From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #2 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.imagiconline.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Monday, February 5 2001 Volume 04 : Number 002 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me [RQ-RULES] Wardings and Spirit Cults RE: [RQ-RULES] Wardings and Spirit Cults RE: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me 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: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 10:26:25 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:09:17 -0800, Brad Furst wrote: >This house rule for Spirit Combat was recently suggested for our campaign. >It looks easier for playability. I am not sure whether it is more or less >valid for portraying Spirit Combat...? I don't see what's so "unplayable" about using the Resistance table, but I guess different strokes for different folks etc. >>You can go until some one is reduced to "0", >>or in some cases a fumble or critcal leads >>to automatic victory (according to some RQer's). I've never heard of the "automatic victory" option before, and I personally don't much care for it. Note that you usually *don't* have to go to one party is at 0; as soon as there is a difference of "10" or more the bigger party may possess the smaller (if that's the intent). Note also that unless otherwise restricted spirit combat may be broken off at any time by either party. (This is only helpful though if the party breaking it off can prevent the other one from immediately re-initiating it. In practice this tends to mean that corporeal characters are at the mercy of spirits.) Our house rules: Resistance table is used as normal. For every 20 points of current MPs, the attacking party may roll 1D3 to reduce the opposing party's MPs. A special success lets you roll 2D3. A critical lets you roll 1D3+3. In lieu of making an attack, you can attempt to cast magic (requires a successful concentration roll), do a physical action (like flee), or simply Defend (doubles your MPs for resistance roll purposes). Examples of situations where a spirit can't break off the attack at will: (a) it has been encountered on the spirit plane (e.g., by a shaman); (b) it has been Commanded to attack (e.g., shaman/priest using Control spell). Also, in a related vein, the spirit magic spell "Control " does NOT require the shaman to reduce the target to 0 MPs; a one-time overcoming of the target's MPs (like the Divine and Sorcery versions of the spell) is all that's required. Otherwise, spells like "Control Bison" or whatever become pretty useless, as your intended target lies snoozing for a couple of hours while the shaman gives it commands for five minutes. Very helpful! We also use the Shaman rules as written by Sandy Petersen and published in "Ye Booke of Tentacles" #2. By-the-book RQ3 shamans are pretty wimpy, overall. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Ziggy had Garfield neutered? Now that's funny!" ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Feb 2001 19:11:26 EST From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me - --part1_ca.1057bfbe.27aca6ae_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/01 3:37:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, bprobst@netspace.net.au writes: > I don't see what's so "unplayable" about using the Resistance table, but I > guess different strokes for different folks etc. > > The main problem is that lopsided contests don't really fit on the table. If, instead, you have opposed rolls, then everyone has a chance of success and the possibility that the outgunned opponent might still bring it off is always present. Steve Perrin, who thinks it works better if you use my multiple successes rule... - --part1_ca.1057bfbe.27aca6ae_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/2/01 3:37:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bprobst@netspace.net.au writes:


I don't see what's so "unplayable" about using the Resistance table, but I
guess different strokes for different folks etc.



The main problem is that lopsided contests don't really fit on the table. If,
instead, you have opposed rolls, then everyone has a chance of success and
the possibility that the outgunned opponent might still bring it off is
always present.

Steve Perrin, who thinks it works better if you use my multiple successes
rule...

