From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #49 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 Tuesday, May 8 2001 Volume 04 : Number 049 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments [RQ-RULES] Attack Condition [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells Re: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn Re: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells Re: [RQ-RULES] Attack Condition Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn Re: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells 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, 7 May 2001 23:17:09 -0700 From: sneadj@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Linked Enchantments Bruce Probst wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2001 17:18:31 -0400, Andrew Barton > wrote: > > >'Attack Conditions: An attack condition added to a spell causes it to > >be cast when a target defined by additional target conditions > >violates the space or touches the item'. > > > >On the face of it, an Attack Condition causes the spell to be cast > >automatically by the enchantment itself. There is the problem of > >working out the resistance roll - when needed I've taken it to be > >equal to the total POW expended in the enchantment. > > Actually, all the rule says is that the spell is cast. It doesn't say > who or what is casting it. It's a *long* extrapolation to assume that > it's the "enchantment casting automatically" from that one reference. > > >I can't find any explicit statement of what you say in that chapter. > > It's what it doesn't say that proves my point. > > >'A place can also be Enchanted. Perhaps intruders will trip > >activation of one or more spells ...' > > And these spells are cast by ...? > > Let's put it this way: *your* assumption requires that the rules fail > to detail exactly how a non-sentient enchantment can cast spells, what > percentage chances apply, etc. *My* assumption requires that the > rules don't permit it at all, and thus don't need any additional rules > defining exactly how it's not permitted. > > I stand by my comments. As the rules are worded, if you want > something to be cast "automatically", you need to provide the *caster* > as well as everything else *in the enchantment* -- i.e., a bound > spirit, or some reasonable equivalent. Except that I would definitely expect the rules to then state that an Attack Condition is useless and unusable unless a bound spirit is incorporated in with it. In the absence of such a statement, all it sounds like you need is a Magic Point Matrix or some other source of MPs. - -John Snead sneadj@mindspring.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: Tue, 8 May 2001 10:33:33 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Attack Condition >>On the face of it, an Attack Condition causes the spell to be cast >>automatically by the enchantment itself. There is the problem of working >>out the resistance roll - when needed I've taken it to be equal to the >>total POW expended in the enchantment. > Actually, all the rule says is that the spell is cast. It doesn't say who > or what is casting it. It's a *long* extrapolation to assume that it's the > "enchantment casting automatically" from that one reference. Let me see if I understand this. The wording is 'causes it to be cast'. How do you interpret this? If I'm carrying an item with such a condition, say the bow with a Firearrow matrix mentioned earlier, does it make -me- cast the spell? If there's a spirit bound into the same enchantment, can it be made to cast an Enchantment? 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, 8 May 2001 10:33:29 -0400 From: Andrew Barton Subject: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells > Your argument logically concludes > that you can never combine the results of two different types of magic, > which is flatly contradicted by numerous examples to the contrary within the > rules themselves. "Protection" and "Damage Resistance" is just the most > obvious example; there are plenty of others. Quote me a couple of others, please? I agree that my suggested approach is a stretch. Any suggestion as to what the 'Combined spells' rule -does- mean? For one thing, it talks about 'incompatible' spells, but there is almost no mention of incompatibility elsewhere in the rules (the one in the definition of Protection may be an editing error - it's not mentioned in the description of any of the spells Protection is supposed to be incompatible with). 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, 08 May 2001 11:05:38 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells > > ... argument logically concludes > > that you can never combine the results of two different types of > magic, As a house rule we have always played that Divine spells are stackable with Spirit and/or Sorcery spells. Spirit and Sorcery spells are combined to the level of the higher spell (Blade Sharp 2 + Dam Boost 4 = +10% to hit +4 damage). We have also disregarded the Errata and made Protection not compadible with Shimmer or Counter Magic and Shield not compadable with Spirit Block. Leon Kirshtein ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:09:04 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn How about some feed back on this sorcery spell: Soul Burn High Sorcery, Hard, Instant, Touch This spell wounds the targets power(POW) by burning away her soul. If POW is overcomed (POW vs POW) the targets POW(not just the magic points!) is decreased by 1d3 for each 3 points of intensity in this spell with a minimum of 1. Example: Int 1 POW loss 1 Int 2 POW loss 1 Int 3 POW loss 1d3 Int 4 POW loss 1d3+1 Int 5 POW loss 1d3+1 Int 6 POW loss 2d3 and so on. Lost power returns at a rate of 1 per day, unless healed by some special means (Chalana Arroys 'Heal Soul' ability/skill from Snakepipe Hollow for example.) Leon Kirshtein ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 09 May 2001 01:09:47 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells On Tue, 8 May 2001 10:33:29 -0400, Andrew Barton wrote: >Any suggestion as to what the 'Combined spells' rule -does- mean? You need *more*? - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I never thought the Apocalypse would be so annoying." 