From: Elliot Wilen (8hum190@violet.Berkeley.edu)
Date: Thu 23 Jan 1992 - 09:56:33 EET
Use of Alchemy is somewhat different from the usual
application of a skill percentage.[2] The maximum potency of
a specific item which a character is capable of making is 1/5
of the character's skill, rounded up. Thus the highest possible
potency is 20.[3] Success is guaranteed unless the player
fumbles.
I've been using a similar rule with two differences. First, the skill is
brew (POTION), i.e. a different skill is required for each type of potion.
Second, although as in Elliot's system the max potency is skill/5, each
potency subtracts from skill; i.e. it is 35% more difficult to make a
potency 8 poison than a potency 1. When the player chooses to make a
potion, s/he must determine the target potency. Multiply the target
potency by 5, then subtract this from the skill of the alchemist. This is
the true chance of success. Each potency adds 1 week to the time (POT 8 =
8 weeks).
Actually the above is an abstraction for speed. If I want to actually
play it out, the percentages are figured week by week. The Alchemist
makes a potion of POT 1 in one week's time. If s/he chooses, s/he can
refine the potency in the following week, distilling out a POT 2 potion.
Each week roll for the refinement; if any roll fails, the potion is
ruined. As Elliot Wilen suggests, fumbles mean that the Alchemist has
imbibed the potion and ruined it. Criticals and specials indicate that the
refinement has had double or triple effect (i.e. allow you to skip weeks).
Note that in order to brew a potion of POT 20, you have to be very lucky,
or very skilled. This is intentional; it makes high POT potions rare.
I do permit healing potions of two varieties. The first is just an
embedded healing spell; the second is a potion which offers a bonus to
first aid (this latter is fairly common).
Further in the article Elliot Wilen suggests,
1]Or higher, given the standard rules on training. However,
since the highest skill level attainable (for a Knowledge skill)
through research is 111%, then if one assumes that teachers
cannot teach people of higher skill than they, and that all
knowledge of Alchemy was originally gained through
research, then the highest possible POT is 23. Alternatively,
the maximum could simply be set at 100%.
I don't know why the maximum skill level should be 111%; each time a
research cycle is completed, the Alchemist has an 11% chance to learn.
Given my system, I would consider permitting players to get experience in
Alchmemy.
In rqd 1.6, Elliot suggests (apparently based on a previous conversation
with Steve Maurer) that free intelligence be abandoned in favour of a
system wherein sorcerors could accept decrements to skill in exchange for
manipulation. His suggested system is quite similar to the Alchemy system
I detailed above; 3 points of intensity would subtract 15% from the
intensity skill. Although I like the system, one of my players pointed
out that it further unbalances sorcerors; a mage with a 200% skill can
manipluate spells as though s/he had a 20 intelligence WITHOUGHT REDUCTION
IN OTHER MANIPULATIONS. e.g. if the mage had 200% in all sorcery skills,
s/he could act as though s/he had a 60 INT. High level magi are dangerous
enough already....
In RQD 1.9, ACB suggests that
With the standard rules, this would allow one to become a RuneLord
just by spending time training. I feel that RuneLords should have
to do more for their cult than just be prepared to be a RuneLord;
they must do some questing, perhaps accompany a heroquester,
and so on.
Actually as I understand it, for nonlore skills, training is only
effective to 75%. Thus only Lankhor Mhy could train a runelord (but I
think that makes sense.)
[That article proposed a change, allowing training above 75%. Under the
normal rules, 75% is the limit of training for checkable skills. The
confusion is understandable; by "standard rules" in the quoted part, I
meant "standard rules for becoming a RuneLord. Sorry. -- ACB]
While I'm on the subject of skill increases, a house rule which has
developed here relates to skill category modifiers (e.g. Agility,
Manipulation, etc). Although the rules book says that these are added
once, and never again influence the spell, we track them separately. If
you POW goes up, your stealth modifier goes down, and all stealth skills
are modified appropriately. The change is usually only a few percentiles,
and the record keeping is somewhat more comples (requiring that at skill
use time the skill be added to the Skill Category Modifier, then any
spells or other modifiers are used. Also, during experience rolls, the
player does not add the skill category modifer to his dice (since it is
tracked separately from the skill; s/he need only roll under the skill %
listed on the sheet.