- --part1_ca.1057bfbe.27aca6ae_boundary-- *************************************************************************** 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, 2 Feb 2001 16:23:56 -0800 From: Brad Furst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me But still the system makes combat take a long time, especially at the end. If we each have 12 POW then we have a 60% defense. You win spirit combat by beating the other person, but if your attack is always going down, then combat will eventually run out. If we are both at 4 then we each have a 20% chance to attack and 60% chance to defend. Will we ever score a hit? What about critters/people with a POW of 20+? That is, their attack/defense will be >100%; can they split their attack/defense? What other combinations and complications will arise? >This house rule for Spirit Combat was recently suggested for our campaign. >It looks easier for playability. I am not sure whether it is more or less >valid for portraying Spirit Combat...? > >>Each PC gets 2 actions per round. A single action can >>be used for melee attacks or defenses, to move X >>amount of spaces, to cast a spell of 6 MP or less or >>to attack or defens in spirit combat. >> >>Your spirit magic attack is = to your MP x 5, >>so [the spirit's POW of] 10 x 5 is a 50% attack. >>[Cormac's] defense is POW x 5 or 12 x 5 = 60% defense. >>[Cormac] and the spirit role like you would [roll for] combat >>and the loser loses POW/20 d3's. > >"loses POW/20 d3's" from which parameter? > >>There are modifications for special, crit and fumble. >> >>You can go until some one is reduced to "0", >>or in some cases a fumble or critcal leads >>to automatic victory (according to some RQer's). > >"according to some RQer's"? Who? >Has this been published before? >Where have I missed it? > >>This way spirit combat flows melee combat and >>it flows quite well. Brad Furst Esoteric [A Working Title] esoteric@criticalpath.com *************************************************************************** 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, 05 Feb 2001 09:38:52 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:11:26 EST, SPerrin@aol.com wrote: >> I don't see what's so "unplayable" about using the Resistance table, but I >> guess different strokes for different folks etc. > >The main problem is that lopsided contests don't really fit on the table. If, >instead, you have opposed rolls, then everyone has a chance of success and >the possibility that the outgunned opponent might still bring it off is >always present. Well, that's only a problem if you think lopsided contests are a problem. It's never bothered me as a player or as a GM . I'm always open to alternative ways to do something, but in this case I remain unconvinced that opposed rolls are "better". >Steve Perrin, who thinks it works better if you use my multiple successes >rule... Well, don't be shy Steve, spit it out! - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** 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, 4 Feb 2001 18:40:35 EST From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me - --part1_f2.7334e0a.27af4273_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/01 2:47:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, bprobst@netspace.net.au writes: > >> I don't see what's so "unplayable" about using the Resistance table, but I > >> guess different strokes for different folks etc. > > > >The main problem is that lopsided contests don't really fit on the table. > If, > >instead, you have opposed rolls, then everyone has a chance of success and > >the possibility that the outgunned opponent might still bring it off is > >always present. > > Well, that's only a problem if you think lopsided contests are a problem. > It's never bothered me as a player or as a GM . I'm always open to > alternative ways to do something, but in this case I remain unconvinced that > opposed rolls are "better". > > >Steve Perrin, who thinks it works better if you use my multiple successes > >rule... > > Well, don't be shy Steve, spit it out! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > My altered rules (RQ4SP, if you will) are available from the listmeister. He'll have to tell you how to access them. Steve Perrin - --part1_f2.7334e0a.27af4273_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/4/01 2:47:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bprobst@netspace.net.au writes:


>> I don't see what's so "unplayable" about using the Resistance table, but I
>> guess different strokes for different folks etc.
>
>The main problem is that lopsided contests don't really fit on the table.
If,
>instead, you have opposed rolls, then everyone has a chance of success and
>the possibility that the outgunned opponent might still bring it off is
>always present.

Well, that's only a problem if you think lopsided contests are a problem.
It's never bothered me as a player or as a GM <shrug>.  I'm always open to
alternative ways to do something, but in this case I remain unconvinced that
opposed rolls are "better".

>Steve Perrin, who thinks it works better if you use my multiple successes
>rule...

Well, don't be shy Steve, spit it out!

----------------------------------------------------------------


My altered rules (RQ4SP, if you will) are available from the listmeister.
He'll have to tell you how to access them.