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, 09 May 2001 01:11:52 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Attack Condition On Tue, 8 May 2001 10:33:33 -0400, Andrew Barton wrote: >The wording is 'causes it to be cast'. How do you interpret this? I haven't thought about it. I don't really care. Play it any damn way you want to. All I know is the rules don't support "auto-spells". "Which part of 'house rule' was unclear?" - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I never thought the Apocalypse would be so annoying." 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, 09 May 2001 01:46:40 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn On Tue, 08 May 2001 11:09:04 -0400, "Leon B Kirshtein" wrote: >How about some feed back on this sorcery spell: > >Soul Burn >High Sorcery, Hard, Instant, Touch > >This spell wounds the targets power(POW) by burning away her soul. If >POW is overcomed (POW vs POW) the targets POW(not just the magic points!) >is decreased by 1d3 for each 3 points of intensity in this spell with >a minimum of 1. > >Example: > >Int 1 POW loss 1 >Int 2 POW loss 1 >Int 3 POW loss 1d3 >Int 4 POW loss 1d3+1 >Int 5 POW loss 1d3+1 >Int 6 POW loss 2d3 >and so on. > >Lost power returns at a rate of 1 per day, unless healed by some special >means (Chalana Arroys 'Heal Soul' ability/skill from Snakepipe Hollow >for example.) I don't quite understand the rationale of a spell that on the one hand is so powerful that it can destroy you (not just kill you) at a high enough level of intensity ... but on the other hand its effects are healed very quickly. Are there any other examples of "POW-destroying" spells in the published works? There are lots of spells that can kill an individual in various gruesome ways, but that's *all* they do -- kill you. Your spirit remains basically intact. If this is for a Gloranthan game, this spell would, by its very nature, be Chaotic, and I would rule that casting it means the caster acquires a Chaos Taint, and thus possibly Chaotic Features (or turn into a broo, or both). - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I never thought the Apocalypse would be so annoying." 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, 08 May 2001 12:05:11 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn > I don't quite understand the rationale of a spell that on the one hand > is so > powerful that it can destroy you (not just kill you) at a high enough > level > of intensity ... but on the other hand its effects are healed very > quickly. I never meant this spell to kill, reducing to 0 POW should just knock out a person for a day. Leon Kirshtein ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 May 2001 12:13:32 -0400 From: Robert Stancliff Subject: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells > Any suggestion as to what the 'Combined spells' rule -does- > mean? For one thing, it talks about 'incompatible' spells, > but there is almost no mention of incompatibility elsewhere > in the rules (the one in the definition of Protection may be > an editing error - it's not mentioned in the description of > any of the spells Protection is supposed to be incompatible > with). Andrew The combined spells rule deals almost entirely with 'stacking' two instances of the same spell to add their intensities into a stronger spell. Any spell is 'incompatible' with itself. If a spell is cast twice, the larger intensity replaces the lower one, they don't co-exist. I think the first spell wins if they are equal. Speedart, Multi-missile, and Fire Arrow are incompatible. You can never have more than one of these on one arrow. If they had tried just a little bit, this wouldn't have been a problem. If an archer can afford the 3 MP he should be allowed to have Speedart and Fire Arrow (3d6+3 and +15% to hit). You get an arrow that can often penetrate iron plate, but at a high MP and casting time cost, otherwise arrows quickly become ineffective. Combining with Multi-Missile is no problem either. The other spells only affect the first shot, not the magical copies. Frankly, Multi-missile has never been effective enough to justify the cost. If is so rare that you fight a foe with only 3 or 4 AP. In RQ2 Protection, Spirit Screen, and Counter Magic were incompatible, but not in RQ3. When RQ3 was published Protection, Shield, and Resist Damage were incompatible, but the RQ3 errata removed this restriction. It was basically an editing error. Another interesting errata was to reword Multi-spell to the version printed in "Dorastor: Land of Doom". IIRC The original version saved time while the newer version saved MP. I like both versions in different situations since they both have their uses. Contrary to some opinions, Bladesharp, Damage Boost, and Truesword are not the same spell affect even though they all increase weapon damage. There is a valid argument for making all of the styles of magic completely incompatible to allow them to hold parity with each other, and that would work, but it is my opinion that the capability of using multiple styles simultaneously was allowed specifically to reflect the easing of cultural biases going into the Hero Wars period. Didn't the Argrath sagas refer to his creating a new troop organization that allowed his forces to work together to fight the lunar magics? I don't think that this was just referring to mixed cavalry and infantry, I think it referred to combining spirit and divine magic, and possibly sorcery as well. 