From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #91 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Monday, September 25 2000 Volume 03 : Number 091 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) [RQ-RULES] Repeat RuneQuest Rules [RQ-RULES] Something's wrong [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Repeat RuneQuest Rules [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance & Flameblade Re: [RQ-RULES] Repeat RuneQuest Rules [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation 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: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 19:50:14 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New magic item creation rules rqguru@my-deja.com wrote: > > One thing I've always wished RQ had was some way to create magic items other than matrices and enchantments. Stuff like a +1 sword, with a permanent Bladesharp 1 effect. Rather than add some entire new system, I've just You can always add a spirit binding, with the enchantment condition "cast Bladesharp x when drawn, to be renewed as needed until resheathed". 'tis what I've done in the past. > III. Variable Spells: Variable spells are handled in the same manner as normal spells, except that each "level" of the spell must be separately cast using POW. Thus, to create a +3 sword (permanent Bladesharp 3 effect), the magician would need to successfully cast Imbue (for 2 POW), then Bladesharp 1 (1 POW), then Bladesharp 2 (2 POW), and finally Bladesharp 3 (3 POW). If all rolls were successful, the magician has created a sword with a permanent Bladesharp 3 for a cost of 8 points of permanent POWer. Yowza. That's pretty steep. Wouldn't Imbue (2) and Bladesharp 3 (3) work equally well? - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 16:17:57 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade >Do any of you allow weapons with Flameblade to impale? >If so, do you add the original weapon damage or the 3D6 >of the Flameblade for the impale? Yup. 6d6. That's only 21 damage on average, what are you worried about? That wouldn't even slow down an average cacodemon. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:06:52 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules SPerrin@aol.com wrote: > > Okay, why did all the messages from this thread suddenly appear again on my > computer? Did the listserv hiccup? I'm guessing it's one part hiccough, one part several users addresses going south at once; I've had to toss almost 4 users from the lists due to fatal errors from their servers. One of them might be the source of the bounces... - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 12:10:06 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules >Let me assure everyone right now that I don't plan to come to >anyone's house and force them at gunpoint to use my system. :-) >This is just an option I'm suggesting - if you don't like it, >don't use it! While I am generally opposed to adding any new spells, I actually don't hate this suggestion. It is especially useful for the temporary items. I have voiced my opinion that all of the costs are probably too high. Even more so if this system is used in a campaign that intends to replace spirit binds. Unless you change the species maxima and/or POW gain rules, no one is likely to ever enchant more than 10 POW. You have to keep enough POW to be able to bring it back up again in a reasonable time. I've brought characters up from 8 POW and it is hard and slow. Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:46:32 -0400 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules > It seems to me that balance is an issue of whether or not the PCs are >more (or less) powerful than their opponents; so adding a system >that would >make everyone, PCs or not, more (or less) powerful would keep the balance >the same as it was. At least, that's how it seems to me. > Any contradictory thoughts?? Have I completely missed the point? > > >Rich Allen Well Rich, I think that some people are just afraid of too much freedom and creative license, so they insist on collecting more and more rules to keep a creative ( they say "power-gaming" ) person from getting an advantage over anyone else. Actually the number of people who can make their own magic items in Glorantha may be less than 5 or 10%. Player characters are almost always in this group, if possible. Bob Stancliff *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 07:45:54 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules *Tal Meta wrote: > You can always add a spirit binding, with the > enchantment condition "cast Bladesharp x when > drawn, to be renewed as needed until > resheathed". 'tis what I've done in the past. Right, that's an aspect of RQ that always interested me -- creative use of spirits, matrices, and conditions seems to have all sorts of possibilities for strange magic items, as for example the "Eyes-Behind" necklace that has a spirit that casts Light in the eyes of anyone coming up behind the character while carrying a weapon. But a lot more data is needed for that system. For example, how quickly does a spirit cast? How complicated can the instructions be? How, in the case of the above example, can the spirit be aware of what's going on behind the wearer's back when it doesn't have eyes or any way to perceive the (presumed) assassin? Can a spirit use judgement, and not cast the spell on the wearer's friends who are backing him up in combat? And what about spell matrices with casting conditions -- under one interpretation, a matrix can cast a spell automatically if linked to a MP source, even though there is no spirit or intelligence guiding it. But what is the chance of success, and of overcoming, and how quickly can the spell be cast? Anyway, while many (though not all) of these effects can be duplicated with matrices and spirit bindings, I wanted to have the option to have a different kind of magic. After all, in many published scenarios there are magic items that don't seem to be spirit- and matrix- based, and it simply feels wrong to me to have types of magic in a game world which can be created by others, but not by PCs, simply because there are no rules to do it. One of the best things about RQ has always been that PCs and NPCs are treated equally. Of course, I realize that divinely-created objects such as crystals and truestone are an exception to the "PC-fairness" principle. No problem there. >> the magician has created a sword with a >> permanent Bladesharp 3 for a cost of 8 >> points of permanent POWer. > Yowza. That's pretty steep. Wouldn't Imbue > (2) and Bladesharp 3 (3) work equally well? 5 POW to create a +3 sword seemed way too cheap, considering that creating a sword with a Bladesharp 3 matrix would cost 4 POW. I don't want to remove the rationale to create matrices. And I like the idea of having a *spectrum* of possible magic items, all of differing value. And on a personal note, I just like the *feel* of "burning in" each level of spell. =>Peter - -- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ Page! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 09:24:09 +0100 From: Philip.Hibbs@tnt.co.uk Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance (was: New magic item creation rules) >It seems to me that balance is an issue of whether or not the PCs >are more (or less) powerful than their opponents; so adding a system >that would make everyone, PCs or not, more (or less) powerful would >keep the balance the same as it was. I don't agree - if you gave everyone in the country a large bar of gold, would the economic balance be maintained? If you doubled everyone's wealth in real terms, that would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. Balance isn't just about how hard the opposition is, it's about whether the situation can spiral out of control in a "rich get richer" sort of way. Players are always going to make better use of magic than NPCs, because they spend hours on end dreaming up new ways to use their magical gear, whereas the referee often just has a bunch of stats to look at for 30 seconds before the dice rolling starts. Philip Hibbs http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/ Opinions expressed may not even be my own, let alone those of any organisations, nations, species, or schools of thought to which I may be affiliated. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:45:02 +0200 From: Julian Lord Subject: [RQ-RULES] Repeat RuneQuest Rules There seems to be an echo ... echo ... echo ... echo ... echo ... echo ... ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:21:56 -0400 From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] Something's wrong Okay, something's definitely wrong. I'm seeing messages (my own and others) over and over again, and since all of my other posts were via a web-based mailer at DejaNews, it's not due to anything I'm doing. Since we may all have to see this message another twenty times, I'll keep it short and end it here. :-) ->Peter - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Pete's RQ Page! scenarios, sheets, more: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 07:36:10 -0400 From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules Just realized that I made an error in my Imbue rules. There's no reason to say, as I say in Section II, that "once the full set of enchantments is complete no additional enchantments can be added". On reflection, there's no reason not to allow an Imbued item to be additionally enchanted or imbued later. However, every additional session would also require another casting of Imbue. This makes it more feasible to create a high-level magic item without having to sacrifice a huge amount of POW at one gulp. Example: To create a +4 (Bladesharp4) sword in sessions: Step 1: Imbue (2 POW), Bladesharp 1 (1 POW) = 3 POW total this session Step 2: Imbue (2 POW), Bladesharp 2 (2 POW) = 4 POW total this session Step 3: Imbue (2 POW), Bladesharp 3 (3 POW) = 5 POW total this session Step 4: Imbue (2 POW), Bladesharp 4 (4 POW) = 6 POW total this session Total cost: 18 POW (if everything had been imbued in one session it would only have cost 12 POW). What do you think, sirs? ->Peter - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI Pete's RQ Page! scenarios, sheets, more: http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:59:13 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Repeat RuneQuest Rules This _sucks!_ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:49:36 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Game Balance & Flameblade > Do any of you allow weapons with Flameblade to impale? Yes > If so, do you add the original weapon damage or the 3D6 of the Flameblade for the impale? The original weapon damage. No strong logical reason, because Fireblade is not a logical spell. Andrew *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 13:57:02 -0500 (CDT) From: Kevin Rose Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Game Balance & Flameblade Jim wrote: > This goes to the game balance thread. Do any of you allow weapons with > Flameblade to impale? If so, do you add the original weapon damage or > the 3D6 of the Flameblade for the impale? The answer I once got to this question from Charlie or Sandy (or saw in the errata, I'm not sure which now) was yes, fireblades impale. And it uses the fireblade damage. Ouch. You may choose to ignore this, of course. Firearrows do not use the firearrow damage, however, they add the weapon damage. Kevin *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:08:03 -0400 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Repeat RuneQuest Rules MurfNMurf@aol.com wrote: > > This _sucks!_ True, but I seem to have plugged the leak. Why some postmasters can't properly configure their systems, I'll never understand. - -- talmeta@cybercomm.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine ICQ - 12594453 AIM - talmeta Homepage - *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 07:28:09 -0700 From: " " Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: New magic item creation rules I don't know if the Digest is still working, since there's been no traffic since the 23rd (yes, I know that we've gone quite for much longer periods - but not lately). Anyway, I recently revised the posted version of the Imbue rules on my site, and made a few additions/revisions. As a followup to my suggestion that variable spells could be imbued in stages, one (or more) level(s) at a time: there's no reason why differing spells couldn't also be imbued in different sessions. However, I'd suggest that spell effect "merging" would be less likely for spells that were placed in an object in different sessions. The effects would be more likely to remain distinct, in other words. I'd also suggest that as more spells are combined, the results become less and less predictable. =>Peter - -- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Pete's RQ Page! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm - --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- Before you buy. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V3 #91 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.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.