Steve Perrin - --part1_f2.7334e0a.27af4273_boundary-- *************************************************************************** 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, 04 Feb 2001 22:37:32 -0500 From: Tal Meta Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me > > My altered rules (RQ4SP, if you will) are available from the listmeister. > He'll have to tell you how to access them. Currently residing at: http://members.nbci.com/talmeta/runequest/perrin/rqch99.zip - -- 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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:00:40 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Wardings and Spirit Cults A few questions up for comment. (1) Now, a Warding extends 3m *above* ground level and *down* to the level of the wands . . . Does that mean the Warding follows the contours of the land, or only of the land directly above the wands? Would a wand buried on either side of a gully have the 3m high warding line drop down into the gully, or stretch above it like a tennis net? What is 'ground level'? If a wand is buried below a rampart (ie: heaped earth above the natural ground level), does it extend 3m above it? How about structures then, if a rampart is considered ground level, is a curtain wall? Can an extra point in the warding be used to extend the protection *up* another 3m? I know this is a non Glorantha list, but I'll ask a Glorantha question and I won't be disappointed if nobody comments. (2) The RoC blurb states that Daka Fal cult members are not permited to join other cults, does this include spirit cults? Cheers, Jim Lawrie *************************************************************************** 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, 5 Feb 2001 09:12:52 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Wardings and Spirit Cults >Jim Lawrie >(1) Now, a Warding extends 3m *above* ground level and >*down* to the level of the wands . . . I understand this to mean that the upper edge is 3 meters above the wands and the lower edge is at the level of the wands. If the wands are not on the same level, then the connecting walls should slope to connect them. I also perceive that the walls will pass through solid matter, not 'float' to the top of a structure that is built above the wands. To get the Ward at the top of the structure, the wands have to be placed at the top of the structure. Using another point of Ward to get more height should be legal, though not addressed in the rule. >(2) The RoC blurb states that Daka Fal cult members are not >permitted to join other cults, does this include spirit cults? Probably not. This is a reference to the inability to join both Divine and Shamanic traditions. Daka Fal is a Shamanic tradition and is not a 'religious cult', even though it has more rune spells than normal 'spirit cults'. The obvious distinction for my opinion is that Daka Fal is ruled by shamans 'that act as priests', not by priests. Religions and cults are ruled by priests or by rune lords 'that act as priests'. Shamanic traditions don't have rune lords. Faiths that can go either way, depending on the follower, include Zola Fel and Waha, but even these groups insist that you choose either Divine or Shamanic worship. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:54:41 -0500 From: "Bob Stancliff" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] new Spirit Combat suggested to me > I've never heard of the "automatic victory" option > before, and I personally don't much care for it. Automatic victory was being suggested as a part of these alternate rules, so you obviously haven't heard of it. A rule like this would cause combats to end sooner, especially in very lopsided battles. > Note that you usually *don't* have to go to one > party is at 0; as soon as there is a difference of > "10" or more the bigger party may possess the smaller This is a rule that only applies to 'covert' possession, not 'overt'. It will end a combat sooner, but sometimes, due to strong magic, the underdog might have won. > Our house rules: > For every 20 points of current MPs, the attacking party > may roll 1D3 to reduce the opposing party's MPs. We use 1d3 for 1-10 MP, 1d4 for 11-20 MP, 1d6 for 21-30 MP, etc.! > Also, in a related vein, the spirit magic spell "Control > " does NOT require the shaman to reduce the > target to 0 MPs; a one-time overcoming of the target's > MPs (like the Divine and Sorcery versions of the spell) > is all that's required. Otherwise, spells like "Control > Bison" or whatever become pretty useless, as your intended > target lies snoozing for a couple of hours while the > shaman gives it commands for five minutes. Very helpful! The spell is written the way it is, not only to make it different from the other styles of magic, but because it is used differently. The spell clearly states that Control<> only works on 'Spirit' creatures, not embodied creatures, so Control Bison is impossible anyway. The Control<> spell has two purposes... it forces a defeated spirit into a spirit bind, and it allows a bound spirit to be released and controlled outside the bind for up to five minutes. The ability to bind and control spirits is the primary power of a shaman, and makes them a powerful threat. > By-the-book RQ3 shamans are pretty wimpy, overall. I certainly disagree with this... The shaman in our game has 6 ancestors in ghost binds, including her ex-shaman mother (Pow 35). She has at least 3 passion spirits for attacking before she has to send in any of the ghosts. All the ghosts can cast their spells from stored magic and retain full MP's for spirit combat. Among the party are other passion binds, a couple of elemental binds, and a wraith bind that she refills as needed. The careful use of these creatures, especially with protective magics, makes them a formidable combat aid. This is before this slip of a woman throws Bladesharp 10, Protection 10, Shimmer 5, Strength 4, Coordinate 6, Vigor 4, and Counter Magic 7... I find her rather frightening, and she is still young! These spells are more than enough to allow an average initiate to defeat many priests and most rune lords, unless they have extensive access to combat magic. I generally feel more sorry for sorcerers... they are all offense and no defense (against the damage we give). I attribute this defensive weakness to a probable flaw in the Resist Damage spell since it is applied before armor instead of after. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #2 *********************************** *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.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.