From: Bryan J. Maloney (jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu)
Date: Tue 22 Feb 1994 - 20:56:21 EET
My comments on Steve Maurer's comments. I restrict myself to places where I
either disagree or wish to enlarge. If I agree with what Steve said, I don't
say anything. In other words, presume that I agree with him except where I
explicitly state otherwise.
> Skills - Degrees of success, time dependent skills, complementary skills,
> symmetric contest of skill, skill selection, subskills - all are
excellent
> additions. Giants can still play (and learn how to play) harps better
> because they are so strong
I have always found this to be absurd. Why are Uzko all better musicians than
all other typical PC species? Why are they also all better pickpockets? This
is still a Murphy's Rule to me.
>
> 1] First Aid cannot realistically heal damage - period. If you want
> it to be more effective, make it required to heal any major injury
> with a Heal spell (not just to reattach a severed limb).
That depends on how "damage" is defined. I would state that healing 1D3 for a
normal success is still excessive, however. Sorry, but first aid is just that
FIRST AID. It functions ONLY to stabilize a person and reduce effects of
shock. If you have a real injury, you need time or time AND surgery to
actually heal it in the real world. Lets put it another way: An average
person wielding a knife in RQ does 1D3. Now, if I were to be cut pretty good
in the arm with this "knife" I doubt that anything short of time or stitches
and time could do very much for the wound.
> 4] As an optional rule, how hard would it be to divide up Manipulation
> into Fine Manipulation (Devise, Play, Sleight, and Conceal), and
> Large Manipulation (Attacks, Brawl, Drive, Grapple, Pass)? STR would
> not be a factor in Fine manipulation (always considered 10, or use
> the formula DEX + INT/2 - 15), but otherwise no change would be
> required. That way, Great Trolls and Giants no longer make such
> wonderful pickpockets (because they can hold on to the coins with
> their high STR so well).
I would go for this, if only to stop the ridiculous preponderance of Uzko
virtuosi and expert Uzko pickpockets I saw in my last RQ campaign. Splitting
up Agility skills doesn't taste as nice to me.
> 6] Please get rid of "Martial Arts". Real martial arts is nothing more
> than normal training in hand to hand combat. If you want the natural
> weapons to be more effective, increase their damage (along with the
> rest of the weapons), and do extra damage on a special.
Well, I would differ from Steve on this on one point: That depends on the
"Martial Art" you study. Some styles (the eclectic ones that also utilize
holds, locks, and GETTING OUT OF THE WAY) tend to be more effective in the
long run than just learning to punch and kick. However, I would rather see
"Martial Arts" as they exist in RQ be dropped entirely. The truth of the
matter is that a good puncher is a good puncher, regardless of how he learned.
The eclectic stylists simply also learned wrestling, principles of throws and
locks, dodging, and FIGHTING STRATEGY. There is no magic method to the punch
or kick--a punch is a punch, just most people are SOOOOOO unskilled that they
can't throw a simple punch for shit. If unarmed combat with "Martial Arts" is
so damned powerful, then why did all styles that were in use before the 20th
century emphasize WEAPON use over unarmed combat (except in regions where
weapons were too illegal to get--and even these styles "invented" weapons out
of tools)? Why? Simple: Weapons are BETTER than the empty hand. The only
advantages had by the empty hand is that you always have it, and it is very
difficult to effectively make it illegal.
Final conclusion: Trash "Martial Arts"--it's a bozo idea.
>Divine Intervention - Very good in describing what is and is not possible.
> However there remains one pretty big flaw: the amount of D.I. effect you get
> is based on the amount of POW the god takes. This can leave a PC who rolls
> too low a worthless D.I. For example, if a Chalana Arroy healer is killed
> from a stab in the back by a troll, and his player rolls a 01, he might
> expect to be brought back to life. Not so fast! He only gets 3 points of
> cult special magic; good enough for a Resurrect, but not the Heal Body.
> She dies from having rolled too well. My fix: add cultists original POW,
> DI POW lost, and either average them, or roll 101-d100, and take that as
> the percentage of DI "Strength".
Too complicated. I would prefer the following: "My child, you are pleasing
in my sight and I give you the gift of a Resurrection, now, while I'm here,
is there anything else you think you need?"
"Uh, could I have a Heal Body?"
