From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 01:34:36 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 06:34:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Distemper Message-ID: <20051130143436.40731.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dullblade only requires a resistence roll if the target weapon contains a spirit. I believe unattuned iron still does double damage to elves and trolls. At least we always played it that way. BTW, we have always played that unattuned gold would also double Light spells. I would rule that unattuned lead scimitar would do 1d6 damage and be a crushing weapon. It would also take damage if used as such. Lead and silver weapons and armor should have at most 1/3 the armor points of bronze. These metals are just too soft to offer any meaningfull protection while unattuned. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Clive Wickens: > > > I'll openly admit I'm crap at writing spells, the following is a sorcery > > idea I've been mulling over recently. > > Not that crap after all. > > > DISTEMPER > > > > Ranged, passive. > > > > > > > > This spell is cast on objects forged of rune metals. Intensity must equal > > the ENC of the object to be affected. For the duration of the spell any > > special properties that the forged rune metal status bestows are negated, > > and the object is considered to be in it's raw state > > Nikk Effingham: > > Good stuff. Do you think that it requires a magic points veruss magic > > points? A > > resistance roll if cast on, say, a weapon someone is wielding? I'd suggest > > not > > (mainly because the effect of the spell isn't that powerful). > > It is probably as powerful as, say, Dullblade which requires a Magic > Resistance roll. > > Leon Kirshtein: > > > I have a problem with this spell and I do consider it > > very powerful. Imagine someone casting it on an > > attuned alluminium shield. > > > > For a few magic points, the shield is now not only > > useless for the combat, but easily destroyed since its > > armor points are negligable. Cast on iron it has an > > effect of lowering the chance of any spell being cast > > by the target. And, what happens to a lead scimitar? > > > > It took POW to enchant these things, there should > > definently be some sort of a resistance roll involved > > and I would consider making this spell substance > > specific such as Distemper Silver, Distemper Iron, and > > so on. > > Since the spell's effects are not permanent, and presumably can be dispelled > anyway, I don't think this is too powerful at all. > > In the examples, an aluminium shield would have reduced APs and its ENC would > count underwater, but apart from that the shield is still usable. > > Unenchanted Iron does reduce the chance of casting spells, but not by much, > so I wouldn't think this is too much of a game-breaker. It would also > increase the ENC of the Iron (if you use the RQ2-ish interpretation). > > I like the idea of having metal-specific versions of the spell. It makes it > slightly less powerful and slightly more Gloranthan. > > Clive Wickens: > > > This was why I asked for help. For some metals eg gold > > the effects are minor, ie: no 'glow', no double bonus > > for light spells. Others are more drastic - iron I don't > > have a problem with, it's precisely what I had in mind > > when thinking about it, but as Leon points out the > > problem comes when you're dealing with possible > > permanent effects. A silver or aluminium object > > would be rendered soft as putty, and thus easily > > breakable with the result the enchantment would > > be broken. Unfortunately the Genertala secrets > > book isn't very forthcoming about the strength or > > durability of metals in their raw state. > > I wouldn't say as soft as putty, they would probably only have half the APs > of bronze. > > > Does the fact something gains as many armour > > points as Bronze mean that it can take an edge > > like bronze ? Just because it's as strong as Bronze === Message Truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Thu Dec 1 02:31:08 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:31:08 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <1133364668.a55db7e9e0c3a@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> I've also played that dullblade requires no resistance roll, and would be tempted to do the same here. Considering the points raised, it seems sensible to limit the spell to affect only one type of metal (as already suggested). Simon is right that your aluminium shield will get bashed in, but I'm tempted to say 'tough' : ) That's just an upside of the spell, we can mangle your nicely enchanted ceremonial armour and weapons. This is no problem for iron, and whilst you lose the extra armour points and get the penalty to magic this is not a big problem in my eyes - iron is so amazing normally that the fact that Distempered iron would be a bugger to deal with is no problem just as long as Distemper is a rare spell (which is fine). So only every now and again would Distempered get cast on your PCs. As for your PCs casting it on the enemy, make sure getting that spell is tricky (and it'd also take a while to affect the iron plate, say, that'd be a pretty high intensity to knock off). So it's not a big deal if you take the pain after the sorceror has spent two or three full rounds casting a spell that affects all my armour so I take the iron penalty to magic and lose the armour points bonus. Again, I'm tempted to say 'ditto' for cults which use other metals, although I must admit IMG all cults use iron whenever they can so an enchanted tin shield getting the crap beaten out of it would be rare anyhow. The problem would be lead, at least for me. Lead is commonly used (by trolls at least) and is mushy and pliable when unenchanted. Given that I'd be tempeted to say that Distemper only eliminates 'special features' and not the strengthening that makes it as strong as lead. At worst, this is a bit ad hoc. But it's magic. Magic can be ad hoc if you want it to. Nikk From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Dec 1 21:37:49 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:37:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: after the end/Question about sorcery In-Reply-To: <20051128103049.C313A1C3F63@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051201103749.18592.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Steve Perrin: > > It is interesting that AH were slagged off for bringing out the RQ2 stuff > > again for RQ3, but Rick Meintz is lauded for bringing out reprints of the > > RQ2 > > material. > > It has been a good many more years since the material was first published. > Rick is doing a very nice service. Thank you, Rick. Don't get me wrong, I think the Gloranthan Classics are, by far, the best Gloranthan material that has been published in many a year, which itself is a comment on the state of Glorantha. (Possibly the Dragon Pass book is the only product to even come close) It is just interesting to see what a difference 20 years makes. Steve Davies: > Thanks to all for the spirited responses to my "which > edition is it" question! In case anyone's curious, my > copy appears to be first edition. > > I've been using RQIII to run for a while, but wanted > Walktapi to throw at a party that had stranded itself > on an island. So I pulled down my original book, then > started wondering which edition it was. The web > references I found were difficult to pin down exactly, > so this list was invaluable. Thanks. Aren't waltapi in RQ3, then? I thought they were. Maybe they are in the Gloranthan Bestiary. They're jolly good fun, though. I used a Scorpion-Walktapus in Glorantha, notable for having exactly 20 hit locations, loads of attacks and a useful regeneration ability. Phil Hibbs: > Clive Wickens: > >Now what happens if the person with the sword heads off > >on a round the world trip leaving the sorcerer behind ? > > >Here's the big question: this would also apply to > >spells with a negative or unwanted effect as well ? > > I raised this question with Sandy, and one idea that I suggested was that > some spells should have their range measured from the caster (and so drop > when the spell target goes out of range), and other spells should have > their > range measured from the target, so the effect goes with them when they > travel. Another idea would be for active spells (such as dominate) to > become > passive (and therefore their effects be suppressed) when they go out of > range, and passive spells (such as damage boosting) should just keep on > working. Looking at other types of magic, not just sorcery, for comparison, if you cast Bladesharp on a sword and give it to someone who runs out of range, the Bladesharp definitely does not go down. If you cast demoralise on someone who runs away out of range, the demoralise again does not go down. So, generally, the Range is the casting range. However, I can see the argument for Active spells needing to stay within range for the active component to work. > If you dominate a creature with a range of 100m, you should not be able to > instruct it to go to another city and kill someone. I awlays played Dominate as an active spell, perhaps it really is, so if the sorcerer lost concentration then he lost control. He couldn't just say "go off and kill someone", he had to make the person go to a town, make him find the person and then make him kill the person. As this could take a while, long-duration Dominates are very difficult to maintain. > As to whether you could use spells as a form of communicaton is another > matter - "I'll cast a one point spell on this stick, you dispel it if you > need me to come and help you", for instance. Does the caster immediately > know that a point of presence has been freed up? I don't think so, not > instantly anyway. Now, this one is trickier. I don't use Sandy's sorcery rules, so I am not sure how things are freed up, anyway, but the same principle applies to the Spell Trading spell. If someone trades for one of my spells and agrees that he will cast it only when he needs my help, then I would know when he has cast it, because the spell explicitly says I do (I think). Even if it doesn't, if I know he might need me for a week or so, then I can try to repray the spell every day and see if it comes back, if so then I hightail it down to him. The same principle probably applies to Sorcery. If I can use the Presence to cast another spell then I know the spell has been dispelled. > Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham Rotherham? So, you're not in Water Orton any more, then? See Ya Simon From murfnmurf at suscom.net Thu Dec 1 23:53:17 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:53:17 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: <8C78B350B4046E3-1638-78BA@MBLK-M07.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C78B350B4046E3-1638-78BA@MBLK-M07.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Hi gang, Still working, off-n-on, on my version of the RQ Bestiary. Anyhow, I'm working on stats for a particular creature, and I need it to have a SIZ ranging from 30-45, with 42 being the average. Only problem is, *I* can't seem to figure out what combination of dice are required to generate this range. Any ideas/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. -Ken Murphy- From tom.zunder at gmail.com Fri Dec 2 00:07:49 2005 From: tom.zunder at gmail.com (Thomas) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:07:49 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: References: <8C78B350B4046E3-1638-78BA@MBLK-M07.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <438EF5A5.7070604@zunder.org.uk> murfnmurf at suscom.net wrote: > Hi gang, > Still working, off-n-on, on my version of the RQ Bestiary. Anyhow, > I'm working on stats for a particular creature, and I need it to have > a SIZ ranging from 30-45, with 42 being the average. You can't unless you do some very odd dice combos. 2d6+35? 37-47 average 42 sharp distribution 3d6+31? 34-49 average 42 bell curve we all know and .. know 2d8+33? 35-49 average 42 sharp distribution How sharp do you want the distribution curve? Does it have to be 30-45? Can it not be different? If it must be so then experiment with different die types, but this is very non usual for RQ. The average of a die is number of sides divided by two, plus half. So d4=2+.5=2.5 and d10=5+.5=5.5. If you are looking at a single die you can round up, and say d10 is averaging 6 (it's not but hey), with multiple die add the averages together, 2d6=3.5+3.5=7. If you play with the die you might find a 30-45 with average 42, but it's too short a life to bother if it really doesn't matter. I realise that you probably know all this and I am teaching grandmother to suck eggs, but what the hell, it's this or work! From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Dec 2 01:04:11 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:04:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201140411.43953.qmail@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Range is 15, average is 12. I think that's your problem ;-) I'd recommend increase the adult range of the creature from 36-48 and have an average of 43. Use 2d6+34. Conversely reduce the average stat to about 38 and have a wider range, say 30-48. 