In the same digest (1.9) Andrew Bell discusses lock picking, and the
horde of Trollkin lock pickers problem. I've mused on this problem, and I
have two suggestions to offer for comment.
First, only the highest skilled individual has any chance to do anything.
No experience is given for low skill individuals performing a skill,
because for them it is not a stressful situation (if they fail, someone
else will pick it). The same holds true for other skills (although
perhaps not for scan, since it may detect an ambush, which is stressful.)
The second suggestion is adapted from Steve Maurer's VARIANT rules,
wherein he suggests dividing each skill into three components; Essential
Knowledge, Aptitude, and Proficiency. Only individuals with differing
essential knowlege could try to pick a lock multiple times (Theobalt has
studied Esrolian locks, while Roland specialized in Dorastorian Locks).
This idea needs more work; I only throw it out because Steve's notion
seems applicable here.
Two other general comments. First, regarding Steve's rule, I think that
each skill category has a different mix of the three components; e.g.
manipulation relies little on Essential Knowledge, and almost all on
proficiency. Lore relies almost entirely on Essential knowledge.
Aptitude doesn't seem to be used much in RQ (Steve suggests that it is
used for 'skills' like running, etc.). What mix of components would you
suggest for each skills category, and can you suggest any other ways in
which this division would be useful?? The one which comes to my mind is
kind of lame, but I've several times had a ghost possess a person and try
to use a skill; the ghost carries Essential Knowlege, can retrain
proficency, but must use the bodies aptitude.
[I would have thought that the various skill bonuses are "aptitude." --ACB]
The second comment/question has to do with skill checks. The only
guidance is that skill checks should be given for skills used under
stress, but it is difficult to define stress fairly and consistently. I
know of campaigns where sorcerors build unbelievable skills by sitting at
home and successfully casting spells. In my opinion, that is not
stressfull, and should be counted as research. The GM in question
counters that there is a risk of the spell going awry, and that reseach
should refer to book learning.
On the other extreme, I've had players carry out long complicated missions
involving lots of skills, and I've awarded them no skill checks since they
weren't under pressure. In retrospect, I'm convinced that I was wrong.
How do you determine when skill checks are apropos? Andrew Bell's
suggestion permitting only 10 skill checks/adventure seems attractive but
arbitrary. Certainly any skill performed while exerting fatigue (from
exertion, not from wearing armour) or in peril seem apropos. But what
constitutes peril?? How immediate. Is hiding in the troll mansion for
five days worth one experience check?? or more?? Comments & guidelines
anyone??
[Not that I'm offended or anything, but I don't *think* I ever suggested
that -- though I believe someone else did. I've been advocating non-skill-
check systems for a while now. But perhaps it was the booze talking...
-- ACB]
Also, with respect to the experience system, the RQDigest contains
numerous suggestions on how to prevent "skill check frenzy". I'll add
a (hopefully conservative) suggestion.
First, permit any fumble (and optionally any critical) to count as a
second check. This motivates characters to stay in combat and learn from
their mistakes.
Alternatively, one of my players, when GMing, permits a skill check
for each five successful uses beyond the first. This also keeps them in
the running. I believe that the check must be against the skill improved
by the first check as well (i.e. if your first check raises the skill by
4%, the second check (based on five additional uses) must be made against
the new skill, not the skill you had when you made the successful
attacks.)
