walled fortification with combat as the attackers come over the wall. A good walled defense could historically handle 8:1 or even 15:1 odds for several days because the attackers can never bring overwhelming odds to bear, 1:1 locally is the best that could be expected. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V2 #19 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.