From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #29 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, April 12 2001 Volume 04 : Number 029 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] MNM's elementals in general Re: [RQ-RULES] lava elementals' movement [RQ-RULES] Pete's RuneQuest NOT DEAD! [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? [RQ-RULES] Stormbringer synopsys RE: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? RE: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? Re: [RQ-RULES] Dumping Strike Ranks 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, 11 Apr 2001 21:09:30 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] MNM's elementals in general - --part1_97.13f274c8.28065a4a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 12:00:13 PM Central Daylight Time, Marko and I were discussing Lava Elementals: > > Well, like going by the _book's_ definition of lava damage, I thought > it > >might be a lil _too_ high powered, but your 3D6 suggestion certainly > doesn't > >make them _quite_ 13D6 scary; which makes me a lil less nervous :) > > On the one hand I like the 3D6 idea, but on the other I'm just assuming > >that lava would be of some unknown magnitude _hotter_ than flames. > > You forget that 3d6 is already magically enhanced fire and there are not > many who'd have contact with that immense heat any more than a blink of an > eye. Stone lets only a little amount of heat out so a brief touch will not > be much more dangerous than that. The real damage happens when gnome gets > a good hold of a victim. Lava-gnome engulfing victim does 6d6 damage. That > is the way I remember salamanders doing it. Engulf = 3d6 and brief touch = > I was thinking a little more on Lava Elemental's... How about having them doing 3D6 damage, +1D6 per m3 volume, in an effort to give at least the Huge 10 m3 version (assuming a format similar to the stuff I posted previously) a damage actually _equalling_ Lava's 13D6. This would also give them a higher damage rating than the Salamander, which, I think they deserve as magical molten lava, as opposed to the Salamander's mere magical fire :) -Ken Murphy- - --part1_97.13f274c8.28065a4a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 12:00:13 PM Central Daylight Time, Marko and I
were discussing Lava Elementals:

>  Well, like going by the _book's_ definition of lava damage, I thought
it
>might be a lil _too_ high powered, but your 3D6 suggestion certainly
doesn't
>make them _quite_ 13D6 scary; which makes me a lil less nervous :)
>  On the one hand I like the 3D6 idea, but on the other I'm just assuming
>that lava would be of some unknown magnitude _hotter_ than flames.

 You forget that 3d6 is already magically enhanced fire and there are not
many who'd have contact with that immense heat any more than a blink of an
eye. Stone lets only a little amount of heat out so a brief touch will not
be much more dangerous than that. The real damage happens when gnome gets
a good hold of a victim. Lava-gnome engulfing victim does 6d6 damage. That
is the way I remember salamanders doing it. Engulf = 3d6 and brief touch =
half of that.


  I was thinking a little more on Lava Elemental's...
  How about having them doing 3D6 damage, +1D6 per m3 volume, in an effort
to give at least the Huge 10 m3 version (assuming a format similar to the
stuff I posted previously) a damage actually _equalling_ Lava's 13D6. This
would also give them a higher damage rating than the Salamander, which, I
think they deserve as magical molten lava, as opposed to the Salamander's
mere magical fire :)
 -Ken Murphy- - --part1_97.13f274c8.28065a4a_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, 11 Apr 2001 21:27:17 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] lava elementals' movement - --part1_71.c6bf8d8.28065e75_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People running from lava have been caught and engulfed. Granted, the lava was moving downhill, but the motive power of an intelligent elemental could probably compensate for lack of incline. Lava can certainly move fast enough with the proper motivation, probably as fast as an undine. Steve Perrin, not wanting to tick off any volcano gods... - --part1_71.c6bf8d8.28065e75_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit People running from lava have been caught and engulfed. Granted, the lava was
moving downhill, but the motive power of an intelligent elemental could
probably compensate for lack of incline. Lava can certainly move fast enough
with the proper motivation, probably as fast as an undine.

