From: Dennis Hoover (SMS) (71736.77@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Tue 15 Feb 1994 - 06:53:44 EET
Dennis Hoover <dhoover@bix.com>
1) ON BABEESTER GOR & AXE TRANCE
I'd like to add my 2 cents to the "Axe Trance is too powerful"
camp. I [used to] play in a party that had a BB priestess, and our
most effective battle formation was a wedge behind the priestess.
My Wood Lord's best use was to stand ready to cast Heal Body.
This campaign had gone on for a while, progressing nicesy, until
the BB made priestess. Now it has been retired. After this, the
players (mostly the same people) in the campaign I run all wanted
to play a Babeester Gor. As a GM, I have always seen this behavior
on the part of the players as a red flag that something was wrong.
I understand the impulse to put the integrity of Glorantha ahead of
game balance, but RQ is a game and must be playable to be
successful. I also think BB would be VERY rude, even with a toned
down Axe Trance. I see a couple of ways to deal with the problem. The GM
could forbid PCs to play BBs or make it such a pain that no one would
want to play one, or the spell could be changed. I prefer the latter. I
think there are few enough playable cults as it is (at least in a campaign with
a lot of combat) without removing an interesting cult. I would go for either
making the spell stackable or making it one use, with a preference for
stackable.
As for Babeester Gor vs Gorgorma (sounds like a Japanese horror flic)
as the true avenger cult, I find BB in three pantheons (Elf, Storm, and
Pamalt) and Gorgorma in one (Solar). Who is the true earth mother,
Ernalda or Dendara? Who is the true trickster, Bolongo or Eurmal?
2) ANOTHER RULE IDEA
I dont propose this seriously as a change to RQ:AiG, or maybe
in the appendix at best, but I have a long ride home from work
and it sets me to thinking...
What if a giant, strengh bonus 20, hits me over the head with
a rotten tree branch with 4 AP that does damage of, say, 1d3?
According to the rules I would take 21-23 pts plus knockback.
In reality, I dont think I would be hurt that much. I figure
Id take about 8 pts of damage, and the rest would go towards
damaging the stick, which would snap like, well, a rotten tree
branch.
What I am thinking is that when crushing weapons (maybe
slashing weapon, as well) do damage in excess of double their
armor pts, the excess damage should be applied to the weapon.
Metal weapons should probably take triple AP. Any specials and
all natural weapons would be exempt. This is why really big
creatures dont use flimsy little weapons. They kick or stamp or bite.
Does anybody see anything wrong with this, other than the
obvious problem of added complexity that could slow combat?
Dennis.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:18 EEST