From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #41 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 Thursday, April 26 2001 Volume 04 : Number 041 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Befuddle Spell [RQ-RULES] INT 2d6 + 6 [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #40 [RQ-RULES] Dodging missiles Re: [RQ-RULES] Ten Re: [RQ-RULES] Ten RE: [RQ-RULES] Ten RE: [RQ-RULES] Ten RE: [RQ-RULES] Ten [RQ-RULES] Hi guys RE: [RQ-RULES] Celtic spells & WD listing [RQ-RULES] RQ3: Satyr strength? Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ3: Satyr strength? 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:46:36 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Befuddle Spell Actually, it says that if you MAKE your INT roll, you are still confused... The character has to roll over their INT to be free. One of the few handicaps for high INT characters. And yes, check each round. In our campaign, if you are attacked, you do nothing until you take the damage, and then define 'enemy' as the one who injured you. If your friend did 1 point of damage to snap you out of it, he's the enemy... If you or someone else kill that person, you return to trying to figure out what's going on until you roll over INT or 5 minutes is up. From my rereading of the 3E rules, I'd say this is a house rule, as it states that the character can do nothing except try to make the INT roll, not even parry or dodge (much less attack). Hope that helps. Jeremy Northern DM wrote: > I have a question about the Befuddle spell in RQ3. It states that if you > miss your INT roll at the end of the round, you are confused for the next > round. My question is what happens if you are attacked the next round. I > know that you get no defences at all but what happens after you are > attacked? Will you now defend yourself? > > How I saw the spell was that you will defend yourself against this foe, only > after the intial attack, but once your foe was down, you went back into your > befuddled state again. > > Furthermore, do you get to make the INT roll each round? > > Thanks for the answers, > > The Northern DM *************************************************************************** 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, 24 Apr 2001 00:57:43 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] INT 2d6 + 6 The first reference to rolling INT as 2d6 + 6 was in the character generation section of Trollpack. The RQ2 version. This was stated to be part of a general upgrading of intelligent creatures in Runequest and it was suggested that this be applied to humans as well. The rules in RQ3 for converting RQ2 characters assumed that RQ2 humans had been rolled as 3d6 for INT, and included a table of upgrades to retrofit the new range. I've always assumed that this applied to all characters, not just PCs. When the RQ3 rules have separate rules for PCs (such as the optional rules for human female PCs in the Creatures book) they say so. 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:57:44 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #40 The subject line is correct, this is a post about the digest itself. I had several recent posts bounce. Seems the reason is that the Digest has its 'Reply-to' address set wrong. 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:57:42 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Dodging missiles > 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. This rule -is- in RQ3. The original quotation was from a section on Melee and only describes using the skill in melee. For the use of Dodge against missile attacks see the definition of Dodge skill in the Skills section. This is easy to overlook because it has no entry in the index. My version (the original AH DeLuxe set) has a slightly different rule from that quoted above. 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:04:53 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Ten - --part1_a0.135b89ab.28166375_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/23/01 11:40:38 PM Central Daylight Time, Jeremy writes: > Hmmm. The first, most obvious answer is 'look at it's SIZ'. It's actually > 2D6 smaller than the lion listed in the 3E Creatures book. Also (as it was > just pointed out) SIZ is mass, not height or weight, and we're talking > about a stone creature, we should divide the mass by about 5 to understand > how big a flesh-and-blood creature would be... It's tiny - maybe the size > of a big dog. Right. If we actually use the SIZ given for the Ten, 2D6+6 SIZ-worth of stone wouldn't really be all that impressive. Certainly not enough mass to equate it to an actual RW lion's dimensions :) On the other hand, I live in Taiwan and have seen many such statues (they also have > dragon statues) and I'd say they're a bit bigger than real lions. They're > almost as long, but have very rounded bodies that give them a lot more mass > - I'd say 4-5' long, and 2-3' thick. It really depends on the temple (the > bigger, richer temples having more money for extravagance), but most of > these places like to exaggerate things a bit to seem more impressive.The > people are on the same scale, but since they're statues of gods, they're > usually 7-8' tall. If you want accuracy, This is great. Exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I'd use the numbers listed for human statuary, or settle on a size for the lions, either > a little smaller to double the size (or bigger) for lions. So maybe a SIZ > of 20 for an small temple, and 30 to 40 for a large one. I've got a couple > of pictures from visits to temples and such, would you like to see a few > (Taiwanese) examples? Jeremy > Sure Jeremy, I'd _love_ to see them. I have a couple of images in my head when I think about the appearance of these things, but I'm wondering if my idea is sound. I think the stuff I'm envisioning is from, I'd like to say Chinese, or maybe Tibetan temple pics from Nat'l Geographic or something. Send away:) -Ken- - --part1_a0.135b89ab.28166375_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/23/01 11:40:38 PM Central Daylight Time, Jeremy writes:


Hmmm.  The first, most obvious answer is 'look at it's SIZ'.  It's actually
2D6 smaller than the lion listed in the 3E Creatures book.  Also (as it was
just pointed out) SIZ is mass, not height or weight, and we're talking
about a stone creature, we should divide the mass by about 5 to understand
how big a flesh-and-blood creature would be...  It's tiny - maybe the size
of a big dog.


  Right. If we actually use the SIZ given for the Ten, 2D6+6 SIZ-worth of
stone wouldn't really be all that impressive. Certainly not enough mass to
equate it to an actual RW lion's dimensions :)

On the other hand, I live in Taiwan and have seen many such statues (they
also have
dragon statues) and I'd say they're a bit bigger than real lions.  They're
almost as long, but have very rounded bodies that give them a lot more mass
- I'd say 4-5' long, and 2-3' thick.  It really depends on the temple (the
bigger, richer temples having more money for extravagance), but most of
these places like to exaggerate things a bit to seem more impressive.The
people are on the same scale, but since they're statues of gods, they're
usually 7-8' tall. If you want accuracy,


  This is great. Exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.
  
I'd use the numbers listed for human statuary, or settle on a size for the
lions, either
a little smaller to double the size (or bigger) for lions.  So maybe  a SIZ
of 20 for an small temple, and 30 to 40 for a large one. I've got a couple
of pictures from visits to temples and such, would you like to see a few
(Taiwanese) examples? Jeremy

  Sure Jeremy, I'd _love_  to see them. I have a couple of images in my head
when I think about the appearance of these things, but I'm wondering if my
idea is sound. I think the stuff I'm envisioning is from, I'd like to say
Chinese, or maybe Tibetan temple pics from Nat'l Geographic or something.
  Send away:)
 -Ken-
  