2d10+28. HTH Lev --- murfnmurf at suscom.net wrote: > Hi gang, > Still working, off-n-on, on my version of the RQ > > Bestiary. Anyhow, I'm working on stats for a > particular > creature, and I need it to have a SIZ ranging from > 30-45, > with 42 being the average. > Only problem is, *I* can't seem to figure out > what > combination of dice are required to generate this > range. > Any ideas/suggestions would be appreciated. > Thanks. > -Ken Murphy- > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com From aluban at yahoo.fr Fri Dec 2 03:32:25 2005 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:32:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Rq-rules] Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201163225.87927.qmail@web26212.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> What about this : -Roll 1d10 : 1 : SIZ = 2d3+28 2 : SIZ = 1d3+36 3 : SIZ = 1d3+39 4-10 : SIZ = 1d3+42 Average = 32+38+41+(7*44)/10 = 41.9 murfnmurf at suscom.net a ?crit : Hi gang, Still working, off-n-on, on my version of the RQ Bestiary. Anyhow, I'm working on stats for a particular creature, and I need it to have a SIZ ranging from 30-45, with 42 being the average. Only problem is, *I* can't seem to figure out what combination of dice are required to generate this range. Any ideas/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. -Ken Murphy- _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --------------------------------- Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger T?l?chargez le ici ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051201/c9545cd4/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Dec 2 03:59:36 2005 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:59:36 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: <20051201163225.87927.qmail@web26212.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20051201163225.87927.qmail@web26212.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <438F2BF8.4030203@zunder.org.uk> Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > What about this : > > -Roll 1d10 : > ..... What Gallic cunning! :-) From murfnmurf at suscom.net Fri Dec 2 07:15:26 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:15:26 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: <438EF5A5.7070604@zunder.org.uk> References: <8C78B350B4046E3-1638-78BA@MBLK-M07.sysops.aol.com> <438EF5A5.7070604@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: You can't unless you do some very odd dice combos. Hmmmm, I was *afraid* something like that might happen. Oh,but reality can be awfully *pesky*... :) Guess I'll just have to alter the range (oh heck!) to get something a bit more dice-friendly. Thanks everyone for the suggestions, however :) -Ken- From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Dec 2 18:52:55 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:52:55 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fatiguerules for carrying and running contests Message-ID: I have the Coliseum-supplement to RQ, and there they present some cool "Ben Hur" chariot-race-rules for horses pulling chariots. I really like overly detailed though REALISTIC rules, so I fell for this game completely ...exept for the fact that I didn't think the rules were playtested well enough; I somehow thought that there were not enough fatigue on other creatures for the rules (they seemed to be meant for 3-4 beasts in order to have enough FP (the "fuel" in the rules) to use it properly. I've made my own house-rules, of course, but now I'm kind of fed up with those as well.... So before I start revizing my revizing of the "official" RQ advanced rules for FP-rules for carrying and running contest; do any of you lot sit on some rules for this that you are pleased with, and do you bother to post them here/link to somewhere where you have them written down? From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Dec 2 23:45:36 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:45:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: <20051201140423.21F4A1DCEDE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051202124536.2755.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Leon Kirshtein: > Dullblade only requires a resistence roll if the > target weapon contains a spirit. Does it? I can't remember. We always played that any spell cast on an opponent, whether his weapons, armour or himself, had to overcome POW, MPs or whatever. If there was a spirit in the weapon, the roll had to overcome the spirit, otherwise the person. > I believe unattuned iron still does double damage to > elves and trolls. At least we always played it that > way. BTW, we have always played that unattuned gold > would also double Light spells. Fair enough, then, that makes sense. > I would rule that unattuned lead scimitar would do 1d6 > damage and be a crushing weapon. It would also take > damage if used as such. Lead and silver weapons and > armor should have at most 1/3 the armor points of > bronze. These metals are just too soft to offer any > meaningfull protection while unattuned. Which, if you use the RQ2 crushing rules, is a distinct advantage for big creatures. Do they get +2 for being lead crushing weapons? I can't really see who, in their right mind, would use a lead scimitar, anyway. Lunars would use silver ones, fair enough, Lunar trolls might want a lead one but would prefer a silver one, non-Lunar trolls have big, heavy smashing things and don;t need scimitars. Nikk Effingham: > Simon is right that your aluminium shield will get bashed in, but I'm > tempted to > say 'tough' : ) That's just an upside of the spell, we can mangle your > nicely > enchanted ceremonial armour and weapons. This is no problem for iron, and > whilst you lose the extra armour points and get the penalty to magic this > is > not a big problem in my eyes - iron is so amazing normally that the fact > that > Distempered iron would be a bugger to deal with is no problem just as long > as > Distemper is a rare spell (which is fine). So only every now and again > would > Distempered get cast on your PCs. As for your PCs casting it on the enemy, > make > sure getting that spell is tricky (and it'd also take a while to affect the > iron plate, say, that'd be a pretty high intensity to knock off). So it's > not a > big deal if you take the pain after the sorceror has spent two or three > full > rounds casting a spell that affects all my armour so I take the iron > penalty to > magic and lose the armour points bonus. Again, I'm tempted to say 'ditto' > for > cults which use other metals, although I must admit IMG all cults use iron > whenever they can so an enchanted tin shield getting the crap beaten out of > it > would be rare anyhow. Or even Leon, as it was his idea in the first place. I would agree that it is tough, that't what magic does. Also, the spell has a duration, so the powers come back eventually, anyway. In RQ2, Iron had half the ENC of bronze, something that is missing in RQ3. That would be funny - armour that reduces in APs and gets heavier. > The problem would be lead, at least for me. Lead is commonly used (by > trolls at > least) and is mushy and pliable when unenchanted. Given that I'd be > tempeted to > say that Distemper only eliminates 'special features' and not the > strengthening > that makes it as strong as lead. At worst, this is a bit ad hoc. But it's > magic. Magic can be ad hoc if you want it to. Maybe, but I would say that for the duration it negates the Enchant (Metal) effects, all of them. If it makes your lead maul all soft and droopy then tough, it's a problem that happens now and again. Ken Murphy: > Still working, off-n-on, on my version of the RQ > Bestiary. Anyhow, I'm working on stats for a particular > creature, and I need it to have a SIZ ranging from 30-45, > with 42 being the average. 30-45 with an average of 42? That means that most of them will have a higher SIZ than 42 and only a few will have lower SIZ than 42. This is very unusual. What is the creature in question and why does it have such an unusual SIZ distribution? If you want some of them to be big and some of them to be small, then why not have two breeds, one with a larger SIZ and one with a smaller SIZ? Thomas: > You can't unless you do some very odd dice combos. > > 2d6+35? 37-47 average 42 sharp distribution > 3d6+31? 34-49 average 42 bell curve we all know and .. know > 2d8+33? 35-49 average 42 sharp distribution I have never used any other dice than D6s to generate stats since I used some Stormbringer critters back in ther mid-80s. I even use D6s for RQ2 creatures that use D4s. It makes things a lot easier. > I realise that you probably know all this and I am teaching grandmother > to suck eggs, but what the hell, it's this or work! Funny that, I arrived late, will finish at 3pm and am replying to RQ emails. Just don't put it on my CV :-) See Ya Simon From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Sat Dec 3 01:04:11 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:04:11 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Distemper In-Reply-To: <20051202124536.2755.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051202124536.2755.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1133532251.75f5dbec024ed@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Simon: >Maybe, but I would say that for the duration it negates the Enchant (Metal) >effects, all of them. If it makes your lead maul all soft and droopy then >tough, it's a problem that happens now and again. Maybe. I'm worried more about the demographics of the thing. For instance, if you have Distemper Iron then your iron armour will survive the battle and it won't prove too fatal. So Distemper Iron wouldn't be too powerful IMO. Things like Distemper Tin, Quicksilver, Silver etc... are less of a worry. If my PCs had such items they are only rarely going to bump into enemies who will have the Distemper spell to use on them, so whilst their weapons will go soft and droopy every now and again this is no game breaking problem. The reverse is also okay; if the PCs got hold of it they will only rarely bump into villains and antagonists who will be overly victimised by the spell. But not with lead. I'm just thinking my own games perspective, mind you, but they're a bunch of sorcery users who fight trolls on a daily basis. So as soon as Distemper Lead fell into their hands then (if you didn't use a resistance roll, which is what I'd be tempeted to do) they'd be able to run amok making lead weapons all droopy and really putting a crimp on a Death Lords day. But then again, what are the game effects of using unenchanted lead weaponary? If they're not that severe (are there any such rules in print) this would be no great problem. Nikk From murfnmurf at suscom.net Sat Dec 3 08:48:47 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:48:47 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: <20051202124536.2755.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051202124536.2755.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Simon writes: 30-45 with an average of 42? That means that most of them will have a higher SIZ than 42 and only a few will have lower SIZ than 42. This is very unusual. What is the creature in question and why does it have such an unusual SIZ distribution? If you want some of them to be big and some of them to be small, then why not have two breeds, one with a larger SIZ and one with a smaller SIZ? Well, I saw a giant bison's skull at the Natural History Museum, and was suitably impressed, so I did a lil' reading online to find out about the things. Well, I worked up some stats for them based on information I found online, as well as using the stats for the bison I found listed *somewhere* (Drastic Prax, Glorantha Bestiary, or maybe a late issue of Tales of the Reaching Moon?) and, seeing where female bison are some percentage smaller than the male bison, I worked backwards from my newly-figured giant bison's stats to arrive at stats for the female giant bison, which worked out to have a SIZ (and STR) that ranged from 30-45, with an average of 42 :) Seeing where it was *impossible* to really work up that SIZ range, I settled for a slightly different, and thus *easier* to roll SIZ. You'll note that the giant bison uses dice different than D6s to roll some stats. While I prefer to roll them on D6s, sometimes I can't get the range that I want, and so, have to roll different types. It does fly a bit in the face of RQ's traditional use of D6s for stats, but hey, some of the bigger creatures in the RQ3 Creature Book use D10s, so I don't feel all that bad deviating a bit :) Enjoy. And of course feedback is always welcome. Best. -Ken- Standard Bison (perhaps book standard, but most likely not) STR 3D6+30 40-41 Move 10 CON 3D6+9 19-20 HP 31 SIZ 3D6+30 40-41 Ftg 61 INT 4 4 POW 3D6 10-11 DEX 2D6 7 Butt 7 50+1 2D6+4D3 Charge 7 50+1 2D6+4D6 Trample 7 75 8D6 to downed foe Jump 60-24, Swim 60-24, Listen 40, Scan 40, Scent 60. AP 6-point shaggy fur and tough hide. Female bison have SIZ & STR of 3D6+23 Giant Bison STR 2D8+36 45 Move 10 CON 3D6+9 22-23 HP 34 SIZ 2D8+36 45 Ftg 68 INT 4 4 POW 3D6 10-11 DEX 2D6 7 Butt 7 50+1 2D6+4D3 Charge 7 50+1 2D6+2+4D6 Trample 7 75 8D6 to downed foe Jump 60-28, Swim 60-28, Listen 40+2, Scan 40+2, Scent 60+2. AP 8-point shaggy fur and tough hide. Female giant bison have SIZ & STR of 3D8+28 From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Dec 3 11:18:23 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:18:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Fatiguerules for carrying and running contests Message-ID: <3024094.1133569103902.