"Done." and Chalana Arroy collects two more POW from the supplicant for
that spell. Yes, it still "punishes low rolls" but it's cleaner than Steve's
proposal.
>B+ to B Grades: ( or - "Pretty good. Could be better." )
> Shuriken need a hell of a lot less DEX to throw properly than daggers or
> Thowing Axes (which only have one sharp end). Like Martial Arts and Dodge,
> this is probably a leftover from the Sandy Peterson "Gee I want RQ combat to
> be just like those super-realistic Ninja movies" era.
So true, so true, so true. Shuriken are very easy to throw, definitely far
easier to throw effectively than an axe (I speak from personal experience,
having thrown tomohawks and shuriken). Also, there is no place for them in
non-Kralorelan areas. If you want a bad-ass throwing weapon that FITS use a
Hurlbat. It was used from ancient Rome to medieval Europe and it has the
weight and basic shape of an axe. However, it is constructed with pointy and
edgy bits all over the place so that it is hard to throw it in such a way that
it DOESN'T land with nasty effect. Ordinary axes and knives are not all that
easy to throw properly especially not compared to specialized weapons like
hurlbats and shuriken. PS: The terrifying reputation of the shuriken had
nothing to do with the amount of damage it did in and of itself. Those who
would use it had a habit of soaking them in horse manure and urine until they
got rusty, letting them dry, and THEN using them. Tetanus is a NASTY,
AGONIZING death, and if you see it once, you'll be careful when some yoyo
starts tossing those little packages around indiscriminately (and that is how
they were used--not as precision weapons but as terror tactics, usually to
slow down pursuit).
Regarding all the stuff about training: I just want to make explicit my
agreement with the vast majority of what Steve wrote.
I also like a good deal of what he wrote about ENC
>B- to C+ Grades: ( or - "Identified the problem, didn't quite fix it" )
> 2] Healing was the perfect alternative to First Aid, and I like the roll
> needed to reattach; actually my game is much meaner - you can "misheal"
> a limb. Unfortunately, Healing 10 now is the perfect alternative to
> Treat Poison and flame damage. If you want Shamans to be able to heal
> CON, make it achievable by bargaining with powerful healing spirits,
> not as a base ability.
Hmm... Doesn't this problem seem to be more one of RQ:AiG not giving us a
thing for context and daily details but burying us in useless erudition? I
cannot repeat myself too much on these points, I would conclude.
> Stackable Magic - RQ3 has horrible problems with stackable magic in all
> categories, Battlemagic, Sorcery and Runemagic. Without the inherent
> stacking limits of RQ2, RQ3 violated steve's first rule of magic:
>
> Large quantities of low quality magic should NOT be the equivalent
> (or better) than high quality magic.
>
Speak the LAW and Speak it TRUE. I could not agree more than I do. Adhere to
this principle as much as can be done, permit no deviation on this point.
Ignore this principle only at risk of severe munchkinism and crocking.
>
> 3] Despite the cult restrictions, Battlemagic is still NOT fixed.
First,
> cult rules are silly: cults naturally want their members to be as
> powerful as possible, and there is no reason why they would want to
> restrict spirit spell access (the weakest form of magic) to initiates.
> Next, given that Shamans now have access to Runemagic through spirit
> cults (which they should), it is silly to make large cults be unable
> to teach a wide array of simple battlemagic; rather there should be a
> bonus for teaching some forms of magic. Finally, there are still no
> ultimate stacking rules based on the quality of the magic, thus for
> instance, we find that given a choice between learning Bladesharp 5
> and Truesword, any broadsword wielder would learn the Bladesharp,
> since it is better.
Uh, Steve, yer pissin down yer leg. Let us posit a situation wherein one can
gain a great deal of power by adopting certain rites and rituals. This power
would greatly increas the prestige and power of one's own "cult"--one little
detail, one's "cult" is Roman Catholicism and the rituals are human sacrifice.
Get my point? Sorry, but power is NOT necessarily the only premise of a cult,
try reading some more comparative religion. "Ritual purity", "righteousness",
"virtue", and other such things can be just as influential as naked lust for
power.
>
> Variable Battlemagic spells have a maximum of 4x effect on a single
> target, with only the following exceptions: Dispel Magic, Mindspeech,
> and Healing; the extra spell remains, but cannot exceed the maximum.
