From: ajoseph@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Date: Wed 12 Apr 1989 - 09:56:33 EEST
Okay well a few comments on your comments
> >... one very important point about battle magic (all magic I think) is
> >that it's visible (at least) when cast.
>
> I don't remember spell casting being particularly obvious; this may be a
> local variant, but I don't believe it's standard. It should be
Humm well as I remember it in RQII all battle magic was visible when cast.
> fairly easy to tell someone's got a fireblade on their sword, but telling
Okay fireblade is obvious if you decide the effect of the spell is to create visible fire, but then you are assuming something about the way the spell works. I don't remember what the rules say but I think its probably up to the GM.
> if someone has bladesharp or bludgeon on shouldn't be so easy. I would also
Okay I think this is up to the GM, generally we decided (as I think you do) that most spells are invisible once cast. Anyway the point of what I was saying is that due to the short time duration of RQ battle magic spells, you would normally be seen casting them, and hence while the opposition may not know whether you cast blade sharp or countermagic on your sword (Orlanthi know why), they would know you cast something and might want to dispell it, since previously there was a maximum of baldesharp, bludgeon etc they only need use dispell 4 to be sure of success against such spells.
> be loathe, even with visible effects, to tell viewers how many points the
> spell is. Thus you see someone casting a spell on their weapon; how many
I definately agree seeing somone cast a spell does not tell you how many points of power was in it, but if you watch the whole thing you can get an idea for the amount of time it took. However, I think thats an orthogonal issue.
> points of dispel do you use? You're going to spend more power eliminating
> that spell most of the time, or you're going to risk wasting magic points
> and time on useless casting. You're better off with dullblade in this case.
Well as I said in the old days if you were worried about bladesharp, bludgeon strength etc all of which had a maximum of 4 points you simply cast dispell 4.
> The best time to use enhancement spells, also, is when you outnumber your
> foes. For example, when fighting a giant, he can't take the time to dispel
> all your spells even if he has DM. You can also use enhancement spells when
> fighting unintelligent or non-spellcasting foes, and any spells that affect
> you (strength, vigor, etc.) should require an overcoming roll to dispel.
Okay well I must admit I'm not sure there is a 'best time' to use spells, we used to use Befuddle (RQII version which we still use, personally I think the RQIII definition is silly) when we were outnumbered, Countermagic if we thought they might do the same to us (in fact, if we thought the opposition was magic using, and we didn't have a clear numbers advantage we almost always cast counter magic first). Protection is also good if outnumbered, and shimmer is good against things which you really don't want to hit, like giants. This type of reasoning can go on and on, and then has to be weighed against the time and power cost, in other words I think when to use spells can only really be judged on a case by case baisis.
> Don't forget, also, the missile-affecting spells. Speeddarted arrows are
> much more likely to penetrate armor, and multi-missiled arbalest or heavy
> crossbow bolts can be devastating. Firearrow also dramatically increases the
> damage of arrows.
True, I must admit we didn't often get a chance to use missile weapons and I can only remember a very few occations when we used such spells, and mulitmissile was banned with its old RQII definition -- humm think about a mulitmissiled ICBM, silly I know, but silly spell definitions lead to silly uses.
> In RQ III the change in the distribution of spirit magic means that very few
> characters even have dispel magic, so the situation is much different there.
Well I don't know what other people think, but somehow I can't manage to swallow the new spirit magic system, where only some cults know countermagic etc. We still allow lots of common magic, and Glorantha is glad of it. Seriously thought personally I really like to have very common low powered magic, after all the common mothers cure "Kiss it better" (healing 1) or bladesharp on a plough to help break the ground, and plough straight, can really add to the feel of a magic rich world, which Glorantha obviously is.
Hey on another note, I didn't know that there was a version of Snakepipe Hollow out for RQIII. How about a review, with comparirions with the RQII version, I have both the old and the new Griffin Mountain and I must admit the new is very inferiour to the old, I also have the old Snakepipe Hollow, and would be interested in knowing how the new compairs.
> Subject: Spell fumbles and Monty Haul
>
> From: bell@cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell)
>
> In article 2.6, Jeff Okamoto says:
>
> > I think the current rules for fumbles and criticals are fine.
> > There is no need to add insult to injury or hand out Monty Haul effects
> > just because of a single die roll.
>
> Actually, the principle of "special effects" on a single die roll does have
> precedent: the fumble charts for combat. Criticals are handled in a
> standard fashion, but fumbles go to a random chart, where all sorts of
> things can happen -- like a Zorak Zorani with True Maul, strength, and
> multiple bludgeons up can critical himself for immense amounts of damage.
Okay well here I disaggree with you both. Firstly I don't like the fumbles table, it somehow seems unreasonable for a seasoned master to swing at somone and cut his own foot off!! I think this is especially silly as it dosen't take into account the skill of the opponent, I agree that maybe a very skilled opponent might make him try such a difficult manouver that he could really mess up, but for a complete novice, or even, if you take such things to extream, (and I do to see if they are reasonable) a tree trunk to have this effect is really not on. Anyway we use a simplified (yes this does mean some loss of detail) critical/fumble system for combat. I'm sure I've seen something similar but here it ours.
We keep the same roll requirements for critical, special and fumble as RQII, but (and I can't remember it this is standard) the chance for each is calculated from your effective skill, ie after modification due to your opponents defence. Your effective skill is also modified by your opponents skill directly in the following way, for each point of parry skill he has greater than 100% you subtract one from your chance to hit, and equally when parring/dodging for each point of your opponents attack skill greater than 100% subtract one from your effective skill.
If your effective skill is less than 26% (random choice) you use the normal fumble tables otherwise the effect of attack & parry is calculated as follows. By refering to the success chart for both the attack and the parry (you subtract the parry number from the attack number) you obtain a simple number, this is then refered to on the effects chart which shows the result. [In practice the charts are very simple and nobody actually need to refer to them, as you very quickly remember them]
Success Chart
Action Value
Critical Success 3
Special Success 2
Normal Success 1
Failure 0
Fumble -1
Effects Chart
Value Effect
4 Defender takes 2 x damage with no armour protection
3 Defender takes 1 x damage with no armour protection
2 Defender takes 1 x damage with 1/2 armour protection
1 Defender takes 1 x damage with full armour protection
0 No effect if both failed or if both succeeded
Defender takes 1 x damage with full armour and shield
-1 Attackers weapon takes damage from parring item
-2 Defender may try to disarm attacker, roll
STR+DEX of defender vs STR+DEX of attacker on the
resistance chart, or as -1 defenders option
-3 Defender may take a free additional attack
against the attacker, the attacker may try to parry
the attack (See below for parry modifications)
-4 Defender gets free attack against the attacker
which cannot be parried
Its also worth noting the we allow multiple parries for a character. The system we use means that each additional parry is at a cumulative -20% of parry skill, ie normal skill for the first parry -20 for the second -40 for the third ... Naturally you may only attempt to parry when you have a positive modified skill.
My this is turning into a very long article sorry, but while I'm at it I might as well mention our very simple aimed hit and initiative system. Right to aim a blow you simply sacrifice 5% of your attack skill for each point of aim, then if you hit you roll as normal, but may adjust the roll by up to the number of points of aim you have. Our initiative system is equally as simple, for the first round use weapon strike rank ala RQII, and there after simply roll a D12. [Okay well its not really that simple, its actually each persons own first round ...]
Right well I've certainly put enough rope around my neck, now I'd like to know what people think about all this lot, remember if its not fun, you're doing it wrong, have fun
Adrian
---
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:54:04 EEST