From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #9 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 Wednesday, March 14 2001 Volume 04 : Number 009 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Hero Questing Re: [RQ-RULES] Hero Questing [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers [RQ-RULES] Elementals (long) Re: [RQ-RULES] Sandy's Sorcery: Strengthening Enchantment [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment Re: [RQ-RULES] Hero Questing Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers 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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:56:47 +0200 (EET) From: Olli Kantola Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Hero Questing On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Jeremy Martin wrote: > I've got a party interested in doing some HeroQuesting. Unfortunately, > I live in Taiwan and haven't seen much on the subject... While there is plenty of material on HQs online, most of it is outdated. I suggest that you read HeroWars and adapt from that... I must warn you however! That road can lead to ruin and liking HeroWars and and and switching systems. Olli Kantola *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:06 EST From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Hero Questing - --part1_cc.11e34c5e.27de4dee_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jeremy wonders about HQing, in a RQ setting, presumably. Well, an interesting source for a pretty wide selection of HQ resources is Nikk's page at http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/wakboth/rqpage.htm There are lots of others, no doubt, with about a thousand-and-one different rule variants having been generated. The rules I like to use for HeroQuesting are Bill Keyes' that I first read back in Alarums&Excursions 48 ( I _think_ ). I lost my hardcopy (the pages torn out of issue 48) several years back, but managed to find them again (though I'm uncertain as to where). -Ken- - --part1_cc.11e34c5e.27de4dee_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  Jeremy wonders about HQing, in a RQ  setting, presumably.
  Well, an interesting source for a pretty wide selection of HQ resources is
Nikk's page at http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/wakboth/rqpage.htm
  There are lots of others, no doubt, with about a thousand-and-one
different rule variants having been generated.
  The rules I like to use for HeroQuesting are Bill Keyes' that I first read
back in Alarums&Excursions 48 ( I _think_ ). I lost my hardcopy (the pages
torn out of issue 48) several years back, but managed to find them again
(though I'm uncertain as to where).
 -Ken-
  
   - --part1_cc.11e34c5e.27de4dee_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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:59:02 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 08:43:15 +0800, Jeremy Martin wrote: >And now, my question: > >A character has 120% Broadsword, casts Bladesharp 4 and wants to split his attacks. Is the Bladesharp 4 added, then divided by two, or does the Bladesharp add to each swing? Would he attack at 70% or 80% for the two attacks? Also, if he >had 90% and cast Bladesharp 2, could he split his attacks? I can't remember what RQ2 said (if anything) on this issue, but in RQ3 I believe that it's stated in a couple of places that additions/subtractions occur *before* multiplications/divisions; it may be in some of the Q&A that were published in "Heroes" if it's not specifically stated in the rules. In our local games, we accept this as a meta-rule. On the latter point, I believe the RQ3 rules do explicitly state that you must have 100% *skill* (including skill modifier bonuses) before you can split; "situational" modifiers that raise your *chance* to 100 or more don't count. Which makes sense, if you think about it; why should a character with 85% skill suddenly know how to split his attacks just because he's attacking from behind? - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Mike, if I run out of vomit, can I have some of yours?" 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:59:03 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Elementals (long) On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 10:12:44 -0800, Brad Furst wrote: >I am not remembering such a spell, whether spirit magic or divine. I >believe RQ4:AiG showed something like this in sorcery. Sandy's >sorcery has Evoke Water, which also causes damage. > >Is there a spirit magic version published already? Not that I'm aware of, and I doubt very much that such a (spirit) spell could exist. Norag/Inora has, I believe, a divine spell that causes condensation to occur, thus providing water where there was none before, but that's not the same as "creating" it from nothing, and would not sustain even the puniest of undines. For divinely-sourced elementals, the RQ3 rules differ dramatically from the RQ2 rules in that just *getting* elementals, let alone getting them to do things for you, is a *much* more difficult task; absurdly so, in fact. The "sensible" solution seems to be the one proposed in Drastic: Darkness (the addition of the "Call " divine spell). Basically, elemental summoning is a multi-stage process (and requires knowledge of several spells) and differs slightly according to each type of magic: Spirit: First you must Summon (ritual) the elemental (requiring the appropriate volume of the element as usual). When it appears, you must then Control (spell) it. In the RQ3 rules as written, the shaman must knock the elemental's MPs to 0 in Spirit Combat to force it