Another possible revision, which wouldn't help stop Skill Check Frenzy
(SCF) would be to permit characters to make skill checks against their
modified skill, not against the normal skill. For example, if Tarus is
picking a difficult lock (-20%) she gets makes her experience roll against
the skill at -20% (i.e. 20 % easier to make the check). To keep it fair,
if your skill is adjusted by beneficial magic (e.g. bladesharp), your
experience check should be correspondingly more difficult. This would
reduce the learning value of magic (which I think is already too high); it
might be prone to some gross abuses though.....
In the same article Andrew mentions the special fail roll (i.e. 20 % of
your chance to fail) which has been mentioned by Greg Stafford earlier. I
call this a botch (with apologies to Lion Rampant), and will start using
it when I automate RQ later this year/early next. Is anyone else using
this to good effect??
IN RQD 1.12 Andrew Bell proposes the following
Time to do things:
Humanoid: prone to standing : 3 strike ranks
Humanoid: prone to on knees : 2 strike ranks
Humanoid: on knees to standing : 2 strike ranks
Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that Andrew's problem (the
time to stand up) is completely unaddressed in the rules. Knockdown seems
to have little or no disadvantages, since everyone, if knocked down,
immediately rises. Even with the 3 SR to stand rule, people stand too
quickly. My house rule has been that to stand you must forfeit one of
your two actions (attack/parry/dodge), take 3SR, and resist the damage of
any incoming blows. Still, I can't keep a good character down for any
lenght of time. In the movies, downed characters die. Suggestions??
RQD 2.2 Mark Abbot discusses Andrew Bell's Thief, guard, friend scenario,
(what are the benefits for surprising a character, and the benefits for
point blank range.) He suggests
[BEGIN ABBOT]
A couple of fixes I use to handle the kind of situation Andrew gave (the
thief, the captain of the guard, and the thief's friend): At point blank
range versus a stationary target, missile skill rolls are one "level" of
success better, ie, a normal hit becomes a special hit, a miss becomes a
normal hit, etc. 00 is still a fumble, it's up to the GM to determine
what happens when a critical is rolled. It's also up to the GM to decide
what qualifies as point blank and whether the target is close enough to
being stationary. I base it mostly on my feel for the situation.
Similarly, if someone attacks a helpless or completely unsuspecting
opponent, the roll is one better. This means that a fairly good warrior
can expect to special hit an unsuspecting opponent, making assassin style
attacks quite powerful.
[END ABBOT
Rather than up the damage to a special, I prefer to permit surprise attacks
to choose hit location. This makes assasin style attacks powerful
(choice of least armored location or automatically a vital location).
Sneak/surprise attacks already garner a significant bonus in the rules
(I think the suggestes situation qualifies for
+25 target surprised/helpless
+10 Attack from behind
+10 Prepared attack
+10 Attacking from above
---- +55% (which increases chance to special by 10% and chance to crit by 3%; nothing at which to sneer! RQD 2.2, John Thompson writes Binding Enchantment The current rules suggest that a player must learn a separate binding enchantment for each otherworld creature. That is: Ghost Binding Enchant, Magic Spirit Binding Enchantment, etc. [END JT] Actually Binding Enchantment as described in the rules is not species specific. Binding is a ritual which applies to all summoned creatures, and requires a ceremony skill roll. I believe the (species) qualifier on page 57 of the rulebook is a misprint. None of the binding enchantments for described in the chapters on each type of magic are species specific. Part of the ritual training each mage receives is the apropriate adaptations of the spell to each different creature. RQD 2.2 Andrew Bell writes, (in response to Elliot Wilen's comments about knockout blows in GURPS) I'm not sure I agree with you on this one, Elliot. (Gasp!) When a mace tries to break through armor, it doesn't try to cleave it in twain, it tries to dent metal armor and overwhelm leather armor. The sword, on the other hand, tends to try to cut through the armor to administer its blow. For this reason, maces should be somewhat better against plate armor, although I'd remove the idea of ignore armor for criticals, since I can't see it fitting between the cracks. Instead, make crushing weapons better against heavy