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen Sent: Dec 2, 2005 1:52 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Fatiguerules for carrying and running contests So before I start revizing my revizing of the "official" RQ advanced rules for FP-rules for carrying and running contest; do any of you lot sit on some rules for this that you are pleased with, and do you bother to post them here/link to somewhere where you have them written down? _______________________________________________ Well..I found a set of rules on the web (see below) which I've been using from a 3-year campaign now and they've worked well for me. Keep in mind I didn't draft these rules at all. The really bad news is I can't remember where I grabbed them from. Otherwise, I'd just send you all the hyperlink to the page. If anyone happens to recognize the rules and can tell me who authored them, please do so! By the way, I modified the example slightly to make it more meaningful for my players. Also, there's a mention of the skills "Marching" and "Running"; I don't have copies of the definitions. ---------------Rules Begin------------------- Characters are always in some state of fatigue (which includes ???none???) and may suffer penalties from that state. FATIGUE STATES and PENALTIES Normal: The character is not fatigued. The fatigue status a character will normally start with. Tired: Add 5 to all percentile rolls made by the character (assuming a low result is desired, otherwise subtract 5). Weary: Add 10 to all percentile rolls made by the character (assuming a low result is desired, otherwise subtract 10). Exhausted: Divide the character's skills in half and add 20 to all percentile rolls made by the character (assuming a low result is desired, otherwise subtract 20). Incapacitated: The character can only act on a CONx1 roll (in which case he or she should be treated as if Exhausted). Otherwise, the character can do nothing but rest (note that this will generally restore them to Exhausted status after a single melee round of uninterrupted rest). Regardless of any adds to percentile rolls due to fatigue state, a natural roll of 01 will remain a 01, typically a critical. A natural roll of 00 or any roll modified over 100 will have the same effect as a roll of 00, typically a fumble. For example, a mercenary with 100% Shortsword skill fighting a dwarf bouncer becomes Tired. If he rolls a 02 (normally a Critical), it becomes a 07, (i.e. a Special result). If he had rolled a natural 01, while Weary, he still rolled a 01 and a Critical. If he rolls a 91, normally a hit, it would become a 101, which would be treated as a result of a 00, or a fumble. If he became Exhausted, his Shortsword skill would be reduced to 50% and a roll of 05, normally a special, would become a 25, or a normal hit. Please note that with this system, ENC values are no longer adjusted for SIZ over 20, 30, 40, etc. Higher STR compensates for greater armor encumbrance due to higher SIZ. SHORT-TERM FATIGUE LOSS: After every 5 melee rounds of extreme exertion, be it combat, running at top speed, or using all of one's strength, characters need to make a fatigue roll, based on the following table, to avoid fatigue loss. A failed fatigue roll means the character drops one fatigue state and suffers the associated penalties. Total ENC <= Fatigue Roll STRx1 CONx5 STRx2 CONx4 STRx3 CONx3 STRx4 CONx2 STRx5 CONx1 For example, characters engaged in a melee need to make fatigue rolls at the end of the fifth melee round, the end of the tenth melee round, the end of the fifteenth melee round, etc. --Regaining Fatigue-- A character can regain a single lost fatigue state by spending an entire melee round doing nothing but resting. That is, no attacking, parrying or dodging, essentially taking two miscellaneous actions to rest in a single melee round, or by spending two melee rounds in a row taking a single rest action and only a single dodge or parry option. --Fatigue While Mounted-- Mounted characters use only half their total ENC to determine their Fatigue Roll, and will typically only need to make fatigue rolls in a combat situation or when riding at top speed. Riding encumbered is less exhausting than moving on foot while encumbered. A quick way to estimate this, should the gamemaster not want to go through the exact calculation, is to increase the mounted character's Fatigue Roll by one class, to a maximum of CONx5. For example, a character with a normal Fatigue Roll of CONx3 due to encumbrance should use a Fatigue Roll of CONx4 when mounted. [Author's Note - I like this idea, but am not certain on the implementation. Mounted characters generally do not pay fatigue costs for the portion of the load carried by the mount. The effectiveness of a mount's load carrying depends on the design of the load (e.g. horse armor vs. foot armor), and such. In addition, sitting in a load is easier than walking with it -- which this set of rules seems to reflect well. ] LONG-TERM FATIGUE LOSS Long distance movement, among other factors, can also affect one???s fatigue state. The total distance covered on foot will have the following effects on a character's fatigue state: Max. Distance on Foot Fatigue Level 20 kilometers Tired 40 kilometers Weary 60 kilometers Exhausted 80 kilometers Incapacitated The above figures assume movement on a good road, very good path or very clear terrain by a human on foot. 80 kilometers/day, spread over roughly 10 hours at 8 kilometers/hour, is the practical maximum daily movement rate for humans on foot over such terrain. The practical maximum daily movement rate for most mounted riders over such terrain is 60 kilometers/day. When crossing more difficult terrain, multiply the above distances and the practical maximum daily movement rate by the appropriate percentage for the terrain: Terrain Type Max Daily Move Road, good path, very smooth terrain (default) 100% Poor road, average path, or smooth terrain 75% Rough terrain 50% Major river Takes one day to cross unless a bridge, ford or ferry exists. Light vegetation* 85% Medium vegetation* 70% Heavy vegetation, marsh or swamp* 50% Rolling Hills 70% Mountains 30% *Vegetation has no effect on movement along a road or path. The above modifiers are cumulative. A character moving on foot on a average path in the mountains will move at 75% x 30% = 22.5% the normal rates, therefore checking fatigue every 4.5 kilometers, with a practical maximum daily movement rate of 18 kilometers. This is where Marching and Running skills come into play, allowing better movement rates at lower fatigue as the roads/paths got worse. A character can prevent a reduction in fatigue state due to long distance movement by making a single Fatigue Roll (as appropriate for ENC and STR), which if successful prevent the loss of a single fatigue state. Only one such Fatigue Roll can be made in a day, either after the first 20 kilometers of travel or if not checked then, checked at a time something occurs in which fatigue state would play a role. The March skill can also prevent reductions in fatigue state due to long distance movement on foot (use Ride skill for mounted movement, see below). A single March skill roll can be made once a day as well. A successful roll will prevent the loss of a single additional fatigue state, a special roll will prevent the loss of two fatigue states, and a critical roll will prevent the loss of three fatigue states. For example, Piks the dwarven bouncer, with a CON of 16 and a Fatigue Roll of CONx3 due to his encumbrance, and a Forced March skill of 54%, travels 44 kilometers over the course of a day before running into a possibly hostile encounter. The player and GM proceed to check Piks' current fatigue state. After 40 kilometers of travel the character would normally have a fatigue state of Weary. However, making the single Fatigue Roll Piks is entitled to, and rolling a 28, Piks's status is only reduced to Tired. Since the situation seems likely to result in combat, Piks' player makes a Forced March skill roll for the day as well, rolling a 51, a success that brings his fatigue state to Normal, so Piks is in perfect condition should a fight break out. Fatigue is pro-rated by existing skill level rather than by making skill rolls. Under normal circumstances, a 50% Forced March skill reduces fatigue loss by at least 50% without a roll -- similar to picking up a drink without having to make a grab roll. Rolls are necessary only under difficult circumstances where the skill is opposed by more than the passive resistance of the world at large -- just like the picking up a drink example. Fatigue state loss due to long-term fatigue can only be regained by long-term rest. Spending one third of the time spent traveling resting or half the time spent traveling moving at a slow walk with rests (generally at most 1 kilometer/hour) will result in regaining a single fatigue state. Further rest or slow walking will restore further lost fatigue states, as above. For example, at the day's end Piks the Dwarf has covered 80 kilometers over 10 hours of moving at top speed, and due to long term fatigue loss, his current fatigue state is Weary. Were he to engage in melee, he would fight as if Weary and, after 5 melee rounds, would have to make a fatigue roll to avoid dropping to Exhausted status. A melee round of rest would restore his fatigue state to Weary, but it could not be restored past Weary without long-term rest. If Piks spent 3 hours and 20 minutes resting, his fatigue state would increase to Tired. Another 3 hours and 20 minutes of rest or would increase his fatigue state to Normal. As mentioned above, regardless of long-term fatigue status, 80 kilometers travel over a day is the practical limit of travel on foot for a normal human being. Fatigue states would drop very rapidly beyond that point. A similar system is used for figuring long term fatigue loss for mounted characters. Riding is not quite as exhausting for characters as is moving on foot. Characters riding at a normal pace (up to 40 kilometers/day) will suffer a reduction in fatigue state to Tired. Characters riding at an all out pace (more than 40 kilometers a day) will suffer a reduction in fatigue state to Weary. The mount itself, which typically has a maximum daily movement rate of 60 kilometers over very clear terrain, will have to check for fatigue loss every 15 kilometers, and may well end up Exhausted or Incapacitated at after being ridden for 60 kilometer. A characters fatigue state loss due to long term fatigue from riding can be decreased by a Fatigue Roll, as with loss from foot travel, and in addition a successful Ride roll will have the same effect as does Forced March skill for movement on foot. Skilled riders will rarely suffer adverse long-term fatigue effects from mounted travel. Note that some other conditions, typically adverse environmental conditions (extreme heat or cold, thin air, etc.) can also affect long-term fatigue status. These will typically increase fatigue state loss by one class. Covering any reasonable distance even on a good road in adverse conditions results in Tired status, covering 20 kilometers results in Weary status, etc. A successful Survival skill roll can avoid the additional loss of fatigue due to adverse conditions, where appropriate. Long-term fatigue loss can also be inflicted on characters that are sick or suffering the effects of serious injuries or certain poisons, at the GM???s option. ------------ That's it. David From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sat Dec 3 20:31:07 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:31:07 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fatiguerules for carrying and running contests In-Reply-To: <3024094.1133569103902.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <3024094.1133569103902.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <439165DB.5010008@brinkdata.se> David Smart skrev: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bjorn Stolen > Sent: Dec 2, 2005 1:52 AM > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [Rq-rules] Fatiguerules for carrying and running contests > > > So before I start revizing my revizing of the "official" RQ advanced rules > for FP-rules for carrying and running contest; do any of you lot sit on some > rules for this that you are pleased with, and do you bother to post them > here/link to somewhere where you have them written down? > _______________________________________________ > > > Well..I found a set of rules on the web (see below) which I've been using from a 3-year campaign now and they've worked well for me. Keep in mind I didn't draft these rules at all. The really bad news is I can't remember where I grabbed them from. Otherwise, I'd just send you all the hyperlink to the page. If anyone happens to recognize the rules and can tell me who authored them, please do so! By the way, I modified the example slightly to make it more meaningful for my players. Also, there's a mention of the skills "Marching" and "Running"; I don't have copies of the definitions. > The rules are (as far as I can tell) an edited version of the fatigue rules from the RQIV Playtest Draft 1.0, by Oliver Jovanovic, Michael Dawson, Martin Crim, Carl Fink, Ken Rolston and Michael McGloin. /Peter Brink From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 05:35:54 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 10:35:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Wonky animal SIZ In-Reply-To: <20051202124536.2755.