- --part1_a0.135b89ab.28166375_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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:54:18 -0600 From: "Stephen Posey [TurboPower Software]" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Ten > > Hmmm. The first, most obvious answer is 'look at it's SIZ'. It's actually > > 2D6 smaller than the lion listed in the 3E Creatures book. Also (as it was > > just pointed out) SIZ is mass, not height or weight, and we're talking > > about a stone creature, we should divide the mass by about 5 to understand > > how big a flesh-and-blood creature would be... It's tiny - maybe the size > > of a big dog. > > Right. If we actually use the SIZ given for the Ten, 2D6+6 SIZ-worth of > stone wouldn't really be all that impressive. Certainly not enough mass to > equate it to an actual RW lion's dimensions :) I think this relates back to the recent discussion of Giants and SIZ, the SIZ as weight/mass rule doesn't seem to work well in practice as it also tries to capture volume which is largely independent of density. I'm tinkering with an alternate set of SIZ rules that relate SIZ to volume and then you can calculate mass from that based on the density of the composition material (living flesh being taken as the norm). Not quite as simple as a straight SIZ characteristic, but arguably less prone to peculiarities. I'll post them here for review soon. 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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:15:36 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Ten > I think this relates back to the recent discussion of Giants > and SIZ, the SIZ as weight/mass rule doesn't seem to work > well in practice as it also tries to capture volume which is > largely independent of density. I think it is fairly clear that the author of the description assigned the SIZ as if it were a flesh being in proportion to a normal human. A SIZ in the low 20's is somewhere between Shaq (the basketball center) and Andre the Giant... around 7 feet tall and 300 to 400 pounds (for flesh). 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, 25 Apr 2001 22:44:55 +0300 (EEST) From: Veli-Matti Tornikoski Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Ten Hello I'd like to hear what people use for the special successes done sith crushing, slashing and impaling weapons? We use, as a special success for slahing, weapon does full damage, i.e greatswords does 16 + dmg modifier, bludgeon does full dmg modifier and impalin does the normal impalin damage as per rg3 rules. regrds, Vekku *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Apr 2001 13:17:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Ten On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Veli-Matti Tornikoski wrote: > Hello > I'd like to hear what people use for the special successes done sith > crushing, slashing and impaling weapons? [...] I use a variation on the RQ2 rules. On a special success, choose one of the following effects; on a critical success, choose two: - - ignore (go through) armor (magic protection still protects) - - choose location hit - - do special damage Special damage: - - Slashing weapons roll damage twice + roll damage bonus, cause +1 hp bleeding - - Impaling weapons do max weapon damage + rolled damage + roll damage bonus, can get stuck in target - - Crushing weapons do rolled damage + max damage bonus + roll damage bonus, also do knockback *************************************************************************** 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, 25 Apr 2001 23:20:28 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Hi guys Just switching email accounts, since my company is now blocking Hotmail Leon ___________________________________________________________________ To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax, all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.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: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 12:07:05 +0300 From: "Mikko Korhonen" Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Celtic spells & WD listing Hi Meirion, i'd love to have a copy! Cheers, Mikko mikko.korhonen@future121.com - -----Original Message----- From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com [mailto:owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com]On Behalf Of Meirion Hopkins Sent: 23. huhtikuuta 2001 19:22 To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Subject: [RQ-RULES] Celtic spells & WD listing Hi all I have both issues and am quite happy to take orders for scanned versions of the spell lists. I also have a Lotus Approach database listing RQ2, RQ3 and Pendragon articles and scenarios from WD41-101 (the last issue to contain any RQ), some pre WD41 issues are also included. If anyone wants a copy, again I'm happy to take orders. Cheers Meirion PS The celtic runespells are in WD53 & 62. - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 4:35 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] WD 61Celtic spells > In a message dated 4/21/01 11:40:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > MurfNMurf@aol.com writes: > > << Hi gang, > I recently read that WD 61 had some Celtic-type spells in it for RQ. Does > anyone have a copy and be willing to share the information? > Thanks in advance, > -Ken Murphy- > >> > I believe I might have a copy. E-mail me in a day or two and I'll look in my > storage for it. I would actually have to have 2 copies of the magazine > (highly likely) because I would have to cut the pages to scan them. > > kes > > *************************************************************************** > 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. *************************************************************************** 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, 26 Apr 2001 13:16:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ3: Satyr strength? Is this right? According to RQ3 Creatures Book, Satyrs have 5d6 STR? As strong as a Cave Troll and a Minotaur? Shade and sweet water, Brian - Blackberry - lepus@nwlink.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: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 16:44:22 EDT From: MurfNMurf@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] RQ3: Satyr strength? - --part1_4e.14f228de.2819e2a6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/26/01 3:25:26 PM Central Daylight Time, Brian writes: > Is this right? According to RQ3 Creatures Book, Satyrs have 5d6 STR? As > Yup, you are correct, sir. I have _no_ problem with them having 5D6 STR. In fact, my current character Yivgainni is a Satyr with a 28 STR :) In the old RQ2 Bestiary, I _believe_ they had 6D6 STR (even scarier, I think). As strong as a Cave Troll or Minotaur, yet weaker than a Gorilla :) The thing _I_ find odd about their 5D6 STR is that Centaurs, with their half horse bodies and all, _only_ have 3D6+6 STR, when I think their STR should at least be equal to that of Satyrs... Hmmm... I feel a little stat-modification coming on :) -Ken- - --part1_4e.14f228de.2819e2a6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/26/01 3:25:26 PM Central Daylight Time, Brian writes:


Is this right?  According to RQ3 Creatures Book, Satyrs have 5d6 STR?  As
strong as a Cave Troll and a Minotaur?
  Yup, you are correct, sir. I have _no_ problem with them having 5D6 STR.
In fact, my current character Yivgainni is a Satyr with a 28 STR :)
  In the old RQ2 Bestiary, I _believe_ they had 6D6 STR (even scarier, I
think).
  As strong as a Cave Troll or Minotaur, yet weaker than a Gorilla :)
  The thing _I_ find odd about their 5D6 STR is that Centaurs, with their
half horse bodies and all, _only_ have 3D6+6 STR, when I think their STR
should at least be equal to that of Satyrs...
  Hmmm... I feel a little stat-modification coming on :)
 -Ken-
- --part1_4e.14f228de.2819e2a6_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. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #41 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.