Steve Perrin, not wanting to tick off any volcano gods... - --part1_71.c6bf8d8.28065e75_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, 11 Apr 2001 22:15:31 -0400 From: Peter Maranci Subject: [RQ-RULES] Pete's RuneQuest NOT DEAD! My posts have been bouncing for about two months. Man, am I frustrated. Here's hoping Tal's right about the new address... Lots of big news, here are the highlights. 1. Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! is NOT DEAD. The domain was cancelled for ten days due to a screw-up by the registrar. During that time all email sent to me bounced. It's all back up now. 2. There have been A TON of updates to the site over the last few months. The Chaos Project has been moved to a new server, and the old material has been numbered for easy dice-rolling and archived online. There are about 300 Chaotic Features and Found Items apiece, and over 50 magic items. Plus the new Chaos Project sections are ready for use. 3. I've added a RuneQuest quiz to the site. So far no one has received a perfect score! Also added are four polls. There's too much other stuff that's been added and redesigned, so I'm going to let it go at that...man, I hope this gets through... ->Peter - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Maranci peter@maranci.net Woonsocket, RI The New Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying!: 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:07:00 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? The rules for Dodge state: "In a melee round, a Dodge works against all melee attacks from one source, ..." Can a missile weapon be Dodged? Thrown or Projectile? Thanks in advance. Jeremy *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Apr 2001 07:01:20 +0200 From: St=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=phane FRANCOIS Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? > "In a melee round, a Dodge works against all melee attacks from one > source, ..." > > Can a missile weapon be Dodged? Thrown or Projectile? Thrown weapons and missiles cannot be dodged. Thrown weapon can be parried (at half skill). Against missiles the only defense is to passively cover some locations with your shield, giving them half the shield's protection. *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Apr 2001 01:17:11 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? - --part1_78.133728ad.28069457_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 8:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, vesper@libra.seed.net.tw writes: > "In a melee round, a Dodge works against all melee attacks from one > source, ..." > > Can a missile weapon be Dodged? Thrown or Projectile? > > A thrown missile weapon can be dodged. Projectile is chancier, though I would go along with a GM who said that an arrow could be dodged. It's probably more a matter of the power of the bow or crossbow. A top-of-the-line longbow or composite or heavy crossbow bolt is probably going too fast. Depends on how cinematically heroic you want the action to be. You actually probably have a better chance of parrying than dodging. But, with the sagas as evidence, thrown weapons can definitely be dodged. Steve Perrin, who doesn't claim to be either Skarp-Hedin, Gunnar, or Kari. - --part1_78.133728ad.28069457_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/01 8:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
vesper@libra.seed.net.tw writes:


"In a melee round, a Dodge works against all melee attacks from one
source, ..."

Can a missile weapon be Dodged?  Thrown or Projectile?



A thrown missile weapon can be dodged. Projectile is chancier, though I would
go along with a GM who said that an arrow could be dodged. It's probably more
a matter of the power of the bow or crossbow. A top-of-the-line longbow or
composite or heavy crossbow bolt is probably going too fast. Depends on how
cinematically heroic you want the action to be. You actually probably have a
better chance of parrying than dodging.

But, with the sagas as evidence, thrown weapons can definitely be dodged.

Steve Perrin, who doesn't claim to be either Skarp-Hedin, Gunnar, or Kari.

- --part1_78.133728ad.28069457_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: 12 Apr 2001 09:23:36 +0200 From: Alain RAMEAU Subject: [RQ-RULES] Stormbringer synopsys Please post, either on the list or directly to me if nobody else is interested (which would be surprising). Alain. >In any case, I've created a synopsys of the 1st Edition Demon Summoning >Rules if anyone's interested. > >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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:59:08 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? > Jeremy wrote: > The rules for Dodge state: > "In a melee round, a Dodge works against all melee attacks from one > source, ..." > Can a missile weapon be Dodged? Thrown or Projectile? A missile attack isn't a melee attack, so the technical answer should be -no-. Some variants allow a special Dodge to work against a thrown weapon and a critical Dodge to work against a projected weapon. 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, 12 Apr 2001 23:06:41 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? > > Jeremy wrote: > > The rules for Dodge state: > > "In a melee round, a Dodge works against all melee attacks from one > > source, ..." > > Can a missile weapon be Dodged? Thrown or Projectile? > > A missile attack isn't a melee attack, so the technical answer > should be -no-. Some variants allow a special Dodge to work against a > thrown weapon and a critical Dodge to work against a projected weapon. > Bob Stancliff I was under the impression (for RQ3) that dodging missiles, thrown or otherwise, was allowed. Anyone attempting to do so must spend the round *only* dodging the missiles but may still move at 1m/SR. 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: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 10:52:34 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? > I was under the impression (for RQ3) that dodging > missiles, thrown or otherwise, was allowed. Anyone > attempting to do so must spend the round *only* dodging > the missiles but may still move at 1m/SR. > Jim Lawrie That sounds familiar, but I had myself convinced that it was a RQ4 rule... I can't remember. 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, 12 Apr 2001 20:37:39 +0100 From: Michael Cule Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? In message <78.133728ad.28069457@aol.com>, SPerrin@aol.com writes > A thrown missile weapon can be dodged. Projectile is chancier, > though I would > go along with a GM who said that an arrow could be dodged. It's > probably more > a matter of the power of the bow or crossbow. A top-of-the-line > longbow or > composite or heavy crossbow bolt is probably going too fast. > Depends on how > cinematically heroic you want the action to be. You actually > probably have a > better chance of parrying than dodging. > Perhaps a projectile weapon being fired from outside effective range? One that is being fired at you at 1/2 damage range may travel long enough for you to react to? - -- Michael Cule *************************************************************************** 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, 12 Apr 2001 17:55:43 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dodge? - --part1_c1.d46c50a.28077e5f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/01 12:24:14 AM Central Daylight Time, SPerrin@aol.com writes: > Steve Perrin, who doesn't claim to be either Skarp-Hedin, Gunnar, or Kari. > > Hmm, Skarp-Hedin, huh? Njal's Saga, right? :) -Ken- - --part1_c1.d46c50a.28077e5f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/12/01 12:24:14 AM Central Daylight Time, SPerrin@aol.com
writes:


Steve Perrin, who doesn't claim to be either Skarp-Hedin, Gunnar, or Kari.



  Hmm,
  Skarp-Hedin, huh? Njal's Saga, right? :)
 -Ken- - --part1_c1.d46c50a.28077e5f_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, 13 Apr 2001 08:14:36 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Dumping Strike Ranks Uh, yeah. Well, I'll applaud anyway. That was pretty clear and very detailed... I was thinking melee combat for the charging at the beginning - obviously you weren't. I certainly agree with, and allow, people two shots at a charging person (though depending on distance and speed, they might get caught with their bow still up when the axe-weilding charge ends...). As to the rest, thanks. I'll sift through it and might give up on the roundless combat idea. I do feel that someone suitably fast, WITH Coordination spells AND a fast weapon probably should attack twice as often as some small bloke with a shortsword. Jeremy Robert Stancliff wrote: > > Jeremy wrote: > > Uh, yeah. If this person is charging you and takes > > the round to get to you, how do you get two shots? > I presume you want loading to take a separate action. In olden > times when you could have as many actions as your strike ranks would > allow... A person with DSR of 2 could load a bow by SR3, fire SR5, reload by > SR8 and fire in SR10. Whether you can do this in RQ3 is partly dependent on > your interpretation of the concurrent actions rules. If drawing the arrow > requires a full action, then you can never get more than one shot a round. > As a simulation, two shots is clearly possible within a 10-12 second > round. A practiced archer should be able to fire every 3-4 seconds > depending on quality of aim desired. > > > Wouldn't the first shot come up when he was still quite > > a distance from you? I could visualize just one well- > > prepared shot, sort of like setting a spear. > If the runner was close enough to reach you in one round, then he is > not starting in long range. > Work out the meters per round for the runner in armor and figure how > many rounds it takes to cover 150 meters. Depending on your assumptions, it > could be 4-8 rounds. If he is not wearing armor, he probably won't make it > anyway. > > > I just read someone's 'Roundless Combat' yesterday > > where everything is in SR, no rounds really. > I tried dumping rounds for RQ and just using SR's, but the Agimori > with the long spear and a modest Coord. spell was attacking every 3 SR's, > while the short guy with the gladius was attacking every 7 SR's. > The bonus for weapon length needs to be canceled after the first > round and just use MSR + x, where x is either 2 or 3, your choice. Don't > forget that there are some rules for getting within the reach of the longer > weapon, which are pretty bad for the person using one. > > Just to ramble... I have several players who have used magic and > long weapons to drop their SR to 3 or 4, but I have often seen NPC's with > little or no magic who are stuck with SR's or 7 to 10. The disparity is > obviously huge, but it only matters if people are permitted to take more > that one offensive action in a round. > > As an alternative suggestion for combat... > There are two distinct ways to run combat. You can determine order > of action and let each creature complete their entire movement and attack > before the next creature, or you can perform all movements in order followed > by all combat actions in order. Under the second system the allowance of > movement after combat must be canceled. The first method is probably > quicker to run, but the second method should seem more real. > > Shorten the round to 6 seconds and allow only one attack action per > round with a 'free' dodge or parry vs. a single attack each round (the > 'free' defensive action cannot be traded for anything else). > Only use SR's to determine the order in which people act, and it > will only change when the attack form changes. Berserks and Fanatics should > get a SR bonus (-2 SR?). > A character should still be able to give up their attack to go fully > defensive and get multiple parries or dodges. There should be a penalty > (-10%?) for every additional parry or dodge. > Two bound spirits can be commanded in a combat action, or one spirit > can be commanded while readying or changing gear. > > Movement occurs once, either before or after the combat action, but > you cannot move away from a fully functional adjacent opponent without > giving him a free unparried attack against you at a -20% penalty for your > withdrawal. If he is incapacitated or knocked back for any reason, then > this pursuit attack is lost. He still has the option of chasing you on his > action. > Your combat action can be exchanged for an additional movement. The > only action allowed when moving full is a shield rush or knockback attack. > These rarely do damage, but can put an opponent on the ground for further > abuse. > If you are currently unengaged, you may double all movement for the > round, but any attacks against you before your next action will be at +20% > bonus for the predictable momentum of your movement. > Movement can take special forms which require a skill roll to > determine quality of success, these include Climb, Jump, Swim, and > Acrobatics. Other options are certainly possible. > > You may only add the damage bonus of your mount to any attack if the > mount moves at least double it's base movement. The attack must be into a > hex adjacent to the path of the animal and into a hex ahead of the rider or > else damage bonus is forfeited. It cannot occur before the fourth movement > hex is entered for the move and the target must have been visible for at > least three hexes (this allows time to aim). > The mount must complete the full declared movement, fall from an > attack, or collide with an unavoidable obstacle. If you voluntarily stop > too early, you didn't have enough momentum to receive the damage bonus. > Any running creature must move forward Movement / 4 in hexes (round > off) between each hex face of turning. The alternative is to stop at the > end of the movement and begin the next round with a new facing. > > I don't expect applause from most of you... any obvious flaws? > 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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #29 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.