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051204183554.95090.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Which, if you use the RQ2 crushing rules, is a distinct advantage for big creatures. Do they get +2 for being lead crushing weapons? I would say yes mainly because of the addtional weight. > I can't really see who, in their right mind, would > use a lead scimitar, > anyway. Lunars would use silver ones, fair enough, > Lunar trolls might want a > lead one but would prefer a silver one, non-Lunar > trolls have big, heavy > smashing things and don;t need scimitars. Annila worshiping trolls are the most likely candidates for this. Lead scimitar may have interesting properties for an assassin and is better suited form darkness type activities. > > Simon is right that your aluminium shield will get bashed in, but I'm tempted to say 'tough' : ) That's just an upside of the spell, we can mangle your nicely enchanted ceremonial armour and weapons. I would feel better about this spell, if there were other spells of this type, which allowed to temporarily disenchant magic items, but there aren't any. In addition, I have to point out again that the user of the runic item sacrificed POW to attune it. he has therefore forged some sort of a link with the item. This islink you are trying to intrefere with, therefore there should be a resistence roll agains thte person who is attuned to the item and an additional resistance roll if the item in question contains a spirit. > In RQ2, Iron had half the ENC of bronze, something > that is missing in RQ3. > That would be funny - armour that reduces in APs and > gets heavier. I think is was the other way around. I belive it is x1.5 enc of bronze. Copper was is the metal which could be made into lighter armor (x1/2 enc but 1/2 AP as well). > > The problem would be lead, at least for me. Lead is commonly used (by trolls at least) and is mushy and pliable when unenchanted. > > Given that I'd be tempeted to say that Distemper only eliminates 'special features' and not the strengthening that makes it as strong as lead. The only special feature that lead gets from attuning is the strengthening. The extra damage and the no subtraction from sneak and hide are natural characteristics of the metal. __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 5 10:32:41 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:32:41 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] general ramble about rune metals + Distemper MK 2 Message-ID: <000801c5f92b$05640c80$a5698456@sickboy> Leon said > In addition, I have to point out again that the >user of the runic item sacrificed POW to attune it. >he >has therefore forged some sort of a link with the >item. This is link you are trying to interfere with, >therefore there should be a resistance roll against >the person who is attuned to the item and an >additional resistance roll if the item in question >contains a spirit. I think I'd disagree with this, certainly the person has Sacrificed POW, but why does that mean they're Attuned to the item? All that has happened is That they have altered the object and it cost them POW to do so. Unless they have set conditions (eg: only I can use this item) anybody can pick It up and use it. To me 'attuning' an item means establishing some form of link to it. With an Enchantment it's a simple trade off: POW(cause) for magical property (effect) done deal, end of story. On the subject of sharpness and strength I think they're two very different things. Two reasons for this, one Real World(tm) and one in game. The real life example comes out of some reading I did a while back about early technology, eg flint knapping,early bronze smithing etc etc. In order to fashion flint tools researchers virtually had to re-invent flint knapping techniques, and they found something interesting. A good flint or chert tool had an incredibly sharp edge,comparable to some modern results and certainly very favourable compared to early metallurgy and smithing technology. But...the tools couldn't KEEP the edge, they blunted quickly chipped, broke shattered etc. Where early bronze tools and weapons had the edge(ha!) was that they retained a sharpedge better and were generally more durable. The game example is from the secrets book ( p35) in the divine magic spell Enchant (metal) it says "The metal should be forged ( with a craft/smith skill roll ) into the desired form before this spell is cast" In other words the edge/blade etc is already forged to Whatever sharpness it has - the spell gives it more AP and allows it to keep that edge and have certain magical abilities. Incidentally this means my spell name is misleading And I shall have to think of another (bugger!) On the subject of Lead it's all a bit confusing. Secrets book says:" even in it's unenchanted form this soft dull metal neither clanks or reflects ,so lead armour never detracts from the users stealth skills"Implication is that Trolls do use unenchanted lead for armour,( for cultural or mythological reasons maybe?) but no value for AP is given. Troll Gods says in the section on Karrgs sons that they are given special sets of lead armour which: "...unlike the heavier enchanted lead armouravailable for most troll cult runemasters, this superb armour is no heavier than bronze armour in ENC, and absorbs 1 extra pointof armour" So standard enchanted lead armour still has an ENC malus, so whats the point of owning it ?(apart from status etc ) answer: increased AP, which would kind of tie in with the Secrets book comment. So it would appear that there are three kinds of troll lead armour 1] unenchanted - more ENC, less AP 2] standard enchanted - more ENC , bonus AP 3] special Karrgs sons armour - reduced ENC, bonus AP + 1 On the subject of resistance rolls I'm torn both ways, part of me agrees with Nik and says" tough", part of me agrees with Leon, either way unless the object Has a bound spirit in it I'd say the RR has to be based on ENC. I guess it's ultimately down to the GM. Anyway without further ado here is Distemper mk 2 aka. ---------------------------- MASK VIRTUE OF ( RUNE METAL ) ranged, passive. This spell is cast on objects forged of rune metals. Intensitymust equal the ENC of the object to be affected. For the durationof the spell any special properties that the forged rune metal statusbestows are negated, and the object is considered to be in it's raw state .Physical shape is not affected ( ie an Iron breastplate remains an iron breastplate ) but special properties eg: increased armour points etc are lost. Due to the intrinsically magical nature of enchanted metals gamesmasters may wish to rule that a resistance roll is made in order for this spell to be effective. In such cases the intensity of the spell is matchedagainst the ENC of the target object. The caster may boost the spell with additional intensity to ensure success. A family of closely related spells exists each specific to an individual rune metal eg:Mask virtue of Iron, Mask virtue of Lead etc ---------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051204/d1f0361d/attachment.html From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 5 10:35:32 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 23:35:32 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Why ? Message-ID: <000801c5f92b$6b7029f0$a5698456@sickboy> Does it bloody well do that going across the page thing ! Damn annoying ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051204/c43ed6d9/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 13:28:02 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:28:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] general ramble about rune metals + Distemper MK 2 In-Reply-To: <000801c5f92b$05640c80$a5698456@sickboy> Message-ID: <20051205022802.34479.qmail@web35610.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > I think I'd disagree with this, certainly the person > has > Sacrificed POW, but why does that mean they're > Attuned to the item? All that has happened is > That they have altered the object and it cost them > POW to do so. Unless they have set conditions > (eg: only I can use this item) anybody can pick > It up and use it. To me 'attuning' an item means > establishing some form of link to it. With an > Enchantment it's a simple trade off: > POW(cause) for magical property (effect) > done deal, end of story. Yes and no. The issue here is which riles you wish to use. In RQ2 there were Enchant spells, metals were enchanted with an attunement roll. This in effect was a divine intervention for 1 POW for a rune level or an actual DI for an initiate. In this case there is a link and the item will not funciton as enchanted item for anyone else. RQ3 introduced Enchantment spells. These allow metals to be enchanted and used by anyone irrespective of who picks it up, unless conditions were palaced during the items creation. > Whatever sharpness it has - the spell gives it more > AP and allows it to keep that edge and have certain > magical abilities. For certain metals yes, but not for Silver, Lead, or Quicksilver. > says:" even in it's unenchanted form this soft dull > metal neither clanks or reflects, so lead armour never > detracts from the users stealth skills" Implication is that > Trolls do use unenchanted lead for armour,( for cultural or > mythological reasons maybe?)but no value for AP is given. I think you are trying to read too much into it. Unenchanted lead is useless as armor (IMO that is why no AP are given), but this property makes it worthwhile to enchant. > So standard enchanted lead armour still has an ENC > malus,so whats the point of owning it ?(apart from status > etc ) > > answer: increased AP, which would kind of tie in > with the Secrets book comment. No, the point is it is a lot more common than bronze, much cheaper, and can be worked by trolls without heating it. Trolls can work it by just pounding and chewing into shape. Then once enchanted it gives as much protection as a much more expensive bronze ones. Leon __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 5 18:21:42 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:21:42 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] rq2 enchantment rules Message-ID: <000801c5f96c$8b285e70$e8658456@sickboy> Leon said: >Yes and no. The issue here is which riles you >wish to >use. In RQ2 there were Enchant spells, >metals >were enchanted with an attunement roll. This in >effect >was a divine intervention for 1 POW for a rune >level >or an actual DI for an initiate. In this case there >is a link and the item will not funciton as >enchanted >item for anyone else. Ah right, I didn't know that, where abouts is that ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051205/e88980e0/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Dec 6 00:16:40 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:16:40 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Fatigue rules for carrying and running contests/Rune Metals In-Reply-To: <20051204230214.5596C1F5798@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051205131640.255.