From: Graeme A Lindsell (gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au)
Date: Fri 13 Aug 1993 - 19:15:27 EEST
>
> davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) writes:
> > are obviously things that are fine to add. Into this category come Combat
> > Special Options, New Skills that don't supersed old ones, the character
> > creation system, and a few other things.
[Wayne:]
> Me too. The character creation system in particular was what got me into
> this project. The excessive randomness of RQIII was probably the SINGLE
> most irking feature about it to me and the people I play with.
>
Here's another vote for the new character creation rules: if a rules
companion includes just one new character creation system it'd be worth
buying. I think it has to have new fatigue rules as well, but I don't
see anything else as absolutely necessary.
> > It is probably fine to include changes to the core rules that change
> > gameplay significantly, but that don't change characteristics. This makes
> > RQ4 into a hefty change to the rules - we get new combat actions rules,
> > changes to damage and healing, Easy/Medium/Hard skills.
These are all fine as optional rules, since most GM's can take them
or leave them without changing how the scenarios play.
> > of the new skills, but mostly means Magic, shamanism and sorcery.
>
> Which means, among other things that the finished work on the basic
> sorcery modification needs to be made. Even just going to the percentage
[some deleted]
> extension, but under the current rules, it's pretty unlikely that mages
> will be travelling around with constant high Intensity, long Duration
> spells on them,
In fact none of them will if we use the current RQIV sorcery draft,
successfully making sorcerers as dull as possible.
> > Then there are changes which change a few things on each character -
> > basically maneouver, and Spirit Combat. I like these as well (especially
> > Spirit Combat) but they might be problematic, as the decision will have to
> > be made as to wether new supplements will support these changes.
>
I seem to be alone in loathing the new spirit combat rules: I think they
are very complex and add nothing to the enjoyment of the game. They are
valid as optional rules though.
> > Lastly, comes major changes which change the characteristics of
> > everything, in several places. The only thing that I can think of is the
> > new damage bonus/ armour system. It is unreasonable to suggest a new system
>
> I'm not sure the new version works right anyway; it seems to miss the
> point of why some weapons had base adds in the first place, and really
> looks to me like it might break as much as it fixes.
I liked the idea of the new system, but I don't think that it went far
enough. If there is going to be something that changes all the stats then
it could just as well be completely different ie weapon damage based on
str+size, hit points = con + siz and death at 0 HP rather than HP =
(con + siz)/2 and death at negative HP.
>
> > SO the question of the 'status' of the new version makes quite a
> > bit of difference. Can we still make the RQ4 changes to the magic system if
> > they will be unsupported? Can we produce a 'magic companion' and from then
> > on expect people to have it? (plausible, FASA expect you to have their
> > Grimoire supplement, for example).
> > What changes can we have in the new format?
It depends on the kind of changes: the new effects of Befuddle won't
affect many published scenarios, but the new sorcery rules would
probably affect all new publications. Annual re-usable rune magic for
initiates (one of my optional rules proposals) wouldn't change the
character sheets much but would change the effectiveness of parties
quite a lot.
> All important questions that I'd like to hear answered.
I wouldn't stay up late to hear the answers: KR only seemed to float
the idea a few days ago.
> shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow
> The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327
Graeme Lindsell a.k.a gal502@huxley.anu.edu.au
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:46 EEST