armor normally (working against 1/2 the AP of rigid armors), but a critical would only let you aim your shot and ignore magical protection. [END AB] Actually crushing/impact weapons work fine through armour. It is perfectly possible to break the arm of someone wearing plate mail without damaging the mail (as I understand it; check with your scadian friends). Crushing weapons should be better than slashing against plate, but I think the high damage of crushing weapons, plus crits, models this; not well, mind you, but it models it. I admire the GURPS system on this count, but not enough to much about with RQ rules. If I were to much about, I'd multiply damage of crushing weapons by 2, then half damage which penetrates armour. Is this how GURPS does it?? In RQD 2.3 ajoseph@Cs.Ucl.AC.UK writes about a fairly complex system for adjusting experience which divides skills into ranges, then limits the improvement possible as the skill increases (i.e. high skills are both more difficult to gain experience in, and the experience gain is limited). [The article is too long to summarize.] It occurs to me that a simpler adaptation would be to require that skills in the 100%+ range require 5 checks to increase, the 75-100% range 4 checks, .... 0-25% range 1 check. Of course the checks are already supposed to be pretty tough (100% skill means % chance to increase is equal to skill category modifier), but in my experience, this doesn't limit high skills enough. RQD 2.4 Jeff Okamoto <okamoto%hpccc@sde.hp.com> writes: But the shaman seems to get the short end of the stick in summoning spirits. To control a spirit via the Control spell, the spirit must be reduced to zero magic points via spirit combat. But, for the shaman to engage the spirit in spirit combat, he must Discorporate, which takes a ceremony of at least an hour's duration. And while he is performing this ceremony, the spirit will be doing whatever it needs to escape the shaman. He can of course use his fetch to defeat the spirit, but if his fetch is already holding spirits, then the loss of even a few magic points may mean the release of a spirit from the fetch. [END Jeff Okamoto] Actually, I think Shamans deserve little pity. As I've said in other Digests, I feel that I don't understand Shamanism, and that I'm running them wrong. I don't see how they avoid taking over the game. (they are the original JOAT character. To respond to the specific points above; I've assumed that summoning a spirit permits one to engage in spirit combat (i.e. forces the spirit to appear on the mundane plane). I may be wrong in this; does anyone have any comments. If not, the shaman summons the spirit, and the fetch controls it. IN RQD 2.4, Mark Abbot discusses a suite of programs he and his fellow GMs use to assist in GMing. I'd like a copy of the source ( to adapt it to the Amiga), and to hear from anyone else who has RQ progras written. IN RQD 3.1, Andrew Bell, our esteemed editor discusses the element bolt sorcery spell, and writes Yes, I think an elemental attack spell is "necessary." To paraphrase what somebody else once said to me: "They just have to have fireballs! They just HAVE to!" Unless one wishes RuneQuest to be inextricably tied to Glorantha, the system should be able to simulate spells commonly mentioned in fantasy literature. I know of no other FRP system where a magician cannot cast some analogue of fireball. [END AB] First, as a philosophical point, I disagree with the statement that they need fireballs. In about ten years of playing mages, I've cast five or so fireballs; each of which was for a specific purpose, and each of which I am am ashamed. Mages and sorcerors should be subtle, not nuclear. I recognize that this is not the majority viewpoint, and I respect the desire for a fireball, but I'm obliged to disagree politely. In any case, the potential for a fireball already exists; summon an elemental, use form/set to crush it to a ball or bolt shape, then cast away. This is particularly effective with Fire Elementals who fly on their own. IN RQD 4.2, Ken has some questions about the spirit plane I find that the rules regarding spirit plane encounters for shamans are unclear. For example, what happens to a shaman on the spirit plane who is reduced to zero magic points by a spirit? Is his body possessed? What if the creature is something like an elemental that cannot inhabit the material plane without appropriate quantities of its element, or some creature that cannot possess anything. Are encounters with these creatures without risk? [END KEN] A discorporate shaman's body is