> For example, a Bladesharp 5 can divide into a Bladesharp 3 and 2 for
> two different weapons. Yet cast on a single weapon, it can only boost
> skill by 20% and damage by 4. A Dispel Magic 4 will not dispel a
> Bladesharp 5 weapon. If a Dullblade 1 is then cast on the weapon,
> it would retain its +20% / +4, the extra +1 of Bladesharp kicking in
> to neutralize the one point of lowered damage due to the Dullblade.
Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me.
>
> Variable divine spells have similar limits as to maximum effect.
> Yet unlike Battlemagic effects, they are variable depending on the
> caster's status. Initiate effect maximums are 2 points, Acolyte
> effects are typically 4, Runelord/Priests typically have 6, and High
> Priests can go to 8. For example, even if an Initiate has 4 Points
> of sacrified Shield, the maximum effect that shield can have is 2
> Points (+4 pts protection/ +4 pts countermagic), while an Acolyte
> could stack all 4 points together on one target for +8/+8. Cultists
> who are more closely bound to their god are able to use the god's
> spells more effectively.
Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me.
>
> These effects also vary by the nature of the God in relation to
> the spell. Closely aligned spells, for instance Chalana Arroy to
> Restore Health, add +2; meaning a Chalana Arroy initiate could
> effectively restore up to 4 pts of a characteristic. Spells which
> go against a gods normal nature, if the god even provides it, have
> a negative effect. For example, Summon Salamander is both at -2 and
> twice cost for Zorak Zoran cultists; while initiates can buy the spell,
> they cannot use it, Acolytes can stack 2 points to get a 1 point
> Salamander, Priests can stack 4 points to get a 2 point Salamander,
> and High Priests can stack 8 points to get a 3 point Salamander.
Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me.
>
> Spell Teaching is a stackable spell which allows Priests to teach
> any battlemagic they know; each point of Spell Teaching allows for 1
> point of cult magic. Thus, to teach the spell Bladesharp 4 requires
> a four point Spell Teaching. Spell Teaching is limited like any
> Runespell to maximum effect. Thus an initiate can only teach up to 2
> points of cult magic, an acolyte up to 4, etc. Spellteaching of a
> god's favored cult magic is usually at a +2, thus Acolytes of Chalana
> Arroy can stack 6 Points of Spell Teaching to teach Healing 6 if they
> had that much Spell Teaching, but could not do the same to teach
> Protection. The time it takes for priests to regain their spells is
> one reason why high power spirit magic is so expensive.
Too messy. Too much rule-age. Sounds like a wargaming solution to me.
>C to C- Grades: ( or - "Some disappointments are inevitable" )
>
> Weapon Damage - Always too low in RQ, and again lowered further! Now, a
> normal man (STR 11/SIZ 13), stabbing another utterly average, HELPLESS,
> NUDE man (SIZ 13/CON 10) with a javelin, can stab him NINE times and
> still not, on average, kill him. The same man with a POLEAXE, striking
> the same NUDE man in the chest, will not, on average, even knock him
out!
> (he barely knocks him down - for one round). This average man CANNOT
> UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, >>> even including the unrealistic All Out
weapon
> damage rules <<<, kill a nude helpless man with a sightly above average
> CON (13), in a single blow to the head with a shortsword. If you even
> consider what armor is like, even before spells and armor enchantment,
> you realize RQ4 combat will be nothing but hits to the "tink". It also
> makes weapon and defensive magic that much more powerful in relation
> to skill effectivness.
I think the problem here comes from Oliver et. cie. going overboard to fix the
fact that average damage in RQIII was too damned high at the low end of
things. The simple additive damage bonus would have been sufficient by
itself, in my opinion, especially when coupled with the great liberalization
of when death is determined. However, they ALSO had to lower the weapon
damage--you went overboard, guys. You need to swing back just a bit, or
you'll have another famous Murphy's Rule on your hands. (You know, the one
where a D&D fighter cannot be executed by beheading--hate to see that extended
to RQ, wouldn't you?)