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Brink: > David Smart skrev: > > Well..I found a set of rules on the web (see below) which I've been using > from a 3-year campaign now and they've worked well for me. Keep in mind I > didn't draft these rules at all. The really bad news is I can't remember > where I grabbed them from. Otherwise, I'd just send you all the hyperlink > to the page. If anyone happens to recognize the rules and can tell me who > authored them, please do so! By the way, I modified the example slightly to > make it more meaningful for my players. Also, there's a mention of the > skills "Marching" and "Running"; I don't have copies of the definitions. > > > > The rules are (as far as I can tell) an edited version of the fatigue > rules from the RQIV Playtest Draft 1.0, by Oliver Jovanovic, Michael > Dawson, Martin Crim, Carl Fink, Ken Rolston and Michael McGloin. I used these towards the end of my old RQ campaign and may well be using them for my current campaign. They are good because: 1. They are very quick and easy 2. They are reasonably realistic (the more ENC you have the more tired you get, the more stuff you do the more tired you get) 3. They are not very intrusive I tended to allow the PCs to go for their CON in rounds before they had to make a roll, for ease of use. Since they all had high CONs and high STR, they rarely had any bother. Leon Kirshtein: > > I can't really see who, in their right mind, would > > use a lead scimitar, > > anyway. Lunars would use silver ones, fair enough, > > Lunar trolls might want a > > lead one but would prefer a silver one, non-Lunar > > trolls have big, heavy > > smashing things and don;t need scimitars. > > Annila worshiping trolls are the most likely > candidates for this. Lead scimitar may have > interesting properties for an assassin and is better > suited form darkness type activities. Yes, of course, those Blue Moonies could use lead scimitars so that they don't clink about and can have poison put on the blades. > I would feel better about this spell, if there were > other spells of this type, which allowed to > temporarily disenchant magic items, but there aren't > any. In addition, I have to point out again that the > user of the runic item sacrificed POW to attune it. he > has therefore forged some sort of a link with the > item. This islink you are trying to intrefere with, > therefore there should be a resistence roll agains > thte person who is attuned to the item and an > additional resistance roll if the item in question > contains a spirit. Why can't there be other similar spells? Mask (Property) with similar effects. So, depending on how anal the GM is, you could have Mask (Enchantment), Mask (Armouring Enchantment), Mask (Strengthening Encahntment) and so on. If they were location-specific, it would make GMing a nightmare, but then again everything does that anyway. > > In RQ2, Iron had half the ENC of bronze, something > > that is missing in RQ3. > > That would be funny - armour that reduces in APs and > > gets heavier. > > I think is was the other way around. I belive it is > x1.5 enc of bronze. Copper was is the metal which > could be made into lighter armor (x1/2 enc but 1/2 AP > as well). Was it? According to the RQ2 rules, which I happen to have at work, Iron is one thing less in ENC than bronze, so iron plate weighs two things, not three things, but something weighing one thing still weighs one thing. In RQ terms, rather than gobbledigook, a bronze item of 3 ENC would be 2 ENC in iron, but a sword (1 ENC) would still have 1 ENC if iron. I don't have the article in Elder Secrets, as that is one of the supplements I sold ages ago. I know they changed a lot of things, but I always played Iron was slightly lighter than bronze, but Copper has half the ENC. Clive Wickens: > Leon said > > > > > In addition, I have to point out again that the > >user of the runic item sacrificed POW to attune it. >he > >has therefore forged some sort of a link with the > >item. This is link you are trying to interfere with, > >therefore there should be a resistance roll against > >the person who is attuned to the item and an > >additional resistance roll if the item in question > >contains a spirit. > > > > I think I'd disagree with this, certainly the person has > Sacrificed POW, but why does that mean they're > Attuned to the item? All that has happened is > That they have altered the object and it cost them > POW to do so. Unless they have set conditions > (eg: only I can use this item) anybody can pick > It up and use it. To me 'attuning' an item means > establishing some form of link to it. With an > Enchantment it's a simple trade off: > POW(cause) for magical property (effect) > done deal, end of story. Also, if you cast Crack at an enchanted item and it broke, you lose the enchantment. Even if you walloped it and broke it, then you could lose the enchantment permanently. So, a spell that takes a while to cast and is very rare could temporarily mask the effects. > So standard enchanted lead armour still has an ENC malus, > so whats the point of owning it ?(apart from status etc ) > answer: increased AP, which would kind of tie in with the Secrets > book comment. > > So it would appear that there are three kinds of troll lead armour > > 1] unenchanted - more ENC, less AP > 2] standard enchanted - more ENC , bonus AP > 3] special Karrgs sons armour - reduced ENC, bonus AP + 1 That's useful to know. I tended to use the RQ2 versions as I thought the RQ3 versions were a bit too complicated. Each GM would probably have the properties of Rune Metals written down somewhere, anyway, so house rules probably apply. See Ya Simon From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Wed Dec 7 04:52:37 2005 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:52:37 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper Message-ID: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE60345101C@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Clive: >A silver or aluminium object >would be rendered soft as putty, and thus easily >breakable with the result the enchantment would >be broken. I don't think so. You enchant the metal, then form it into shape, it's a special kind of enchantment that doesn't require a "rune" to be carved into the object being enchanted. An iron sword can be smashed to bits and re-forged without needing to be re-enchanted. The links in a suit of iron chainmail don't have little runes on them. >Rotherham? So, you're not in Water Orton any more, then? Well, I live there, but I work in Rotherham at the moment. __________________________________________________ Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham Technical Consultant __________________________________________________ This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 7 05:13:20 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper Message-ID: <20051206181320.11743.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I can see where you comming from, but it would depend on which rules you use, if the object is enchanted or attuned. How much POW would charge to Enchant iron plate armor? Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > > Clive: > >A silver or aluminium object > >would be rendered soft as putty, and thus easily > >breakable with the result the enchantment would > >be broken. > > I don't think so. You enchant the metal, then form it into shape, it's a > special kind of enchantment that doesn't require a "rune" to be carved into > the object being enchanted. An iron sword can be smashed to bits and > re-forged without needing to be re-enchanted. The links in a suit of iron > chainmail don't have little runes on them. > > >Rotherham? So, you're not in Water Orton any more, then? > > Well, I live there, but I work in Rotherham at the moment. > > __________________________________________________ > Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham > Technical Consultant > __________________________________________________ > > This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential > and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the > person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, > you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, > distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all > copies of this message. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 7 07:23:16 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:23:16 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] more stuff on distemper aka Mask virtue of (rune metal ) Message-ID: <000801c5faa2$e46557e0$28bb8956@sickboy> Phil said: >I don't think so. You enchant the metal, then form it into >shape, it's a >special kind of enchantment that doesn't require a "rune" >to be carved into >the object being enchanted. An iron sword can be >smashed to bits and >re-forged without needing to be re-enchanted. The links >in a suit of iron >chainmail don't have little runes on them. I must admit I've always gone with the strict rules definition in the MKIII rules - or more precisely in the secrets book ( which I've quoted below ) That is the process is forge, shape, temper (whatever! ) first and then the enchantment On the other hand RQ has always been a fairly adaptable sort of game and I'm inclined to the opinion that if it works for you ( or me ) then go for it :-) I think most people tend to adapt and play with ideas all the time - I certainly do eg: several of spells out of the Elric RPG have been used in my game as spirit magic or sorcery spells The game example is from the secrets book ( p35) in the divine magic spell Enchant (metal) it says "The metal should be forged ( with a craft/smith skill roll ) into the desired form before this spell is cast" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051206/ce84ef29/attachment.html From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Thu Dec 8 00:26:35 2005 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:26:35 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper Message-ID: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE60347FC21@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Leon: >I can see where you comming from, but it would depend >on which rules you use, if the object is enchanted or >attuned. I've never heard of attuning rune metal, where does this idea come from? >How much POW would charge to Enchant iron plate armor? I can't remember offhand. I think it's 1 POW per 6 ENC, plate armour is probably around 30 ENC, so 5 POW or so sounds about right. You enchant the iron, then make armour out of it, though, not the other way around. The Enchant is part of the manufacturing process. __________________________________________________ Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham Technical Consultant __________________________________________________ This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Thu Dec 8 00:29:39 2005 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:29:39 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] more stuff on distemper aka Mask virtue of (rune metal ) Message-ID: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE60347FC2F@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> >The game example is from the secrets book ( p35) in the >divine magic spell Enchant (metal) it says "The metal >should be forged ( with a craft/smith skill roll ) into >the desired form before this spell is cast" OK I'm wrong. Had to happen eventually, I suppose. So do you have to carve a little enchantment matrix into every link of that iron chainmail, and spend 1 POW on each link? >:-> __________________________________________________ Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham Technical Consultant __________________________________________________ This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Dec 8 01:48:52 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 06:48:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper Message-ID: <20051207144852.82658.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Ive never heard of attuning rune metal, where does this idea come from? I always thought it came from RQ2. Am I wrong? I do not have RQ2 rules. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > > Leon: > >I can see where you comming from, but it would depend > >on which rules you use, if the object is enchanted or > >attuned. > > I've never heard of attuning rune metal, where does this idea come from? > > >How much POW would charge to Enchant iron plate armor? > > I can't remember offhand. I think it's 1 POW per 6 ENC, plate armour is > probably around 30 ENC, so 5 POW or so sounds about right. You enchant > the > iron, then make armour out of it, though, not the other way around. The > Enchant is part of the manufacturing process. > > __________________________________________________ > Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham > Technical Consultant > __________________________________________________ > > This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential > and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the > person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, > you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, > distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this > message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all > copies of this message. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 02:15:19 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:15:19 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper In-Reply-To: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE60345101C@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Message-ID: You break the enchantment when you break the runes; that's what we've been playing with anyway. >From: "Hibbs, Phil" >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Distemper >Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:52:37 -0000 > > >Clive: > >A silver or aluminium object > >would be rendered soft as putty, and thus easily > >breakable with the result the enchantment would > >be broken. > >I don't think so. You enchant the metal, then form it into shape, it's a >special kind of enchantment that doesn't require a "rune" to be carved into >the object being enchanted. An iron sword can be smashed to bits and >re-forged without needing to be re-enchanted. The links in a suit of iron >chainmail don't have little runes on them. > > >Rotherham? So, you're not in Water Orton any more, then? > >Well, I live there, but I work in Rotherham at the moment. > >__________________________________________________ >Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham >Technical Consultant >__________________________________________________ > >This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential >and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the >person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you >are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, >or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in >error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this >message. > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 8 02:24:04 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:24:04 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] more stuff on distemper aka Mask virtue of (rune metal) In-Reply-To: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE60347FC2F@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Message-ID: I think you can get away with saying that it is defined by the runes you use (or the way the runes are alignet, or whatever; this is FANTASY anyway :-), so that a mail-shirt could be defined by the enchantmentspell to be one single peace when it comes to objects, allthough it would consist of some 20.000 rings. The way people made mails would make it possible to say that each ring could have a rune on them, as 50% of the rings were riveted together, and the other 50% were stanced out; no big deal to stance somthing out with a rune on, or apply a hammer ingraving a rune as the final rivet-blow as you finish the ring? Another fun little detail is the fact that most mails contain one or more rings that are dissimliar, engraved, of a different metal (gold/silver), that is bigger/thicker, etc -than the other rings. There are a million ways to use theese archaeological details as colour or inspiration to the rules. Perhaps a skilled crafter could get away with spending lesser pow than an aprentice? >So do you have to carve a little enchantment matrix into every link of that >iron chainmail, and spend 1 POW on each link? >:-> > >__________________________________________________ >Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham >Technical Consultant >__________________________________________________ From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 8 02:49:38 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 07:49:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Distemper In-Reply-To: <20051207144852.82658.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051207154938.66760.qmail@web80511.mail.yahoo.com> IIRC, the only thing you "attune" in RQ is a magic crystal. In RQ2, I recall that enchanted rune metals are tempered by the enchantment, and become untempered when the person who enchanted them (or supplied the POW for the enchantment) died. I don't know if this was changed in RQ3, but I think it was, because it's too cool to be able to find enchanted metal armor. Guy (Hoyle) --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > >Ive never heard of attuning rune metal, where does > this idea come from? > > I always thought it came from RQ2. Am I wrong? I do > not have RQ2 rules. > > Leon > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > > > Leon: > > >I can see where you comming from, but it would > depend > > >on which rules you use, if the object is > enchanted > or > > >attuned. > > > > I've never heard of attuning rune metal, where > does > this idea come from? > > > > >How much POW would charge to Enchant iron plate > armor? > > > > I can't remember offhand. I think it's 1 POW per 6 > ENC, plate armour is > > probably around 30 ENC, so 5 POW or so sounds > about > right. You enchant > > the > > iron, then make armour out of it, though, not the > other way around. The > > Enchant is part of the manufacturing process. > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Phil Hibbs | Capgemini | Rotherham > > Technical Consultant > > __________________________________________________ > > > > This message contains information that may be > privileged or confidential > > and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is > intended only for the > > person to whom it is addressed. If you are not > the > intended recipient, > > you are not authorized to read, print, retain, > copy, disseminate, > > distribute, or use this message or any part > thereof. If you receive this > > message in error, please notify the sender > immediately and delete all > > copies of this message. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > __________________________________________ > Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 8 07:06:03 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 20:06:03 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mask virtue of (rune metal ) + chainmail Message-ID: <000801c5fb69$a7b45b80$f5628456@sickboy> Phil said: So do you have to carve a little enchantment matrix into every link of that iron chainmail, and spend 1 POW on each link? >:-> I guess Bjorn's answer is probably the best way round it.Though it'd certainly cut down on the number of Humakti posing around in their flash new iron chainmail hauberks J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051207/6877e0fd/attachment.html From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Fri Dec 9 02:26:51 2005 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:26:51 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mask virtue of (rune metal ) + chainmail Message-ID: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE6034AE81A@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Phil said: >So do you have to carve a little enchantment matrix into every >link of that iron chainmail, and spend 1 POW on each link? >:-> Clive: >I guess Bjorn's answer is probably the best way >round it.Though it'd certainly cut down on the >number of Humakti posing around in their flash >new iron chainmail hauberks I was, of course, being silly. Of course a piece of chainmail armour would be considered a single item, and I kind of like the idea of a "special" link that holds the enchantment together, but I prefer the "Enchant Metal" spell to be part of the forging process. I guess I prefer it so much that I had convinced myself that this was the way that it was in RQ3. So going by the book, how do you run it if someone needs to repair their iron chainmail? Lets say it loses 2AP due to acid damage - will replacing the damage with regular unenchanted iron links be ok? I assume that they would become part of the enchanted item, and therefore be covered by it. Phil Hibbs. This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sat Dec 10 00:16:02 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:16:02 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mask virtue of (rune metal ) + chainmail In-Reply-To: <28FEE77FA0D069428DBB715915864EE6034AE81A@MISSBHXVS02.uki.capgemini.com> Message-ID: >I was, of course, being silly. Why? I thought that your question was a good one. I agree that the intention from the ones making the enchant-metal-spell-ruless and armor-rules probably fealt that it went without saying that a mail made of enchanted iron/enchanted bronse or what not probably was what you write here: >....a "special" linkthat holds the enchantment together.... >I prefer the "Enchant Metal" spellto be part of the forging process. that's how I see it as well, but I allso like the idea that the enchantment is linked to runes as well, and that's where the dilemma comes when conserning mail; the 20.000 rings are forged seperately.... Personally I see it as like putting up a computer-network with the runes working like client, slave and master-stations; perhaps one dominant mail-ring providing "support" for client-rings around it (perhaps pr. enc?) That way a 3 enc enchanted-iron-mail wouold consist of 3 dominant rings covering 1/3 of the rest of the rings which allso do have a little rune-perhaps stanced into them? That way, you don't have to re-enchat the entire enchantment if some of the mail is ruined, and if you wish to repair the mail with somthing that isn't enchated, or enchanted with another metal-that could cover that bit of the mail! There is no reason for anybody to come up with detail rules for exactly how this is done (that could be up to the individual GM's /playgroups). :-) >So going by the book, how do you run it if someone needs to repair their >iron chainmail? Lets say it loses 2AP due to acid damage - will replacing >the damage with regular unenchanted iron links be ok? I assume that they >would become part of the enchanted item, and therefore be covered by it. > >Phil Hibbs. From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Sat Dec 17 10:47:29 2005 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:47:29 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] repairing enchanted armour etc Message-ID: <000801c6029b$13f09c40$845b8456@sickboy> Phil said: >So going by the book, how do you run it if >someone needs to repair their >iron chainmail? Lets say it loses 2AP due to acid >damage - will replacing >the damage with regular unenchanted iron links >be ok? I assume that they >would become part of the enchanted item, and >therefore be covered by it. I used to say that you needed a magical form of repair, ie: spell of some kind, the rationale being it took magic to create it, so it would take magic to repair it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051216/467e0eea/attachment.html From jurrubin at earthlink.net Mon Dec 19 02:00:26 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:00:26 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] repairing enchanted armour etc Message-ID: <26504519.1134918026943.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Clive Wickens posted: > >Phil said: >>So going by the book, how do you run it if >someone needs to repair their >>iron chainmail? Lets say it loses 2AP due to acid >damage - will replacing >>the damage with regular unenchanted iron links >be ok? I assume that they >>would become part of the enchanted item, and >therefore be covered by it. > >I used to say that you needed a magical form of >repair, ie: spell of some kind, the rationale being >it took magic to create it, so it would take magic to >repair it. Agreed. RQIII's spirit magic 'Repair" and sorcerous "Form/Set " spells work admirably. I forget what the Divine magic equivalent is. David From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Dec 27 13:42:19 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:42:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site Message-ID: <20051227024219.28325.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You should be able to access it now at: www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp If you have problems, or comments let me know. Leon __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Dec 27 23:55:49 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:55:49 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site Message-ID: <9079582.1135688149590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I received the following: ------------- Client is Offline godlearner.d2g.com The DNS2Go customer you are trying to reach is currently offline. -------------- Well, 6:45am CST _is_ a bit early. *grin* David -----Original Message----- >From: Leon Kirshtein >Sent: Dec 26, 2005 8:42 PM >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site > >It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You >should be able to access it now at: > >www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp > >If you have problems, or comments let me know. > >Leon From joemills at columbus.rr.com Wed Dec 28 01:14:52 2005 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:14:52 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site References: <20051227024219.28325.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c60aef$f121bf20$9839d218@mills> I got in just fine. -- Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: Leon Kirshtein To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 9:42 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You should be able to access it now at: www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp If you have problems, or comments let me know. Leon __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051227/3716a06d/attachment.html From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed Dec 28 03:41:32 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:41:32 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site In-Reply-To: <9079582.1135688149590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9079582.1135688149590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <43B16EBC.4070301@sbcglobal.net> David Smart wrote: > I received the following: > > ------------- > Client is Offline > > godlearner.d2g.com > > > The DNS2Go customer you are trying to reach is currently offline. > -------------- > > Well, 6:45am CST _is_ a bit early. *grin* > > David > I got this too... and it's 10:00am in Dallas, TX. Guy (Hoyle) From slposey at concentric.net Wed Dec 28 04:56:21 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:56:21 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site In-Reply-To: <9079582.1135688149590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <9079582.1135688149590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <43B18045.5030703@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > I received the following: > > ------------- > Client is Offline > > godlearner.d2g.com > > > The DNS2Go customer you are trying to reach is currently offline. > -------------- > > Well, 6:45am CST _is_ a bit early. *grin* I received the same error just now (~10:50am MDT). Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net > > David > > -----Original Message----- > >>From: Leon Kirshtein >>Sent: Dec 26, 2005 8:42 PM >>To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >>Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site >> >>It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You >>should be able to access it now at: >> >>www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp >> >>If you have problems, or comments let me know. >> >>Leon > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Dec 28 06:57:38 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site In-Reply-To: <43B18045.5030703@concentric.net> References: <9079582.1135688149590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <43B18045.5030703@concentric.net> Message-ID: I didn't even get THAT far - after a wait of a minute or more, it went to MSN search instead. Trying from the Eastern US at 2:56 PM. On 12/27/05, Stephen Posey wrote: > > David Smart wrote: > > > I received the following: > > > > ------------- > > Client is Offline > > > > godlearner.d2g.com > > > > > > The DNS2Go customer you are trying to reach is currently offline. > > -------------- > > > > Well, 6:45am CST _is_ a bit early. *grin* > > I received the same error just now (~10:50am MDT). > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > >>From: Leon Kirshtein > >>Sent: Dec 26, 2005 8:42 PM > >>To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > >>Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site > >> > >>It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You > >>should be able to access it now at: > >> > >>www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp > >> > >>If you have problems, or comments let me know. > >> > >>Leon > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20051227/4d0b141b/attachment.html From pmj at comhem.se Wed Dec 28 07:16:34 2005 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:16:34 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site In-Reply-To: References: <9079582.1135688149590.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <43B18045.5030703@concentric.net> Message-ID: <43B1A122.8060807@comhem.se> No problem getting in from Sweden ca 15 minutes after Peter M (21.12 Swedish time, which mean s 3.12 PM Eastern US). /Peter J Peter Maranci wrote: > I didn't even get THAT far - after a wait of a minute or more, it went > to MSN search instead. Trying from the Eastern US at 2:56 PM. > > On 12/27/05, *Stephen Posey* > wrote: > > David Smart wrote: > > > I received the following: > > > > ------------- > > Client is Offline > > > > godlearner.d2g.com > > > > > > The DNS2Go customer you are trying to reach is currently offline. > > -------------- > > > > Well, 6:45am CST _is_ a bit early. *grin* > > I received the same error just now (~10:50am MDT). > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > >>From: Leon Kirshtein > > >>Sent: Dec 26, 2005 8:42 PM > >>To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > >>Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site > >> > >>It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You > >>should be able to access it now at: > >> > >> www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp > > >> > >>If you have problems, or comments let me know. > >> > >>Leon > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > From pmj at comhem.se Wed Dec 28 07:28:32 2005 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:28:32 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heal and xenoheal Message-ID: <43B1A3F0.2040805@comhem.se> Hi! Several years ago I did away with the spell Xnoheal, instead using Heal to work on all species and creatures. Are there people on the list still using Xenoheal and if so, what is the logic behind it? As I see it, is quite strange that you have one spell that works for your own species (and only your species) and one that can be used for all other species (which acually makes Xenoheal a much more powerful spell than Heal). Cheers, /Peter J From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 07:38:57 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:38:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site Message-ID: <20051227203857.4729.qmail@web35612.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks everyone. Apparently the server was running low on virtual memory. After a reboot it seems to be working now. BTW, as you are looking at the site, if you see an error or want to submit something please let me know. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > No problem getting in from Sweden ca 15 minutes after Peter M (21.12 > Swedish time, which mean s 3.12 PM Eastern US). > > /Peter J > > > > > Peter Maranci wrote: > > > I didn't even get THAT far - after a wait of a minute or more, it went > > to MSN search instead. Trying from the Eastern US at 2:56 PM. > > > > On 12/27/05, *Stephen Posey* > > wrote: > > > > David Smart wrote: > > > > > I received the following: > > > > > > ------------- > > > Client is Offline > > > > > > godlearner.d2g.com > > > > > > > > > The DNS2Go customer you are trying to reach is currently offline. > > > -------------- > > > > > > Well, 6:45am CST _is_ a bit early. *grin* > > > > I received the same error just now (~10:50am MDT). > > > > Stephen Posey > > slposey at concentric.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > >>From: Leon Kirshtein > > > >>Sent: Dec 26, 2005 8:42 PM > > >>To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > >>Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site > > >> > > >>It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You > > >>should be able to access it now at: > > >> > > >> www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp > > > > >> > > >>If you have problems, or comments let me know. > > >> > > >>Leon > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > -- > > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > === Message Truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From slposey at concentric.net Wed Dec 28 07:46:09 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:46:09 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Godlearner site In-Reply-To: <20051227024219.28325.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051227024219.28325.qmail@web35606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43B1A811.9050100@concentric.net> Leon Kirshtein wrote: > It looks like I finally managed to fix my site. You > should be able to access it now at: > > www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp > > If you have problems, or comments let me know. Got in this time. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 07:58:08 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:58:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Grimores Message-ID: <20051227205808.47703.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have been playing that sorcery spells could not be placed in an INT spirit or familiars INT. In order to give sorcerers more flexiability with their spell selection, I borrowed the rules from Stormbringer and D&D for wizard spell books. Basically, a sorcerer can write down a spell he knows into his spellbook and then forget it. At a later date he can relearn the spell (in 1 hour) if he needs to cast it. Does anyone use anything similar? Leon __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 08:01:03 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:01:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Dreams of Avarice Message-ID: <20051227210103.58818.qmail@web35601.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What do you think of this new spell: Dreams of Avarice Resistence Roll: Yes Duration: Instant Combat Description: Miscellaneous Range: Ranged School Enchantment Skill Difficulty: Medium Rarity: Exotic Descripion This spell accentuates the targets natural greed (affecting even those who would not normally succumb to greedy impulses). The subject becomes obsessed with the notion of making money while compelled by this spell. When the spell is cast, the subject is allowed an INT x1 roll to realize that sorcery is being used of him. In such a case they may react violently even if the spell succeeds. In game terms, the target becomes more susceptible to bribes, +10% per point of Intensity, and will be open to bribes even if was not inclined towards such before. The effects of the spell are lessened at a rate of 10% per minute. Leon __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From slposey at concentric.net Wed Dec 28 08:27:04 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:27:04 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grimores In-Reply-To: <20051227205808.47703.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20051227205808.47703.qmail@web35608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43B1B1A8.50606@concentric.net> Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I have been playing that sorcery spells could not be > placed in an INT spirit or familiars INT. > > In order to give sorcerers more flexiability with > their spell selection, I borrowed the rules from > Stormbringer and D&D for wizard spell books. > > Basically, a sorcerer can write down a spell he knows > into his spellbook and then forget it. At a later date > he can relearn the spell (in 1 hour) if he needs to > cast it. Does anyone use anything similar? That's more or less the way things worked in the Magic World module of "Worlds of Wonder"; which I've used as the basis for a more general "sorcery" system for BRP. Here's the relevant passages: -------------------->8 cut here 8<-------------------- Levels of Effet / Time to Cast Spells ===================================== Each spell on the list of spells can be made more powerful by adding POW to the casting of it. This means that the magician spends the time to concentrate his energies and put more POW behind the spell. The exact effect of these extra levels of POW is described in each spell description. Summoning the magic to add extra levels of POW takes time. Each level of POW in the spell substracts one from the sorcerer?s DEX for the melee round. Thus, if Sangor?s DEX is 15 and he wishes to cast a second level Fire/Frost, the spell will happen at DEX 13 (15-2). No sorcerer may use more spell levels than one-half his INT (round up). Thus Sangor the Sorcerer, with an INT of 15, can use no more than 8 levels of any spell he knows. The DEX substraction for levels of spells can go into minus numbers within the mele round, preserving the order of play. If a sorcerer with a DEX of 6 wishes to cast an eighth level spell, he must cast his spell at DEX rank minus 2 in that melee round. Memorization of Magic ===================== A sorcerer must have spells memorized to use them quickly. A sorcerer can only memorize a certain number of spells. This limit is determined by the INT of the character. The sorcerer character may memorize half his INT in spells (round up). Thus Sangor the Sorcerer, with an INT of 15, may have eight spells ready in his mind. Any other spells he may know he must carry in his spell books. It takes an hour to memorize a spell, and if the sorcerer already has memorized his limit, the player must choose a spell for the character to forget. A spell my be used directly from the sorcerer?s book, but this will take one full melee round per level of effect desired. A sorcerer may use another sorcerer?s spell book if the character?s player makes a roll of the character?s INT as a percentage for each spell he attempts to use. Otherwise, the codes and handwriting of the strange spell book will not be comprehensible to the character. Reading the strange book may be attempted every time a character?s litteracy increases by 5% or more. -------------------->8 cut here 8<-------------------- It appears to me that the 1/2 INT rules for memorization and spell levels was the predecessor of "Free INT" in RQ3 Sorcery. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From bick10 at comcast.net Wed Dec 28 11:55:27 2005 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:55:27 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Grimores Message-ID: <122820050055.3041.43B1E27F000DDE3900000BE12209229927CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Pretty much how I ran it. One of the advantages of Sorcerery. Jim -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Leon Kirshtein > I have been playing that sorcery spells could not be > placed in an INT spirit or familiars INT. > > In order to give sorcerers more flexiability with > their spell selection, I borrowed the rules from > Stormbringer and D&D for wizard spell books. > > Basically, a sorcerer can write down a spell he knows > into his spellbook and then forget it. At a later date > he can relearn the spell (in 1 hour) if he needs to > cast it. Does anyone use anything similar? > > Leon > > > > __________________________________________ > Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 28 14:31:25 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:31:25 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Heal and xenoheal Message-ID: <17165800.1135740685254.