From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #47 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 Monday, May 7 2001 Volume 04 : Number 047 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: Vs: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Overlapping Spells Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments [RQ-RULES] Re: Overlapping Spells Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Overlapping Spells [RQ-RULES] RQ to HW RE: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments 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: Fri, 12 May 2000 10:11:11 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: Vs: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Brad Furst wrote: > >If i read the rules correctly, enchantment conditions work 100% of > >time and are also instant. So in this light, your example would work > >just nicely. Nice bow ;) > > The archer thought it was nice, too, until the linked MP storage > matrix was empty and the GM ruled that the spell continued to go off > each time the bow was reloaded, all the while taking the MP from the > archer instead. Hmmm. We've got a similar item (a wand) in my campaign. I ruled that once the MP storage was empty, the item couldn't be used until the storage was refilled - - the character couldn't use their own MP to fuel the thing. I remember storage crystals and such were refilled at 1 MP per round, so that made it rather useless in combat once it was emptied... Could both be possible with different setups? Assuming pretty much the same setup, how would other referrees here rule on such an item? Thanks, 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: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:11:39 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments On Fri, 4 May 2001 08:14:49 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >Consider a matrix (e.g. Firearrow), part of a Linked Enchantment with >a MP storage matrix and a condition that the spell goes off when the >ammunition (the arrow) touches the projector (the bow) with the spell >being fueled by the MP in the matrix. > >Is it necessary to make a normal roll for spirit magic according to, >for example, the POWx5 (plus magic bonus minus encumbrance) of the >character handling the linked matrices? Or can the spell in the >matrix itself cast at 100%? Matrices don't cast spells, users cast spells. Otherwise, what you're suggesting is an enchantment that has a "User condition" of "no user required"! Such a condition is not allowed, so far as I can tell. So yes, a normal spirit magic roll would be required. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:12:08 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments On Fri, 4 May 2001 11:58:19 -0400, Andrew Barton wrote: >I've always assumed that the enchantment was cast automatically in this >situation. If not, enchantments placed to defend a site would always have >to have a spirit bound into them to do the casting. And the problem with this would be ...? - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:23:05 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Overlapping Spells On Fri, 4 May 2001 08:31:26 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >Since one particular character in our party seemed to be the focus of >the opponents' magical attacks, another character cast Countermagic-4 >on him, unaware that Resist-Magic-8 was already in effect upon him. >How do you resolve subsequent magic attacks? "Resist Magic"? I assume you mean "Spell Resistance". I don't see any hard-and-fast answers in the rules, so I would use as a guideline the principle determined by the "Damage Resist" answer (see below), namely, sorcery gets checked first, as it is more "powerful" than spirit magic. You could also argue that highest Intensity gets checked first, where 2 points of Spirit Magic = 1 Intensity. Sorcery wins over Spirit Magic in case of ties. Now, is Divine Magic more or less powerful than Sorcery? Everything I see in the rules says they're essentially equal in power, so in such cases, either flip a coin or use sequence of casting to determine. >In the second situation, our character was headed in melee so another >character cast Protection-4 upon him, unaware that Damage-Resist was >already in effect upon him. How do you resolve incoming damage? If >there had been no Protection then our usual expectation is to reduce >incoming damage according to armor and then compare the remainder to >the Damage-Resist intensity on the Resistance Table. Apply Damage Resist first, then Protection. Brad, that's explicitly stated in the "Damage Resist" spell description! >Would you adjust your answers to the above if the spells had been >cast in a different sequence? No. Sandy Petersen told me many years ago that, generally speaking, the sequence of spell casting has no affect on the outcome. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:43:51 +0300 (EEST) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marko_Per=E4l=E4?= Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Brad Furst wrote: > >If i read the rules correctly, enchantment conditions work 100% of > >time and are also instant. So in this light, your example would work > >just nicely. Nice bow ;) > > The archer thought it was nice, too, until the linked MP storage > matrix was empty and the GM ruled that the spell continued to go off > each time the bow was reloaded, all the while taking the MP from the > archer instead. Solution to this would be an extra condition that mp for matrix come ONLY from crystal. Bruce Probst wrote: > Matrices don't cast spells, users cast spells. Otherwise, what you're > suggesting is an enchantment that has a "User condition" of "no user > required"! Such a condition is not allowed, so far as I can tell. So yes, > a normal spirit magic roll would be required. This seems rather funny to me. Who said conditions are only about users? I don't know how this goes in RQ4, but this is my perception and house rules: The conditions meant are of course activation conditions, where certain happenings trigger the effect even if no users are near. I figured the maker of the matrix has already casted the spell during the ritual and later the matrix copies the effect the way it did happened without variation. Therefore the caster of automatic spells are not the users, but the enchan- ter. It happens same way as with Issaries Spell trade: priests cast their spell and give the effect (not the spell itself) to the other guy. With this in mind spell matrixes activating are actually effect matrixes. Naturally this reflects to the mp vs. mp throws, which are made between the target and enchanter, not with the target and user (if any). What I see, spirits are not needed, if enchantments are smart enough. Active spells work too, but if there is no programming, effects are static. I think each programmed command should take one condition, but I haven't noticed a rule or condition category of that. All this stuff applies best to sorcery, but I see no reason why spirit magic wouldn't go too. Ideas, comments, critics? Marko Perälä perala@cc.joensuu.fi *************************************************************************** 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, 06 May 2001 01:15:45 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments On Sat, 5 May 2001 14:43:51 +0300 (EEST), Marko Perälä wrote: > This seems rather funny to me. Who said conditions are only about users? I give up: who? It wasn't me. Conditions determine (amongst other things) *when* enchantments may be cast, and they can optionally restrict *who* can make the enchantment; what they *can't* do is specify that some non-existent non-entity cast the spell on your behalf. As I said: enchantments don't cast spells, users cast spells. The enchantments just help you narrow down who those users can and can't be. If you need a reference, it's called "Runequest, 3rd edition rules" -- the chapter on Ritual Magic. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Mitchell!" 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: Sat, 13 May 2000 00:04:39 +0800 From: Jeremy Martin Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments My understanding also was that you could Enchant an area to do something on your behalf. Maybe triggered on someone walking into a room a loud screaming will start up. That would be a Phantom Sense Enchanted into an area with a MP storing matrix, with a trigger condition that when a person walks in, the spell will be cast with a pre-determined sound. Your comments would preclude that. Do you feel that the enchantment I described is impossible? If not, how would you do it? Thoughts? Jeremy Bruce Probst wrote: > On Sat, 5 May 2001 14:43:51 +0300 (EEST), Marko Perälä > wrote: > > > This seems rather funny to me. Who said conditions are only about users? > > I give up: who? It wasn't me. > > Conditions determine (amongst other things) *when* enchantments may be cast, > and they can optionally restrict *who* can make the enchantment; what they > *can't* do is specify that some non-existent non-entity cast the spell on > your behalf. As I said: enchantments don't cast spells, users cast spells. > The enchantments just help you narrow down who those users can and can't be. > > If you need a reference, it's called "Runequest, 3rd edition rules" -- the > chapter on Ritual Magic. *************************************************************************** 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, 06 May 2001 07:29:04 -0700 From: Brad Furst Subject: [RQ-RULES] Re: Overlapping Spells >Apply Damage Resist first, then Protection. Brad, that's explicitly stated >in the "Damage Resist" spell description! I see it now that I am at home with my books. > >Would you adjust your answers to the above if the spells had been > >cast in a different sequence? > >No. Sandy Petersen told me many years ago that, generally speaking, the >sequence of spell casting has no affect on the outcome. Sandy must have changed that when he published his sorcery revision. There he explicitly states that such protections are check in sequence of last cast to first cast. That is they are layered with the first cast inside, and each subsequent layered outside all cast before it. ____ Brad *************************************************************************** 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, 07 May 2001 11:37:14 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments On Sat, 13 May 2000 00:04:39 +0800, Jeremy Martin wrote: >My understanding also was that you could Enchant an area to do something on your >behalf. Maybe triggered on someone walking into a room a loud screaming will >start up. > >That would be a Phantom Sense Enchanted into an area with a MP storing matrix, >with a trigger condition that when a person walks in, the spell will be cast >with a pre-determined sound. > >Your comments would preclude that. Do you feel that the enchantment I described >is impossible? If not, how would you do it? Yes, it's impossible with the RQ3 rules as written. People seem to be confusing *conditions* with the actual *enchantments*. Look at the list of enchantments: it's very short! Armour, Bind Species, Magic Point Matrix, Spell Matrix, Strength. That's it! Spell Matrix Enchantment provides the *spell*, but it doesn't provide the *casting* of the spell. That requires a user. If you want a spell cast "automatically", you have to bind a spirit (or something) into the Enchantment and command it appropriately. (Or, invent a rule for a new type of Enchantment. Borrowing a term from DragonQuest, I'd call it *Investment*: the act of placing a pre-cast spell into an object. Link it to a Magic Point Matrix and you can set up an item with a "fixed" number of "charges".) - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I sure hope he said 'peanuts'." 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: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:39:38 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Re: Overlapping Spells On Sun, 06 May 2001 07:29:04 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >Sandy must have changed that when he published his sorcery revision. There >he explicitly states that such protections are check in sequence of last >cast to first cast. That is they are layered with the first cast inside, >and each subsequent layered outside all cast before it. Fair enough, but I think I prefer my "toughest spell gets checked first" routine. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I sure hope he said 'peanuts'." 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: 07 May 2001 10:59:08 +0200 From: Alain RAMEAU Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ to HW What do you call a "decent" skill, i.e what percentage range ? I think any skill that would entitle a HW 13 level (starting level for most abilities) could be eligible ? I am not sure HW 13 convert automatically to 65%, but I guess this is the range ? Alain. - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 16:35:50 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: [RQ-RULES] RQ to HQ conversion This is a general posting for the players in my RQ game that I am cross-posting to RQ rules FYI. It represents about 5 HW sessions and a through reading of the first two books. If you don't like it, delete it, it's not for everyone... [...] I started the conversion by listing all of the abilities for the keywords that seemed to fit his current status: Heortling - Humakti - Warrior - Warband Leader. I tried to match this list to all of his current skills and converted the skills by dividing by three. If Hero Wars gave him an ability he hasn't studied, then I set it to 12. If he had a decent skill that wasn't represented, then I added a Hero Wars type ability for it. This gave him a fairly large ability list compared to our other Hero Wars characters, but not beyond believability for a long term character. *************************************************************************** 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, 7 May 2001 12:12:19 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: RE: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments > Conditions determine (amongst other things) *when* > enchantments may be cast, and they can optionally > restrict *who* can make the enchantment; what they > *can't* do is specify that some non-existent non- > entity cast the spell on your behalf. Then we should all read it more carefully. Right now I agree that a triggering condition can cast a spell whether a person is there or not, and I believe the rules support that. 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 #47 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.