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: Tue, 8 May 2001 09:27:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn On Tue, 8 May 2001, Leon B Kirshtein wrote: > I never meant this spell to kill, reducing to 0 POW should just knock > out a person for a day. Oh, it destroys what RQ3 calls Magic Points then, not permanent characteristic POW. *************************************************************************** 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, 09 May 2001 02:21:29 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn On Tue, 08 May 2001 12:05:11 -0400, "Leon B Kirshtein" wrote: >I never meant this spell to kill, reducing to 0 POW should just knock >out a person for a day. OK -- in that case remove all references to "reducing POW", reword to say that it drains MPs, but the MPs only recover at one per day (or whatever). - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "I never thought the Apocalypse would be so annoying." 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, 08 May 2001 13:14:21 -0400 From: "Leon B Kirshtein" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] New Sorcery Spell - Soul Burn - ---- Bruce Probst wrote: > >I never meant this spell to kill, reducing to 0 POW should just knock > >out a person for a day. > > OK -- in that case remove all references to "reducing POW", reword > to say > that it drains MPs, but the MPs only recover at one per day (or whatever). No. I actually want it to reduce POW not magic points. By reducing the POW it will make the target less resistant to other spells and will also make it harder for her to cast spells (spirit in particular) as well, and it would reduce MP. Leon Kirshtein ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 8 May 2001 13:28:05 EDT From: SPerrin@aol.com Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Combined Spells - --part1_bd.e46631d.282986a5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/8/2001 8:25:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, leonbk@zdnetmail.com writes: > As a house rule we have always played that Divine spells are stackable > with Spirit and/or Sorcery spells. Spirit and Sorcery spells are combined > to the level of the higher spell (Blade Sharp 2 + Dam Boost 4 = +10% > to hit +4 damage). We have also disregarded the Errata and made Protection > not compadible with Shimmer or Counter Magic and Shield not compadable > with Spirit Block. > For what it's worth, I tend to think of Spirit Magic as Sorcery that has become so routine that it is cast as a "set" and doesn't cost as much mana to cast. Sort of like the difference between buying a Compaq computer off the shelf or buying all the components off the Internet and assembling it yourself. Others have said that they like the idea of the three spell systems consisting of spells unique to the systems. I have tried (in the very few hours I spend on the system at all) to standardize the effects so I can get a better handle on appropriate mana costs and power levels for the different systems to better determine whether spells should be compatible, how effective Shield should be, etc. Others might call this too number-oriented, but my many years of playing the Hero System has probably warped me. Steve Perrin, who also wants to codify the spell numbers so as to create new magic systems that are compatible with the old. - --part1_bd.e46631d.282986a5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/8/2001 8:25:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
leonbk@zdnetmail.com writes:


As a house rule we have always played that Divine spells are stackable
with Spirit and/or Sorcery spells.  Spirit and Sorcery spells are combined
to the level of the higher spell (Blade Sharp 2 + Dam Boost 4 = +10%
to hit +4 damage). We have also disregarded the Errata and made Protection
not compadible with Shimmer or Counter Magic and Shield not compadable
with Spirit Block.


For what it's worth, I tend to think of Spirit Magic as Sorcery that has
become so routine that it is cast as a "set" and doesn't cost as much mana to
cast. Sort of like the difference between buying a Compaq computer off the
shelf or buying all the components off the Internet and assembling it
yourself. Others have said that they like the idea of the three spell systems
consisting of spells unique to the systems.

I have tried (in the very few hours I spend on the system at all) to
standardize the effects so I can get a better handle on appropriate mana
costs and power levels for the different systems to better determine whether
spells should be compatible, how effective Shield should be, etc. Others
might call this too number-oriented, but my many years of playing the Hero
System has probably warped me.

Steve Perrin, who also wants to codify the spell numbers so as to create new
magic systems that are compatible with the old. - --part1_bd.e46631d.282986a5_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 #49 ************************************ *************************************************************************** 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.