into a (previously prepared) enchanted receptacle (another ritual in itself). Our house rule is that the shaman must only overcome the elemental's MPs once. At some later stage you may then evoke the elemental from its storage (not requiring the volume of material since that's been stored as well; I think the RQ3 rules may be vague or contradictory on this point). After performing one requested task, the elemental goes away, unless you cast Control again and force it back into the receptacle. I believe this is the *only* way a shaman can use an elemental. Divine: First you must Summon (ritual) the elemental. When it appears, you must then Command (spell) it. You could then follow the same path as the shaman, above; or alternately, you use the Drastic: Darkness solution which says that you now "know" that elemental (the Command gives you its True Name). In future, at any time, you cast Call (spell) to summon *that particular elemental* to whereever you currently are (you will still have to provide the necessary volume of material, though). As long as the elemental isn't killed, you can Call that elemental as often as you can use the spell. You can Summon/Command multiple elementals (over a period of time, obviously) and pick and choose among them when using Call. Sorcery: basically the same as the Spirit process, except that they use Dominate instead of Control. I think a sorcerous equivalent to the divine "Call", as described above, would be reasonable, though (indeed the Drastic:Darkness article may already include it, I can't remember). I think that even if a sorceror uses "Call", he must then still Dominate the elemental to get it to perform a task; otherwise it will attack the sorceror. I don't agree, as another poster commented, that an undine evoked from a receptacle into a "dry" place would "slowly die" as a result. I believe the elemental's very nature would keep it intact, in the same way that a salamander doesn't extinguish when not in flammable terrain. Any way, that's pretty much the RQ3 (modified) way of things. An interesting twist is thrown into the equation when you consider what the new Hero Wars rules have to say about "elementals" (in the "Anaxial's Roster" book). Basically, there are different *types* of air spirits, fire spirits, etc. *Some* of these are what your man-in-the-street would call an "elemental". However, there are particular types that hang around friendly worship sites; these are (in RQ3 terms) the "divine" elementals. More hostile forms are generally what the shamans and sorcerors deal with. All these different spirits might *look* the same, and have the same abilities etc., but in RQ3 terms they're different species, and have differing likes/dislikes etc. In light of this, I'd be strongly inclined to remove the necessity for the *divine* summoner to use the "Command" spell if he just wants to "meet" the elemental for the purposes of later using the "Call" spell. (If he wants to force the elemental into a receptacle, I think the Command would still be necessary.) As long as the Summon ritual is performed in a Consecrated area, a divinely-summoned elemental would never attack its summoner; at worst it would just go away in a huff. Nor would a divine summoning "botch" and summon a hostile entity. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Mike, if I run out of vomit, can I have some of yours?" 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:59:06 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Sandy's Sorcery: Strengthening Enchantment On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 10:31:42 -0800, Brad Furst wrote: >Sandy's Sorcery includes Strengthening Enchantment, but how many Hit >Points are yielded per POW? Sometimes when we read it, it seems only >to match quantity of POW sacrificed to the Intensity of the spell.... >Sometimes it seems to read one Hit Point [only] per POW = one Hit >Point per Intensity.... > >What is the consensus on this list? I don't know what the consensus is, and I certainly couldn't speak for Sandy's intentions, but I get the *impression* that Sandy's modified rules are based on RQ3, not the RQ4 draft. To the best of my knowledge, Sandy had no direct input on the RQ4 rules and he may prefer the RQ3 rules, which after all he did have a *lot* of input into. Regardless of the actual truth, when I use Sandy's rules in *my* campaign (which is basically still RQ3, albeit with a number of ideas pinched from RQ4) I assume the RQ3 rules apply "underneath" them as appropriate. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Mike, if I run out of vomit, can I have some of yours?" 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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:31:59 -0800 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment >I don't know what the consensus is, and I certainly couldn't speak for >Sandy's intentions, but I get the *impression* that Sandy's modified rules >are based on RQ3, not the RQ4 draft. To the best of my knowledge, Sandy had >no direct input on the RQ4 rules and he may prefer the RQ3 rules, which >after all he did have a *lot* of input into. I agree that my impression was that Sandy's rules overlayed upon RQ3 (rather than upon RQ4:AiG) as you say. Do you agree then (would you use in your campaign?) that 1d6 per POW is the right number for sorcerous Strengthening Enchantment? Brad Furst esoteric@teleport.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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:48:23 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:31:59 -0800, Brad Furst wrote: >I agree that my impression was that Sandy's rules overlayed upon RQ3 >(rather than upon RQ4:AiG) as you say. Do you agree then (would you >use in your campaign?) that 1d6 per POW is the right number for >sorcerous Strengthening Enchantment? Yes. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Mike, if I run out of vomit, can I have some of yours?" 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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:00:22 -0500 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment > I agree that my impression was that Sandy's rules overlayed upon RQ3 > (rather than upon RQ4:AiG) as you say. Do you agree then (would you > use in your campaign?) that 1d6 per POW is the right number for > sorcerous Strengthening Enchantment? > Brad Furst I think that I changed this in my game to 1d3+1. I also adjusted the Armor and the MP enchantments. I don't have my notebook with me right now to look them up. Note that RQ4 also changed these to achieve a more 'fair' balance. 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:41:43 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Strengthening Enchantment On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 17:00:22 -0500, Robert Stancliff wrote: > I think that I changed this in my game to 1d3+1. I also adjusted >the Armor and the MP enchantments. I don't have my notebook with me right >now to look them up. The RQ3 Errata changed Armoring Enchantments to 1D3 per point of POW, and Magic Point Matrix Enchantments to 1D10 per point of POW. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Mike, if I run out of vomit, can I have some of yours?" 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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:08:02 -0700 From: Stephen Posey Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Hero Questing MurfNMurf@aol.com wrote: > > Jeremy wonders about HQing, in a RQ setting, presumably. > Well, an interesting source for a pretty wide selection of HQ > resources is > Nikk's page at http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/wakboth/rqpage.htm > There are lots of others, no doubt, with about a thousand-and-one > different rule variants having been generated. > The rules I like to use for HeroQuesting are Bill Keyes' that I > first read > back in Alarums&Excursions 48 ( I _think_ ). I lost my hardcopy (the > pages > torn out of issue 48) several years back, but managed to find them > again > (though I'm uncertain as to where). > -Ken- Like a number of RQ pages I've seen recently the one quoted here refers to some material attributed to Sandy Petersen but the links to the material are broken; does anyone know a good current link to his stuff? Stephen Posey slposey@concentric.net *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:15:30 -0000 From: "Meirion Hopkins" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers > Bruce Probst > > On the latter point, I believe the RQ3 rules do explicitly state that you > must have 100% *skill* (including skill modifier bonuses) before you can > split; "situational" modifiers that raise your *chance* to 100 or more don't > count. Which makes sense, if you think about it; why should a character > with 85% skill suddenly know how to split his attacks just because he's > attacking from behind? It's all coming back now: but if a character is on say 99% and casts an self-enhancing spell (eg strength) for +1% then they can split attack (as their skill has increased as a side effect of increased strength), but no for bladesharp 1 - the sword has a keener edge/is easier to handle; you yourself are not better skilled. Meirion *************************************************************************** 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:41:50 -0500 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers >> Bruce Probst >> On the latter point, I believe the RQ3 rules do explicitly >> state that you must have 100% *skill* (including skill >> modifier bonuses) before you can split; "situational" >> modifiers that raise your *chance* to 100 or more don't >> count. Which makes sense, if you think about it; why >> should a character with 85% skill suddenly know how to >> split his attacks just because he's attacking from behind? You have reached the point where someone needs to look this up. I believe that the rules do not go into the detail that you want them to. They simply say that if your hit probability (or your skill) is 100% or more, that you can split. While it might be possible that their word choice supports your conclusion, it probably wasn't the intent when written. > It's all coming back now: but if a character is on say 99% > and casts a self-enhancing spell (e.g. strength) for +1% then > they can split attack (as their skill has increased as a > side effect of increased strength), but no for Bladesharp 1 > - the sword has a keener edge/is easier to handle; you > yourself are not better skilled. > Meirion There is certainly no distinction in the rules between pluses gained from Stat spells and those gained from Bladesharp. It is a perfectly valid argument to say that you have to be a weapon master (base skill 90+ modified to 100%+) before you are good enough to split an attack, but the rules do not say this. Who knows, maybe you can find a rule that proves the intent of before spells vs. after spells, or a rule that requires adds and subtracts before multiplies and divides, but I am not aware of any. 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 #9 *********************************** *************************************************************************** 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.