From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #10 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 Thursday, March 15 2001 Volume 04 : Number 010 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Heoquesting Rules Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:25:29 EST From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Heoquesting Rules - --part1_78.11d10471.27e0e769_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well, heck, after checking Nikk's site, I discovered that the HQ Rules I'd attributed to Bill Keyes, weren't in fact his, merely a write-up of an adventure he'd been on. Oh well, the rules are pretty neat in any event. -Ken- - --part1_78.11d10471.27e0e769_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  Well, heck, after checking Nikk's site, I discovered that the HQ Rules I'd
attributed to Bill Keyes, weren't in fact his, merely a write-up of an
adventure he'd been on. Oh well, the rules are pretty neat in any event.
 -Ken- - --part1_78.11d10471.27e0e769_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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:46:41 +1100 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:41:50 -0500, Robert Stancliff wrote: > 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. *I* haven't reached this point, because I already know what the rules say. But since you asked: "Attacks and Parries Over 100%" (RQ3 Deluxe, p.57) An adventurer who has increased an attack and or parry SKILL to 100% or more ...." (my emphasis). "Exceeding 100% in a Skill" (ibid., p.39) ... certain skills provide special benefits for someone over 100% in them ..." (note that this is in the middle of the *training and experience* rules). Finally, note also that the Attack Chance Modifiers Table (p.56) refers to "Attack *Chance*", not "Skill". That seems to be all the *rules* say about it. Would it convince a jury? Who cares, it convinces *me*. (But if you want to play it differently in YOUR game, why not?) But then there are also these RuneQuestions, that were published in Heroes Vol2#4: MAGIC BOOK Q: Page 19: For the Bladesharp, Bludgeon or Ironhand spell, what is the rule for splitting an attack when using a weapon with, for example, Bladesharp on it? If you have an 80% Sword attack, and you cast Bladesharp 4 for an additional 20%, can you split the attack and strike twice at 50% each time? A: No. To split attacks or parries you must have a skill of 100% or more. The spells do not increase your SKILL, just your chance to hit. Unless your unmodified attack percentage is 100% or more you may not split your attack regardless of what your magically enhanced chance to hit may be. Q: Page 19: For the Bladesharp, Bludgeon or Ironhand spell, does the increased chance to hit aid both attacks when splitting one’s attack? If you have a 100% skill and cast Bladesharp 4, do you attack twice at 70/70 or twice at 60/60? A: You attack twice at 60/60. Which seems pretty conclusive to me .... > There is certainly no distinction in the rules between pluses gained >from Stat spells and those gained from Bladesharp. This is self-evidently mistaken; stat alterations, no matter the *reason* for the alterations, and regardless of whether they are permanent or temporary, change the value of your Skill Category Modifier -- i.e., they alter your *skill* level. Spells such as Bladesharp add a flat percentage to your chance to hit, regardless of what it was to begin with. It's ludicrous (IMO) to assert that there is "no distinction in the rules" between these. > 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. They do when you read them . - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "By this time my lungs were aching for air!" 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:05:03 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers Which is exactly what I was looking for when I posted this - information that came after the fact of the 3rd edition rules I play by. Thanks. Thus, everything is applied before the division, but you can only divide for a split attack if your Skill, not including weapon bonuses, is over 100%. Jeremy Bruce Probst wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:41:50 -0500, Robert Stancliff > wrote: > > > 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. > > *I* haven't reached this point, because I already know what the rules say. > But since you asked: > > "Attacks and Parries Over 100%" (RQ3 Deluxe, p.57) > An adventurer who has increased an attack and or parry SKILL to 100% or more > ...." (my emphasis). > > "Exceeding 100% in a Skill" (ibid., p.39) > ... certain skills provide special benefits for someone over 100% in them > ..." (note that this is in the middle of the *training and experience* > rules). > > Finally, note also that the Attack Chance Modifiers Table (p.56) refers to > "Attack *Chance*", not "Skill". > > That seems to be all the *rules* say about it. Would it convince a jury? > Who cares, it convinces *me*. (But if you want to play it differently in > YOUR game, why not?) > > But then there are also these RuneQuestions, that were published in Heroes > Vol2#4: > > MAGIC BOOK > Q: > Page 19: For the Bladesharp, Bludgeon or Ironhand spell, what is the rule > for splitting an attack when using a weapon with, for example, Bladesharp on > it? If you have an 80% Sword attack, and you cast Bladesharp 4 for an > additional 20%, can you split the attack and strike twice at 50% each time? > A: > No. To split attacks or parries you must have a skill of 100% or more. The > spells do not increase your SKILL, just your chance to hit. Unless your > unmodified attack percentage is 100% or more you may not split your attack > regardless of what your magically enhanced chance to hit may be. > > Q: > Page 19: For the Bladesharp, Bludgeon or Ironhand spell, does the increased > chance to hit aid both attacks when splitting one’s attack? If you have a > 100% skill and cast Bladesharp 4, do you attack twice at 70/70 or twice at > 60/60? > A: > You attack twice at 60/60. > > Which seems pretty conclusive to me .... > > > There is certainly no distinction in the rules between pluses gained > >from Stat spells and those gained from Bladesharp. > > This is self-evidently mistaken; stat alterations, no matter the *reason* > for the alterations, and regardless of whether they are permanent or > temporary, change the value of your Skill Category Modifier -- i.e., they > alter your *skill* level. > > Spells such as Bladesharp add a flat percentage to your chance to hit, > regardless of what it was to begin with. > > It's ludicrous (IMO) to assert that there is "no distinction in the rules" > between these. > > > 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. > > They do when you read them . > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 > Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 > "By this time my lungs were aching for air!" > 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. *************************************************************************** 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 16:27:01 -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? > > Bob Stancliff > 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. See below > > Me > > 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. > > > > Bob Stancliff > 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. The relevant passage is on page 55 of the RQ3 players book (Attacks and Parries Over 100%): "An adventurer who has increased an attack or parry to 100% or more can split that attack or parry, ..." Whilst bladesharp's description says it "increases the chance to hit by +5 percentiles" (not +5 skill), whilst the enhancements spells affect skill modifier (hence affect skill directly). This is why we used the system I described. As the original question was about adding the bladesharp bonus before or after splits, IMO you add it before splitting (and if it alone takes your to hit chance over 100% you can't split). Can't find a reference either way, but it would seem an excessive advantage to add the bonus after any split, especially for larger value spells (eg 100% + Bladesharp 10 giving 2 attacks @100% rather than 2 @75%). Anyway all (non-quotes) IMO Cheers 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:29:44 -0500 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers > "Attacks and Parries Over 100%" (RQ3 Deluxe, p.57) > An adventurer who has increased an attack and or parry > SKILL to 100% or more...." > > Finally, note also that the Attack Chance Modifiers > Table (p.56) refers to "Attack *Chance*", not "Skill". > > Which seems pretty conclusive to me.... > >> There is certainly no distinction in the rules between >> pluses gained from Stat spells and those from Bladesharp. > This is self-evidently mistaken; stat alterations, no matter > the *reason* for the alterations, and regardless of whether > they are permanent or temporary, change the value of your > Skill Category Modifier -- i.e., they alter your *skill* level. Certainly a good argument... I'm sorry I missed it the last time I read the rules. 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:36:38 EST From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers - --part1_70.8abe9d8.27e265b6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/15/01 7:46:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, STANCLIF@rgp.ufl.edu writes: > > > >> There is certainly no distinction in the rules between > >> pluses gained from Stat spells and those from Bladesharp. > > > This is self-evidently mistaken; stat alterations, no matter > > the *reason* for the alterations, and regardless of whether > > they are permanent or temporary, change the value of your > > Skill Category Modifier -- i.e., they alter your *skill* level. > Certainly this is the way I interpret things. The only question still in my mind (and I wrote the original rules) is whether the increase in attack %ile given by Fanaticism gives you the abilitiy to split attacks when it kicks you over 100%. Of course, I am still thinking about getting rid of the artificial 100% line. Seems to me (now) that if someone wants to split attacks they should be able to do so and just take the reduced chance consequences. I also wonder about the strict division of the %ile between the chances. Other game systems give a reduced chance but not that much reduced. Hero, for instance, makes it a -2 roll on a bell curve, which can be no problem or a big problem, depending. White Wolf and D6 subtract a die from the roll, which can be a major change or minor, depending on how many dice you are rolling. All of these are, of course, bell curve systems instead of linear ones, but d& d 3e is linear, and also uses similar subtractions instead of divisions. I'm looking for an elegant solution, not just a brute force one like "-10%iles per extra person attacked." But that might be the only one available. Using my system of "successes," one could increase the number of successes needed to hit each extra person. But that might be too drastic. Still thinking. Steve Perrin - --part1_70.8abe9d8.27e265b6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/15/01 7:46:57 AM Pacific Standard Time,
STANCLIF@rgp.ufl.edu writes:


>
>> There is certainly no distinction in the rules between
>> pluses gained from Stat spells and those from Bladesharp.

> This is self-evidently mistaken; stat alterations, no matter
> the *reason* for the alterations, and regardless of whether
> they are permanent or temporary, change the value of your
> Skill Category Modifier -- i.e., they alter your *skill* level.


Certainly this is the way I interpret things.

The only question still in my mind (and I wrote the original rules) is
whether the increase in attack %ile given by Fanaticism gives you the
abilitiy to split attacks when it kicks you over 100%.

Of course, I am still thinking about getting rid of the artificial 100% line.
Seems to me (now) that if someone wants to split attacks they should be able
to do so and just take the reduced chance consequences. I also wonder about
the strict division of the %ile between the chances. Other game systems give
a reduced chance but not that much reduced. Hero, for instance, makes it a -2
roll on a bell curve, which can be no problem or a big problem, depending.
White Wolf and D6 subtract a die from the roll, which can be a major change
or minor, depending on how many dice you are rolling.

All of these are, of course, bell curve systems instead of linear ones, but d&
d 3e is linear, and also uses similar subtractions instead of divisions.

I'm looking for an elegant solution, not just a brute force one like
"-10%iles per extra person attacked." But that might be the only one
available. Using my system of "successes," one could increase the number of
successes needed to hit each extra person. But that might be too drastic.

Still thinking.

Steve Perrin
- --part1_70.8abe9d8.27e265b6_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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:07:10 -0800 From: Brad Furst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Skill Modifiers >Of course, I am still thinking about getting rid of the artificial 100% line. >Seems to me (now) that if someone wants to split attacks they should be able >to do so and just take the reduced chance consequences. Here, here, I agree. This is akin to my earlier post Re: Sword-Dance, Drogarsi where I suggested that the consequences where sufficient to allow the player to choose such a tactic at will. In this case, the 100% limit is unnecessary. Let a fighter split 80% into two attacks of 40% (or 50% and 30% for all I care). >I also wonder about >the strict division of the %ile between the chances. 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #10 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.