> [ At the very least, add the following die rolls: ]
>
> STR+SIZ Damage Bonus
> 01-05 -4 or -2d3
> 06-10 -3 or -2d2
> 11-15 -2 or -1d3
> 16-20 -1 or -1
> 21-25 0 or 0
> 26-30 +1 or +1
> 31-35 +2 or +1d3
> 36-40 +3 or +2d2
> 41-45 +4 or +2d3
> 46-50 +5 or +2d4
> 51-55 +6 or +1d4+1d6
> 56-60 +7 or +2d6
> 61-65 +8 or +1d6+1d8
> 66-70 +9 or +2d8
> 71-75 +10 or +1d8+1d10
Don't like the die roll DB. Sorry, but it just seems to be a sop to the
Grognards and an unnecessary complication.
>D+ to D Grades: (or - "Eegad! Dost mine eyes perceve a Mac Truck?")
>
> Worship Diety - One POW check per week. Holy cow, you're actually keeping
> this RQ3 crock? Please PLEASE just make worship services just part of
> the Sanctify spell: the more worship services you hold, the more Divine
> spells your shrine/temple/etc can support. (Also the larger your Temple
> spirit but we won't go into that right now). If you REALLY want to keep
> this, make it -at most- once per season.
I must agree here. One POW gain roll per week is just plain foolish.
Ordinary Worship services should not grant such incredible gains. One POW
check per WEEK? 50 rolls per YEAR? Lemme see, that pretty much guarantees
that all Priest-types have a POW of 20 within a couple of years AND get 2-3
points of Divine Magic per year, pretty much GUARANTEED. This doesn't even
COUNT any other activities a priest might do of a spiritual nature. Consider
a Sword of Humakt or a Storm Kahn. They should have a couple of zillion
points of reusable Divine Magic in no time flat. Did you really want this to
happen?
>
> Ye Olde Species Max Bug - Is anyone offended that Dryads have a Species
> Max POW of 46? That a 26 POW Dryad priestess with Worship Aldrya and her
> pet trees will gain, on average, 24 POW (for spells) per year? 42 POW for
> Dryads which don't sleep through winter? That this isn't special, it's
> average? That after one year of this, she could, say, every season
> cast a Shield 40 extended for 120 years on anyone she pleased? Or some
> other hideously abusive use of POW, such as shamanistic magic? Please
> please fix this. It is so simple: Species max is Highest Rollable Value
> + 1/6th Highest Rollable (round up). It still leaves Dryads with
> respectible, but not quite heroic Species Max POW of 33. [ Actually, I'd
> say intelligent elementals should have species max POW which varies by
> the size of the thing they represent, but maybe that's too complex ]
Like Steve says.
> Spirit Combat - Unless these are fixed, shamans will be the "sorcerors"
> of RQ4:
> 1] Spirits can all gang up on one PC, and unless you have the unique
> spirit spell "Draw Spirit", there is nothing anybody can do about it.
> 2] All Out Spirit Combat allows spirits which have no business being
> able to do anything, still being incredibly effective, even against
> Shamans. Again, only a spell seems to stop this: "Spirit Block".
> 3] There is still no way to intercept attacking spirits
This is a problem. What happened to the shamanic ability to send the Fetch
> 4] You must take an ACTION to defend in spirit combat? What next,
out to intercept attacking spirits. Shamans are supposed to be SPIRITUAL
WARRIORS. Read a little bit about shamanism, would you? PLEASE!
> take an ACTION to defend against spells? Magic Defense at FULL MP
> should always be AUTOMATIC. PERIOD.
Well, I've no problem with needing to take an action to defend in spirit
combat. "Actions" are a matter of attention, not just the number of arms you
have. Resisting spells is a passive matter, defending in ANY kind of combat
is an active matter.
> 5] The "higher damage for higher-MP" rules make super high power spirits
> utterly gross, and in addition cause horrible breakpoints
Breakpoint, schmakepoint, I've never thrown a 40POW spirit at my PCs (unless a
Shaman would be dumb enough to annoy one).
> 6] The Compromise (for that read any sane GM) forbids Spirits with a POW
> higher than 3d6+6 from directly attacking embodied opponents (for the
> same reason why gods don't just come down and splat the PCs/NPCs),
> either in spirit combat, or just by casting spells. These rules do
> nothing to limit this.
Gee isn't this just another matter of a lack of good USEFUL background
> 7] Again no limits to using spirit block and/or spirit shield to cheat
information being ignored in favor of sterile erudition? My harp carps again.
> grab spirits they have no business being able to attack using either
> one of these spells.
Shamans have "business" attacking ANY kind of spirit. They are the warriors
and the masters of the spirit world. That is their social and religious
function.
> 8] It takes a runepriest a Divine spell to summon an elemental, then
> a command spell to command it. Shamans can summon (and resummon)
> a held elemental over and over again with a 2 MP spell (Visibility).
Yeah, so, what's wrong with that? Shamans are supposed to be seriously mega
> 9] Visibility is otherwise vastly overpowered. According to these
in the realm of spirits. If a priest wants to be mega in spiritual things,
he'd better worship a deity of SPIRITS, no?
> rules, a God can become visible at a cost of 2 MP. Also its not
> symmetric, it costs 2 MP to cast, but the spirits POW to Dispel,
> and the immunity spirits have while under this is absurd.
I would agree that Visibility is too darn nice for what it grants. I would
either make it a MUCH more expensive spirit magic spell, or make it a Divine
spell specific to spirit and shaman-led cults.
> 10] In one on one combat, a +3 advantage in MP makes for about a 90%
Am I the ONLY person on this list to see that? I ran the last draft version
> chance of winning. Nothing has been done to change this.
>
I agree with what Steve has to say regarding movement and the appearance of
the spirit plane. I don't like his "fix" for spirit combat. Guess what,
folks, what is broken about spirit combat is the fact that it is based on the
damned resistance table!!!!!!!!!
of Spirit combat in my RQ campaign, and the players LIKED it. They liked it a
good deal. After a couple of times with this system, I then showed them the
resistance-table based system. The overwhelming response was distaste. A few
of them commented on how this didn't feel like it fit with the rest of the
game and how they hoped that it wouldn't be used to replace the "good" system
they had already used. (I didn't tell the players which system was the RQIII
method). Now, my campaign was not dominated by RQ grognards, but was all
complete newcomers to the game except for me and one player (he didn't like
the draft system, either--makes you wonder how much of the list's distaste was
due to quality and how much was due to simple intellectual laziness--new
things are BAD! Go back to the OLD ways!).
I will post my fix to spirit combat as soon as I've got it written up. Hint:
It won't use the resistance table, so it will fix that +3MP advantage nearly
guaranteeing a win. It won't be perfect, but it will be simple and useable.
> MANIFEST
> Visibility, Manifest
> Variable (4 pts maximum effectiveness)
> Ranged, Passive
>
> EMBODY <Special Spirit Type> <Runes>
> All cults with special spirits or elementals
> 1 Point
> Ranged, Passive, Stackable, Reusable
I like these spells
>
>
> Kids and Magic - No one has yet told me why kids don't start out with
> a POW of 19+, since if everybody always gets a POW check at years end,
> that's what they'd all be starting with. Actually, I say babies start
> with 1d6 POW, but then I throw out the "Luck Roll" - why are magicians
> always luckier than thieves, gamblers, or warriors?
Uh, you don't initiate until the age of 15. I rule that membership in Voria
doesn't grant a POW roll. But that's another background thing that got left
out, isn't it?
> Reinstitute the POW minimums from RQ2. Priests need 18
> POW minimum to maintain their status. Acolytes need 15 POW minimum.
> Runelords need 15 POW to apply but can drop without penalty. If
> you loose the POW, you automatically drop in status (including
> the speed at which you get your runespells back).
I don't like this "fix", but I never saw the lack of a POW minimum as
something that was "broken".
>
>
> Low POW Shamans - Ditto priest problems but more so. Shamans are
> constantly getting POW checks, and by keeping their POW low, can really
> power up their fetch to ungodly levels in just a few years.
>
> My fix: Only allow shamans add to their Fetch POW if they have a POW
> higher than 18. Thus, a 16 POW shaman who gets POW must keep it
> himself, but if he had an 18 POW, he could add it to his fetch.
> A POW 20 shaman can add 2 points of POW to his fetch, but then can
> add no more.
Don't like that, not one bit. The numbers are too high. As for shamans
keeping their POW too low, just have a few nasty things that can temporarily
hinder the connection between shaman and fetch--THEN you'll see high POW
shamans!
I agree very much with all the problems raised regarding enchantment. The
proposed fixes look to be pretty good, too. In fact, the fixes look darn
good.
Remember, those parts I did not respond to I agreed with.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:36:05 EEST