From: bradfurst@aol.com
Date: Wed 16 Feb 1994 - 23:02:28 EET
Brad Furst here. (Thank you, Nick)
Does RAG offer the opportunity to employ the two actions per round as
"weapon attack, then cast spell" or "cast spell, then weapon attack"?
I wish to offer the alternate name "Rhinohide" for the Protection
spell, in memory of SCA fighters (especially Atenveldt).
Regarding the POWx6 common battle magic business: another alternate
may be to require two uncommon spells designated for each common spell. I
prefer that the POWx6 common battle magic business be dropped out of the book
entirely (if nothing else, to save space); I expect my own campaign will not
use it, and it calls into question the entire arbitrary custom of rolling
dice to cast battle magic. Why choose POWx5 as default? Why not POWx7 (a
lucky number)? Why not POW+INT+DEX on d100? Why not 100% as divine? Why
not individualized probabilities as skills?
[I just saw another post. I like the idea of the POWx6 spells as requiring
2INT each to store.]
Regarding Encumberance and Fatigue: I will go on the record as
appreciating the idea of adding to die rolls when fatigued; my players liked
this rule immediately. More important to me however is the idea of requiring
delay of Strike Ranks for characters who are Fatigued. I could accept simple
subtractions from skills instead of adds to die rolls, but I would prefer
fraction multipliers rather than subtractions.
Isn't it true that most campaigns treat Encumbrance and Fatigue as
optional parameters (either deliberately or inadvertantly)? My campaign does
indeed enforce, as often as we remember, the RQ:AiG fatigue rules (and before
that the RQ3 rules); the key here is that we don't always remember nor do we
fret about it.
The best aspect of the RAG Fatigue is freedom from RQ3 bookkeeping.
Surely there remains contraversy over how to implement and impose the
consequences of Fatigue. Rather than the current scaling of ENC by STR, and
then dicing against CON, consider the alternative which is consistent with
Basic Role Playing RQ system: let us make a Resistance Roll of the sum (of
STR plus SIZ) versus ENC. Failure then imposes the Fatigue consequences.
(The key here is the Resistance Roll, not which parameters to compare).
What if the RAG rules presented the Fatigue consequences as a menu of
options from which the referee can consistently choose?:
1. Additions to the die roll (the author may list this a Default)
2. Additions to delay the Strike Rank
3. Fractional multipliers to skills
4. arithmetic Subtractions from skills
5. loss of one of the two actions per round
6. Roll twice, accepting the poorer result
The key here is the Option can customized to each referee's campaign.
Regarding the combat advantages of skills greater than 100%:
Our RQ3 campaign regularly use those attackers to Aim Blows, waiting until
the end of the round, attacking at half normal skill with success allowing
choice of hit location (usually Head). That procedure did not follow into
RAG. I suggest instead that skills over 100% be resolved by the choice of
multple rolls: An attacker at 115% would roll once at 100%, noting the
result, and once again at 15%, noting the result; choose the favored result.
(Note: power gamers can, in house rules, choose to ignore the choice and
apply both results.) I understand in advance that it is annoying to roll
extra. I further understand that, as mentioned by Ray Turney and me, such
high level one-on-one contests should be rarely encountered without
additional party members interfering/ helping; with extra bodies ("Figures")
the more likely use of skills rated 100+% will be to split among multiple
foes.
[David: gosh, I hope RAG includes splitting -- I just assumed so.
Meanwhile, I also prefer alphabetic skill list on the character sheet for the
exact same reason as you state.]
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:35:27 EEST