inhabited by his fetch, and cannot be possessed unless the fetch is defeated in spirit combat. If the shaman is reduced to 0 mp s/he is liable to possession. If the victor cannot possess the shaman, the shaman will not be possessed; however since a spirit can break off spirit combat at any time, a non-possessing spirit is likely to leave combat as soon as possible. In a later digest, Eric Jablow asserts that the spirit would possess the body of the shaman, or in the case of an elemental, manifest around the shaman's body. Most spirits are unable to manifest on the mundane plane (aka the mud plane). Only ghosts innately have this ability. Ken's question gives rise to one of my own. At 0MP a person is unconsious (or so we've always assumed). Yet a Shaman can return to his/her material body at any time, unless engaged in spirit combat. I can see two possibilities: 1) when reduced to 0 MP, the shaman automatically comes home, or 2) the shaman floats about the spirit plane until s/he recovers a MP, at which point s/he returns home. The latter alternative raises the possibility that some spirit will bind the shaman during the recovery time. Ken suggests a third possibility; a shaman reduced to 0 MP is destroyed. This is attractive, but seems to contradict the implicit division between mana and POW. [BEGIN KEN] What if a shaman binds a ghost or magic spirit which has rune magic? Is this rune magic reusable? How does the spirit regain it? [END KEN] My assumption has been that the magic is reuseable, but that the spirit must return to Hell to recover the magic. If a shaman forces the true name from a rune magic spirit, then summons it repeatedly, the shaman gains effective reuseable rune magic. The time it takes the spirit to recover the runespell is variable, and reasonably long, so this isn't as useful as divine magic. Eventually the power which grants the spell may notice that one of its worshippers is missing from hell, and get irritated at the Shaman. Eric Jablow later suggests that such spirits must be caught enroute to hell where they are protected by their god from such indignities as the shaman wishes to visit upon them; I concur. In my world, 95% of all spirits have only spirit magic. 80% of the remainder have divine magic, and 20% have sorcery spells memorized. [BEGIN KEN Can a severed limb be reattached with the spirit heal spell? [END KEN] We noticed the contradiction, and quizzed Chaosium on this. They sent back a fairly snotty reply which ignored/denied the contradiction, and referred us to two references in the rules. PLAYERS BOOK, PG 43 "Only Healing magic specifically described as capable of regrowing limbs may be used to reatach a severed limb. However any Healing magic whcih will restore hit points will cure a maimed limb, as long as all the hit points are restored within ten melee rounds." Elsewhere a severed limb is defined as one which takes double damage from a slashing weapon, or by claw or bite. A maimed limb is one which takes double damage from any other kind of weapon. [BEGIN KEN] When does a shaman get a power check from a spirit encounter? What keeps a shaman from increasing his power by leaps and bounds this way? [END KEN] The rulebook says that you get a pow check whenever you defeat anyone in spirit combat. Our house rule has been that you get the POW check only if the spirit you combat is of equal or greater strength. As far as I can see, there is no limit to the size of a shaman's fetch, and any competent shaman should have a fetch well over POW 100 before hitting middle age. This makes the shaman nearly invincible. [BEGIN KEN] Do you guys enforce the requirement that one have 10 pts of divine magic for it to be reusable? Does this apply to Priests, Acolytes, and Rune Lords? [END KEN] I'm aware of no such rule; if there is one, I'd be unlikely to enforce it. Divine magic is tough enough to get as it is! In RQD 4.6 Eric Jablow asks Also, on the recent articles on magic items, one of the glaring omissions in RQ3 is the lack of Alchemy and other temporary enchantment rules. RQ2 had its Alchemy rules, but these are barely adequate. How does a shaman make a medicine bundle? Permanent items all require the sacrifice of POW, but what about one-use items? Elder Secrets introduces the new Mostali spell of Store Sorcery, requiring a sacrifice of 1 POW for to store a sorcery spell in an object. But, what do we do for Shamans and Priests? What do we do for Alchemists? Any suggestions? [END ERIC] Alchemy has been addressed in other issues of the digest, and aboe. The shaman's medicine bundle is an example of something I've been meaning to develop for some time now. Here are my rules for material components in RQIII. Any magician can "precast" ceremony into a material object, which will then increase his/her ability to cast that spell in the future. The object must be appropriate to the spell, and is consumed in the spell. One magic point must be expended during the investiture ritual for each % of increase in chance to cast. An example: "Vincenzo the mage wishes to cast a shapechange man to eagle spell. Since his chance to cast is low, he wishes to build a charm which will increase his ability to cast the spell under pressure. He takes some feathers from an eagle, hair from a dozen men, and implants them in wax, all the while chanting. At the end of two hours, he rolls 2D6, gets 7, and expends 7 mana. Several weeks later, he and his friend Stolnar need to escape from the evil Harquin, who has cornered them. Vincenzo can fly, but not Stolnar. Vincenzo pulls out the charm described above, adds 7 to his chance to cast, and rolls the dice. The charm is destroyed in the casting (the components remain, but they are no longer magical). The GM should limit mundane objects to a max of 2D6 or so of investiture. Exceptional objects would permit higher bonuses. Very specific objects would also increase the chance. For example, if Vincenzo had created the charm above with hair exclusively drawn from Stolnar, it might be 2D6 for spells cast on Stolnar, and 0 for anyone else. If the feathers came from the king of the eagles, the GM might permit Vincenzo to invest it with his full ceremony skill. Note that in this case, Vincenzo would be forced to spend his ceremony skill in hours and mana to create the charm. A very expensive proposition for a one use item. Ceremony can be stacked with material components, resulting in a huge chance to cast. This will chiefly benefit low skill mages with lots of time, or highly skilled mages who wish to increase their chances of a critical when casting a ritual spell. The ceremony which is used to create material components/charms is known to all three branches of magic; sorcerors call this investiture, Priests call it consecration, and spirit mages call it enchantment, or good sense. Only mana is expended in the creation of a charm, but the charm is good for only one attempt. Multiple charms may be used for a single cast. For items such as the Shaman's medicine bundle, ritual objects are chosen, the ceremony is performed, and a point of POW is expended; this makes the item permanant. Only shaman are allowed to create permanent charms in this way. There is another variation of the ritual which creates the charm, which is used by high level mages with a grudge. If the mage wishes to target a specific individual, a charm may be created which acts as a POW support charm (i.e. raises the effective MP of the mage for overcoming the opponents MP). This ritual requires some part of the victim (hair, fingernail clippings, etc). When the charm is created, the victim will feel different, and may have dreams about a vague menace. Again, hair, or fingernail clippings, or other mundane components (blood, sweat, etc) are worth only 1 point or so. Truly valuable components, such as a limb which has been lopped off and abandoned, may be worth much more. This ritual creates a one use charm. Although duplicate charms may be used, each charm must be different; e.g. only one charm made from fingernail clippings, one from hair, etc. Also note that the existence of this ritual is common knowledge (since it is available to all branches of magic), and few Gloranthans will leave suitable materials around, preferring to burn or bury the items. In my world, I permit 1D6 of ceremony skill to be invested in an object for each law of magic the object fulfills; contagion, similarlity, etc. Any comments?? I think this encourages mages with more personality, without boosting anyone's power too high. THis has not been playtested yet. IN RQD 4.9, Eric Jablow asks One ambiguous point in the rules for both RQ2 and RQ3 is the following: Gubik the Unruly has 10 points of 1-use Divine Magic Spells. He then tries to become a Rune Priest of Ex-lax, god of digestion, and he succeeds. What happens to his Divine Spells? Do they suddenly become reusable [END ERIC] Yes, they all become reuseable. Yes, this is an enourmous power jump, but the poor priest has to have something to offset those godawful shaman, and the almost as bad sorcerors. -- Mark C. Wallace breah Sullivan: noonaut ======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:25 EEST