From: Graeme Lindsell (gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au)
Date: Sat 10 Jul 1993 - 05:58:53 EEST
Graeme here, back from his holidays with no net access:
To Anthony Ragan: My variable spirit magic rules "fixing what ain't
broke" Actually I agree with you, I don't have any real problems with
the current spirit magic rules as they are . I propsed those rules
since a fair few people seemed to want more variation in spirit magic,
and these rules at least produce the same average results as the current
fixed-value system; they could be introduced as optional rules without
wildly changing the effectivenessof spirit magic.
To Burton Choinski: Your new mechanics for sorcery look excellent: this
is the sort of system I wished they'd produced originally. One thing I
like is that the sorcerers now _have_ to be educated: the Studies would
be similiar to the Lores that the polytheistic cultures study, though
perhaps covering somewhat different areas: whereas Elf Lore tells you a
lot about elvish culture and personality, Elf Studies would have a lot
to say about anatomy and the structure of their minds. In the RQIII system,
a sorcerer seemed a type of artisan: he had no real reason to learn Lore's;
in fact it was as much a waste of time for a sorcerer to do so as it was
for him to learn combat skills.
I would suggest that Studies give half skill in the equivalent Lore. This
leads to a situation I quite like: the Lhankor Mhy Initiates and Malkionist
Sorcerers having a lot in common. I like the idea of the Lhankhor Mhy
quietly opening a book of forbidden sorcery in their locked study, or an
adept secretly running a small shrine to get that oh-so-handy runemagic.
After all, aren't they both associated with the Law rune? They must
be aspects of the same god, musn't they? :-)
There would be a lot of Excommunications and Inquisitions from those
dyed-in-the-wool conservatives with different views on the subject, of
course.
The problems with spells such as Banish Air are a matter for play balance:
that's what this list is here to discuss.
The "Enchant for Permanence": I had concluded that such a mechanic was
required for Paul's system, and was going to suggest it when I returned from
hols. The old-style system for sorcerous enchantments, where the points of
POW in the items are added to the free INT of every casting would obviously
be too powerful for Paul's system with the twin's POW as the limit. Instead,
the points in the enchantment would add to a single spell. This would only be
useful if the enchantment was added on to the limit of skill/10 for total
manipulation, but even then I suspect most sorcerers would prefer to keep
the POW in their twin rather than make enchantments out of it.
If the POW in the enchantment went to making a permanent spell, which the
sorcerer could then enhance if he wanted to by adding points from his own
Twin, then a sorcerer has several motives for making an enchantment:
i) Enchantments will last after the sorcerer dies.
ii) The sorcerer can use them to exceed his skill limit for manipulation for
that one casting.
iii) They can't be dispelled: like an enchantment the runes and/or item has
to be destroyed.
My only problem with this kind of enchantment is that it produces items
that are more like D&D magic items ie +2 swords, unlike the matrices
that are the RQ style of magic items. However, this type of item may be
more appropriate to the West than matrices: in most European stories I've
read, magical items tend to have virtues in and of themselves, rather than
allowing the owner to cast spells.
This sort of enchantment might explain the mass-produced magic swords of
the Clanking City, which are mentioned in one source as having a "permanent
Bladesharp 3" on them. A permanent Damage Boosting 3 can now be explained
in the game mechanics: the only question is where the Clanking City got all of
the Power. Perhaps we don't want to know...
To Paul R.
> What happened to all the volume on this list?
I went on holidays? Seriously, it is the middle of the year: a lot of people
could be busy or on holidays.
The maintainance rules look quite good, my only quibble is the sudden
breakpoints, as David has already pointed out. I'm sure generic abilities
with skill levels have been discussed before: I look back and see what
the conclusions were before.
To David Cheng: The Rules Lawyer's Guide to RQ: well this is
one way of doing it I suppose.It may result in every group using its
own selection of optional rules, but then I'm sure each group has its
own house rules right now. I've never seen anyone play the pure published
RQIII rules. I would still like RQIV to be just one big book: there may be
an optional rule or two that almost everyone will play: if it is in a RLG,
then people will feel obliged to buy it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Lindsell Email: gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:20 EEST