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I also did away with Xenoheal and just stayed with RQIII's rules for healing other species (i.e. two points of Heal restores 1 hp). David -----Original Message----- >From: Peter Johansson >Sent: Dec 27, 2005 2:28 PM >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: [Rq-rules] Heal and xenoheal > >Hi! > >Several years ago I did away with the spell Xnoheal, instead using Heal >to work on all species and creatures. Are there people on the list still >using Xenoheal and if so, what is the logic behind it? As I see it, is >quite strange that you have one spell that works for your own species >(and only your species) and one that can be used for all other species >(which acually makes Xenoheal a much more powerful spell than Heal). > >Cheers, > > /Peter J From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 28 14:33:02 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:33:02 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Grimores Message-ID: <27649883.1135740782609.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Me too. David -----Original Message----- >From: bick10 at comcast.net >Sent: Dec 27, 2005 6:55 PM >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Grimores > >Pretty much how I ran it. One of the advantages of Sorcerery. > >Jim From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Dec 28 15:44:41 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:44:41 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Bound Spirit Limitations Message-ID: <24093129.1135745081733.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> According to RQ2 (not RQ3), can bound spirits innately use the capabilities/assets of other bound spirits within the same binding objects? If not, can such a link be created using additional POW? I know RQ3 may allow such a link but was this capability intentional in RQ2? David From nphillis at shaw.ca Wed Dec 28 15:57:31 2005 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:57:31 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Heal and xenoheal References: <17165800.1135740685254.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000901c60b6b$35921490$de384d18@mesohordey> I guess you can ask 3 questions (applies to all rules): - Does this rule help suspend the belief (in your fantasy world) for your players? - Does this rule help with game balance in any way? - Does this rule make the game more fun for the players? My answer was "no" to all three. Newt. > -----Original Message----- > >From: Peter Johansson > >Sent: Dec 27, 2005 2:28 PM > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >Subject: [Rq-rules] Heal and xenoheal > > > >Hi! > > > >Several years ago I did away with the spell Xnoheal, instead using Heal > >to work on all species and creatures. Are there people on the list still > >using Xenoheal and if so, what is the logic behind it? As I see it, is > >quite strange that you have one spell that works for your own species > >(and only your species) and one that can be used for all other species > >(which acually makes Xenoheal a much more powerful spell than Heal). > > > >Cheers, > > > > /Peter J > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 05:05:56 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Bound Spirit Limitations Message-ID: <20051228180556.23289.qmail@web35603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I do not think that was allowed. I think in RQ2 bound spirits only had access to crystals as addtional source of magic points. In any case that is how I am playing it currently. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > According to RQ2 (not RQ3), can bound spirits innately use the capabilities/assets of other bound spirits within the same binding objects? If not, can such a link be created using additional POW? I know RQ3 may allow such a link but was this capability intentional in RQ2? > > David > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Dec 29 05:18:50 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:18:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Bound Spirit Limitations In-Reply-To: <20051228180556.23289.qmail@web35603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051228181850.44298.qmail@web31803.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Bound spirits, as distinct from allied ones, serve only as a memory and POW battery, the character must do the actual casting. Allied spirits (one to a Rune Lord or Priest, and usually in a familiar) are capable of drawing from bound spirits and are able to cast magic independently of the PC with whom they are working. This is also the system in Mythworld. Paul Cardwell --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I do not think that was allowed. I think in RQ2 > bound > spirits only had access to crystals as addtional > source of magic points. In any case that is how I am > playing it currently. > > Leon __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Thu Dec 29 18:21:32 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:21:32 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Dreams of Avarice Message-ID: Leon. I love this spell. Had a wee session with a section of my group last night and mentioned it. They also love the idea. What we thought of as a use is to cast the spell on highly principled/paladin/noble knight type character. All have a laugh as he drops his high ideals for a bit of miserly coin counting:) Tony -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Leon Kirshtein Sent: 27 December 2005 11:01 To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Dreams of Avarice What do you think of this new spell: Dreams of Avarice Resistence Roll: Yes Duration: Instant Combat Description: Miscellaneous Range: Ranged School Enchantment Skill Difficulty: Medium Rarity: Exotic Descripion This spell accentuates the targets natural greed (affecting even those who would not normally succumb to greedy impulses). The subject becomes obsessed with the notion of making money while compelled by this spell. When the spell is cast, the subject is allowed an INT x1 roll to realize that sorcery is being used of him. In such a case they may react violently even if the spell succeeds. In game terms, the target becomes more susceptible to bribes, +10% per point of Intensity, and will be open to bribes even if was not inclined towards such before. The effects of the spell are lessened at a rate of 10% per minute. Leon __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Dec 30 01:04:29 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 14:04:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20051228033138.678C62A85B9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20051229140429.18508.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> I'm catching up with my emails, so someone else has probably said the same thing ... Peter Johansson: > Several years ago I did away with the spell Xnoheal, instead using Heal > to work on all species and creatures. Are there people on the list still > using Xenoheal and if so, what is the logic behind it? As I see it, is > quite strange that you have one spell that works for your own species > (and only your species) and one that can be used for all other species > (which acually makes Xenoheal a much more powerful spell than Heal). We use Heal, as in RQ3, which heals other creatures at Heal 2 heals 1 HP. However, Steve Martin, in Drastic:Prax, has a spell Heal (Specific Herd Beast) which works on a specific typoe of herd beast and heals 1 for 1. Why is this needed? Well, even with a big Heal spell, you can't do much healing on a herd beast, as your spell is halved. In combat, particularly, it is important to be able to heal a big chunk at once. I would have two healing spells - Heal, which works on the caster's species and half on anyone else, and Heal (Species) which heals the species concerned and is halved for every other species. So, a human and a troll could both use the same Heal Matrix on themselves to heal normally, but if they cast the spell on each other, its effects would be halved. If the troll had Heal (Troll) he could cast it on himself as normal, but it would be halved when cast on the human. If they had a Heal (Troll) matrix, then the human could cast it on himself, but the effects would be halved. The GM couldbe a bugger and say that Heal (Species) only works on that Species, so Heal (Troll) only works on trolls. See Ya Simon From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Dec 30 09:21:05 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:21:05 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Improving a Bound Spirit's POW Message-ID: <19204845.1135894865453.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Does a bound spirit roll for POW improvement if it's successful in POW vs POW contests due to a spell it casts? I've always thought not but then I'm kinda remembering a conversation on this list some time ago that decided otherwise. Searching the archives didn't bring up anything. David From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Fri Dec 30 11:54:31 2005 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:54:31 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Improving a Bound Spirit's POW In-Reply-To: <19204845.1135894865453.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <19204845.1135894865453.JavaMail.root@elwamui-wigeon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1135904071.749e271066a05@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> Quoting David Smart on Thu 29 Dec 2005 10:21:05 PM GMT: > Does a bound spirit roll for POW improvement if it's successful in POW vs POW > contests due to a spell it casts? I've always thought not but then I'm kinda > remembering a conversation on this list some time ago that decided otherwise. IIRC RuneQuest II had it that such spirits (including allied spirits) would get a POW tick, but ONLY make their POW tick on a roll of 01-05. Again, my mind is kinda fuzzy on this point, but in RQ II the spirits had no maximum POW. SO old spirits just naturally had a huge POW. I can't recall how much of that is true. RQ III had no specific rules concerning this, and so presumably spirits were treated exactly like normal beings, so their maximum POW is calculated as per normal embodied beings and they get POW ticks and POW gain rolls as per every other creature. Nikk From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Dec 31 03:47:14 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:47:14 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Improving a Bound Spirit's POW Message-ID: <29290743.1135961234245.JavaMail.root@elwamui-mouette.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Thank you, Nikk. I was thinking along the same lines but it's nice to have confirmation. I've found that, while I do come up with some good ideas (according to my player group), some of the best I use come from this list. David -----Original Message----- >From: Nikk Effingham >Sent: Dec 29, 2005 6:54 PM >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Improving a Bound Spirit's POW > >Quoting David Smart on Thu 29 Dec 2005 10:21:05 PM GMT: > >> Does a bound spirit roll for POW improvement if it's successful in POW vs POW >> contests due to a spell it casts? I've always thought not but then I'm kinda >> remembering a conversation on this list some time ago that decided otherwise. > >IIRC RuneQuest II had it that such spirits (including allied spirits) would get >a POW tick, but ONLY make their POW tick on a roll of 01-05. Again, my mind is >kinda fuzzy on this point, but in RQ II the spirits had no maximum POW. SO old >spirits just naturally had a huge POW. I can't recall how much of that is true. > >RQ III had no specific rules concerning this, and so presumably spirits were >treated exactly like normal beings, so their maximum POW is calculated as per >normal embodied beings and they get POW ticks and POW gain rolls as per every >other creature. > >Nikk > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Dec 31 04:24:40 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:24:40 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [Rq-rules] Improving a Bound Spirit's POW Message-ID: <19903144.1135963480134.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Now I've changed my mind. I was going to go with the RQIII general rules for increasing POW but then this wouldn't explain those spirits with almost god-like POW that can be found in the Inner Region of the Spirit Plane. The rule from RQII does, and I'll be going with that one instead. David -----Original Message----- >From: Nikk Effingham >Sent: Dec 29, 2005 6:54 PM >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Improving a Bound Spirit's POW > >Quoting David Smart on Thu 29 Dec 2005 10:21:05 PM GMT: > >> Does a bound spirit roll for POW improvement if it's successful in POW vs POW >> contests due to a spell it casts? I've always thought not but then I'm kinda >> remembering a conversation on this list some time ago that decided otherwise. > >IIRC RuneQuest II had it that such spirits (including allied spirits) would get >a POW tick, but ONLY make their POW tick on a roll of 01-05. Again, my mind is >kinda fuzzy on this point, but in RQ II the spirits had no maximum POW. SO old >spirits just naturally had a huge POW. I can't recall how much of that is true. > >RQ III had no specific rules concerning this, and so presumably spirits were >treated exactly like normal beings, so their maximum POW is calculated as per >normal embodied beings and they get POW ticks and POW gain rolls as per every >other creature. > >Nikk > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules