From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Feb 2 07:28:15 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:28:15 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaos Project advice needed Message-ID: Okay. It seems that I go through this every six months or so, so I hope this doesn't annoy or bore anyone. But I'm having big problems with the free service that I use for the Chaos Project on my site, and I need to work out a good replacement. If anyone's not familiar with the Chaos Project, it's a set of three online lists: chaotic features, magic items, and found items. People can contribute their own ideas, and over the years there have been a LOT of entries. I hope that it's a useful resource; it has been for me, anyway. But it needs a new home. I'm not sure what form that should take; your suggestions would be welcome. Spam has been a problem over the years, so I'm thinking that I may have to make the new version - whatever it is - members-only, in that you'd need to sign up and be approved before you could add to any of it. Would that put any of you off? I hope I haven't gone too far off-topic! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070201/f659457d/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Fri Feb 2 19:33:24 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:33:24 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaos Project advice needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >Okay. It seems that I go through this every six months or so, so I hope this doesn't annoy or bore anyone. >But I'm having big problems with the free service that I use for the Chaos Project on my site, and I need >to work out a good replacement. > >If anyone's not familiar with the Chaos Project, it's a set of three online lists: chaotic features, >magic items, and found items. People can contribute their own ideas, and over the years there have been >a LOT of entries. I hope that it's a useful resource; it has been for me, anyway. It's a very useful resource Peter - I've not used as much as I might, simply becuase I haven't run as much RQ/BRP as I'd like since I found it, but I'm hoping that will change now. >But it needs a new home. I'm not sure what form that should take; your suggestions would be welcome. > >Spam has been a problem over the years, so I'm thinking that I may have to make the new version >- whatever it is - members-only, in that you'd need to sign up and be approved before you could >add to any of it. Would that put any of you off? Nope - my two favourite gaming sites are Tom Zunder's Tavern and Yog-Sothoth.com, both of which are member only access. for posting. Which I was more web-savvy so I could offer some concrete assistance Peter, but alas I don't have that sort of expertise! >I hope I haven't gone too far off-topic! Don't think so - and if anything sustaining RQ web presences seems relevant here... Cheers, Nick Middleton Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Feb 3 02:42:50 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:42:50 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaos Project advice needed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2/2/07, Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com wrote: > > It's a very useful resource Peter - I've not used as much as I might, > simply becuase I haven't run as much RQ/BRP as I'd like since I found it, > but I'm hoping that will change now. Hmm. I'd hoped that it would be useful for any fantasy RPG; most of the found items are described in generic terms, after all. I may have to put in some work to genericize them further. Or maybe I should try work up dual stats for the entries, one for CBRP/RQ and one for D20. But at well over 1,000 entries, that would be a lot of work... -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070202/981cbc4d/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Sun Feb 4 03:12:02 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:12:02 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Not quite on topic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c747ae$0beecef0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Heya all, Not pertaining directly to RQ "rules", but I wonder if anybody has pinned down exactly when in 1610 occurred the Battles of Moonbroth and Pavis? -- Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070203/4f20a2ae/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Feb 6 13:21:55 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 21:21:55 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Chaos Project reboot Message-ID: I would hate for anyone to think I was spamming the list, so I'll try to be brief: I've started the process of re-imagining my site's Chaos Project thanks to the amazing technical skills of someone from this list; I should have asked him if he minded being named before I started writing this, but for now I guess I'd better not name him. Anyway, I badly need some advice from knowledgeable RQ people. Where else to find them but here? :D I'll probably take this off-list so as not to annoy anyone, but basically I need feedback on ways to make the Project as useful as it can be for the largest number of people possible. Here are the issues I'm looking at, to start: 1. Found items. When you're looking at found items, what categories would be most useful to you? For example, would it be helpful to be able to list only items that could be found outdoors, or indoors? Would the ability to make a random pick (perhaps restricted to various categories) be useful? Would it be convenient to print large numbered lists of items, say a hundred at a time? 2. NPCs. I've talked about doing this for years, but this reboot seems to be the perfect time to implement it. What level of detail would be most useful for you - full system-specific writeups, purely conceptual writeups (i.e. "Bob the strong smith secretly likes flowers"), or some other type(s)? What sort of selection criteria would you prefer for NPCs? 3. I'm not sure what sort of selection criteria could be applied to magic items; perhaps "unique" vs. "common" or "rare". And perhaps it would be useful to be able to restrict a list to a particular system. But as with most of these other questions, I'm probably missing some good ideas. 4. The same questions apply to chaotic features, I'd guess. 5. Anything else? My intention is to keep the Project freely viewable by anyone, but I'll probably have to require (free) registration if you want to be able to add your own entries - spammers are just too aggressive these days. But (just to be clear) NO registration would be required to view or use the entries - only to write new ones. If you want to discuss this, please send me an email and I'll work up some sort of group email address - unless no one objects to discussing the issue here. But I suspect that the conversation may get a little too off-topic. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070205/211ab20e/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Feb 7 09:53:21 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:53:21 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] What happened? Message-ID: Whoa - the list was down since last night sometime, and just went back up now, apparently. What happened? -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070206/dc7c2bc2/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Feb 7 00:17:53 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 08:17:53 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] List down? Message-ID: Is it just me, or is the list down? I can't even get to the archives. That's a stupid question, I guess. If it's down, nobody's going to see this. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070206/722423c5/attachment.html From dzappone at metamythos.net Wed Feb 7 12:45:26 2007 From: dzappone at metamythos.net (Dan Zappone) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:45:26 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] List down? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45C92F36.2060808@metamythos.net> Well I can see it. Peter Maranci wrote: > Is it just me, or is the list down? I can't even get to the archives. > > That's a stupid question, I guess. If it's down, nobody's going to see > this. > > ->Peter > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Feb 7 13:58:37 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:58:37 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] List down? In-Reply-To: <45C92F36.2060808@metamythos.net> References: <45C92F36.2060808@metamythos.net> Message-ID: Me too - from my end, it looks like it just went back up this evening. On 2/6/07, Dan Zappone wrote: > > Well I can see it. > > Peter Maranci wrote: > > Is it just me, or is the list down? I can't even get to the archives. > > > > That's a stupid question, I guess. If it's down, nobody's going to see > > this. > > > > ->Peter > > > > -- > > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > > > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070206/94fb5d27/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com Wed Feb 7 20:02:07 2007 From: Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com (Nick.Middleton at wrsl.com) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 09:02:07 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] List down? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> Is it just me, or is the list down? I can't even get to the archives. >> >> That's a stupid question, I guess. If it's down, nobody's going to see >> this. :D Traffic's slowed again a little recently, but I hadn't noticed any interruption, and I was ferriting about in the archives a few days back quite happily... The last flurry of activity I had the usual wierdness of some emails arriving out of synch (replies arriving before original mails etc), but everything seems fine otherwise. Cheers, Nick Any files attached to this e-mail will have been checked with virus detection software prior to transmission but you should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. WRSL does not accept liability for any damage or loss which may be caused by software viruses. The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of WRSL and are intended for the confidential use by the named recipient only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to, or relied upon, by any other person without written consent. If you are not the addressee, please notify us immediately at the following address: Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd (WRSL), PO Box 79, Pew Hill, Langley Park, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1JD - Tel 01249 441441 Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd is a subsidiary of Invensys Plc. Registered office: Portland House, Bressenden Place, London, SW1E 5BF. Registered in England and Wales No. 1641421. From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Feb 8 05:17:21 2007 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:17:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] What happened? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <27577.65.220.101.126.1170872241.squirrel@crashbox.com> The ISP decided to stop routing packets to the C-Block the server was on. Quite annoying. Sorry about the outage. -Andrew > Whoa - the list was down since last night sometime, and just went back up > now, apparently. What happened? > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Feb 8 05:22:37 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 13:22:37 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] What happened? In-Reply-To: <27577.65.220.101.126.1170872241.squirrel@crashbox.com> References: <27577.65.220.101.126.1170872241.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: Ah ha! So I *wasn't* imagining it. Thanks for confirming that I'm not crazy. :D Does that mean that emails to or from the list were lost during the outage? ->Peter On 2/7/07, Andrew Mellinger wrote: > > The ISP decided to stop routing packets to the C-Block the server was on. > Quite annoying. Sorry about the outage. > > -Andrew > > > Whoa - the list was down since last night sometime, and just went back > up > > now, apparently. What happened? > > > > -- > > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070207/834d4fe5/attachment.html From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Feb 8 05:29:28 2007 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:29:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] What happened? In-Reply-To: References: <27577.65.220.101.126.1170872241.squirrel@crashbox.com> Message-ID: <28918.65.220.101.126.1170872968.squirrel@crashbox.com> > Ah ha! So I *wasn't* imagining it. Thanks for confirming that I'm not > crazy. > :D I'm sorry, I'm not saying you're not crazy, all I said was the server was down. ;) > Does that mean that emails to or from the list were lost during the > outage? Since it was the path to the server and not the server itself, anyones sending server should have returned any emails that would have been dropped (i.e. timed out). So I expect people would have seen bounces, but I don't expect any emails just flat our lost. But I can't be sure. If you sent something, and it didn't show up or get returned then it was lost. -Andrew From clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Mon Feb 12 00:58:50 2007 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:58:50 -0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Leon's site down ? Message-ID: <000801c74de4$c27f8dd0$925a8456@sickboy> I've been trying to get into Leon's Godlearner site for about a week now but all I get is a message saying the site is offline...... Anybody else having this problem ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070211/ff8a47fb/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 12 01:16:10 2007 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:16:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Leon's site down ? In-Reply-To: <000801c74de4$c27f8dd0$925a8456@sickboy> Message-ID: <774052.77620.qm@web31213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yeah me too :) I am actually in the middle of a move to a new house and have yet to move the server. The site should be up in a day or two. Leon --- Clive Wickens wrote: > I've been trying to get into Leon's Godlearner site > for about a week now but all I get is a message > saying the site is offline...... Anybody else having > this problem ?> _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367 From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 24 02:27:39 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:27:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <20070201202827.87975135335D@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> I've been trying to finish a set of "Old Magic" rules, and using the Disruption spell as my test case. The goal is to see if I can reproduce the effects for a consistent cost. I've long regarded Disruption as one of the more powerful spells, but it's become a hobgoblin because its high damage (1D3 damage for 1 POW), and hit location specificity (instead of doing damage to overall HP). So my question is: Has anyone changed the Disruption spell to either lower damage to 1 point, or by making the damage affect total hit points instead of location-specific hit points? If so, how did it work and do you recommend it? Thanks, Steve From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Sat Feb 24 02:40:03 2007 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:40:03 +0000 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> References: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1172245203.9b8e12c371c0e@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> I'm surprised to think you believe Disrupt is overpowered. Generally you can knock off two a round (IIRC 3rd ed rules correctly) for which you cannot move at more than 50cm per SR and any damage causes a concentration roll. All for a measly 1d3 points of damage. At low levels you're not amazingly likely to overcome the target's magic points, even if you started with POW 15, then you might be able to get off a few castings before reducing your magic points to a level where overcoming becomes chancy. And if you have a lower POW then not only does that limit your castings and make overcoming harder, but your very chance to even get the spell off now stands in question! At low levels I'd be surprised if you could knock off five or six before it became more or less futile. If you overcame half the time that'd mean 1d3 damage to three different loctions, so you're averaging five points of damage (ish) in about three rounds. Compare this to a competent bowman who is launching arrows at that rate, if he fires six arrows at 65% chance to hit then about three will hit, and there's a fair chance one will impale. Maybe if your foe is well armoured disrupt becomes useful, but that just means it has _a use_, not that it's overpowered! At higher levels you may be able to cast more, but overcoming becomes harder and everyone is wading around with countermagic etc. Disrupt becomes either redundant or effective only in barrages where you and all your bound spirits are casting them at someone. But to be honest you're better off getting your bow skill to 90, wracking up Coordination spells so you're firing three arrows a round and having your allied spirit cast FIrearrow so you can pepper people with a barrage of fiery death. Of course, it does have one use. A POW tick. In that respect, at least, it's overpowered. Now, Befuddle _there's_ a spell that needs some work. Nikk Effingham From DevinC at aol.com Sat Feb 24 03:42:00 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:42:00 EST Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell Message-ID: The problem I always had with it is the prospect of concentrated firepower. Put the PCs up against six opponents with Disrupt, and if the foes have any sort of intelligence they are going to fire 6 Disrupts per round at one target. That often equals a dead PC every round or two. Not very fun. Devin


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/97427e80/attachment.html From IQuinn at surewest.net Sat Feb 24 03:57:41 2007 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:57:41 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006001c7576b$bbf23b80$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Again I would agree that the same encounter could be versus 6 intelligent archers hidden in the trees that target a single player each round; just as deadly if not more so since they are only limited by their arrow supply and by diminishing mana. For my group Disrupt is more of a utility spell for situations where the target is at range or when they are otherwise unable to engage directly in combat. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of DevinC at aol.com Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:42 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell The problem I always had with it is the prospect of concentrated firepower. Put the PCs up against six opponents with Disrupt, and if the foes have any sort of intelligence they are going to fire 6 Disrupts per round at one target. That often equals a dead PC every round or two. Not very fun. Devin _____ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/a294b6d5/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Feb 24 03:58:52 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:58:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <18062.59040.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > The problem I always had with it is the prospect of > concentrated firepower. > Put the PCs up against six opponents with Disrupt, > and if the foes have any > sort of intelligence they are going to fire 6 > Disrupts per round at one target. > That often equals a dead PC every round or two. Not > very fun. > > Devin But they still have to overcome resistance, knock down Countermagic, get more than one point of damage at widely separated hit locations at a time, resist counterattacks, etc. Powerful foes against beginners, you're right, but that would apply to any other situation as well. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Feb 24 03:59:31 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:59:31 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But the same would be true with six opponents with bows or slings, wouldn't it? And in the case of Disrupt, not all of them are going to successfully overcome, unless the PC's POW is very low. Plus, what are the PCs going to do while their opponents are all working on spells? If they're just standing around waiting to be picked off, maybe they DESERVE to take a few losses! :D Contrariwise, if the NPCs were smart enough to arrange things so that they got free shots at the PCs, then either they deserve the win, or else the GM is being rather unfair - it really depends on whether the situation arises from the stupidity of the PCs or not. ->Peter On 2/23/07, DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > The problem I always had with it is the prospect of concentrated > firepower. Put the PCs up against six opponents with Disrupt, and if the > foes have any sort of intelligence they are going to fire 6 Disrupts per > round at one target. That often equals a dead PC every round or two. Not > very fun. > > Devin > > > > ------------------------------ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free > from AOL at *AOL.com* > . > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/3b43e1a8/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Feb 24 04:11:14 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:11:14 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls Message-ID: The discussion about the relative power level of Disruption reminds me of an issue that's always bothered me about RQ/BRP: POW gains. The standard RQ mechanic is that you get a chance to make a POW gain roll if you overcome an enemy with a POW which is not more than 5 points less than your own (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I don't have access to the books here). You may overcome them with an offensive spell, or in spirit combat if that's appropriate. Alternatively, RQIII introduced the mechanism of earning POW gain rolls after conducting ceremonies on High Holy Days. That may have been Glorantha-specific, I can't remember. It seems to me that this places an unnatural emphasis on offensive acts. A character without any offensive spells is left with very few opportunities to gain POW, even if they spend a great deal of time adventuring (unless they're a shaman, of course). Why shouldn't it be possible to get a POW gain roll for successfully *resisting* an enemy spell or spirit? Arguably that takes as great an effort. Frankly, I'd love to see some alternate means of POW gains as well. Perhaps a roll could be earned for mastering a skill, for example, or as a special GM-decreed reward for making a critical success at a desperately needed moment. Luck should be a part of it, I think. And as it is, this "overcome to gain" mechanism feels artificial and forced. What do you think? ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/981417a9/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Feb 24 04:15:14 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:15:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2421.76856.qm@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There's that "Junk mail" tag again! Remove it when responding and make it easier on the rest of us. Mythworld calls the spell Zap, but it is essentially the same as Disruption is (or at least was back in the days of RQ2. There is D3 damage to specific locations, but cannot be targeted to any (even with a half mana power, to give an analogy to the aimed shot of physical weapons). It has worked quite well. Paul Cardwell --- Steve Davies wrote: > I've been trying to finish a set of "Old Magic" > rules, > and using the Disruption spell as my test case. The > goal is to see if I can reproduce the effects for a > consistent cost. > > I've long regarded Disruption as one of the more > powerful spells, but it's become a hobgoblin because > its high damage (1D3 damage for 1 POW), and hit > location specificity (instead of doing damage to > overall HP). > > So my question is: Has anyone changed the > Disruption > spell to either lower damage to 1 point, or by > making > the damage affect total hit points instead of > location-specific hit points? If so, how did it > work > and do you recommend it? > > Thanks, > Steve > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Feb 24 04:19:01 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:19:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <247236.83903.qm@web33510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > The discussion about the relative power level of > Disruption reminds me of an > issue that's always bothered me about RQ/BRP: POW > gains. > > The standard RQ mechanic is that you get a chance to > make a POW gain roll if > you overcome an enemy with a POW which is not more > than 5 points less than > your own (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I > don't have access to the > books here). You may overcome them with an offensive > spell, or in spirit > combat if that's appropriate. > > Alternatively, RQIII introduced the mechanism of > earning POW gain rolls > after conducting ceremonies on High Holy Days. That > may have been > Glorantha-specific, I can't remember. > > It seems to me that this places an unnatural > emphasis on offensive acts. A > character without any offensive spells is left with > very few opportunities > to gain POW, even if they spend a great deal of time > adventuring (unless > they're a shaman, of course). > > Why shouldn't it be possible to get a POW gain roll > for successfully > *resisting* an enemy spell or spirit? Arguably that > takes as great an > effort. > > Frankly, I'd love to see some alternate means of POW > gains as well. Perhaps > a roll could be earned for mastering a skill, for > example, or as a special > GM-decreed reward for making a critical success at a > desperately needed > moment. > > Luck should be a part of it, I think. And as it is, > this "overcome to gain" > mechanism feels artificial and forced. What do you > think? > > ->Peter Again to cite Mythworld, mana (POW) can be gained by specialing or criticaling a resistance to a spell. This is the only way a nonsapient species (such as a mount) can gain mana and thus be better equipped to resist spells. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 From IQuinn at surewest.net Sat Feb 24 04:26:33 2007 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:26:33 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <007401c7576f$c43962b0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Personally I put the risk/reward on the person rolling. So if I have a creature that attacks a player and fails to break through, I do not reward the player. On the other hand I have used persistent effects in certain areas that require a player to roll for in order to resist. We also use a general rule where if a player is given any attribute test (ie STR x5, DEX x3) and they roll the attribute x1 they get a dot for that attribute. Quite a rule bender, I know, but it allows for more character development. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:11 AM To: RuneQuest-Rules Subject: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls The discussion about the relative power level of Disruption reminds me of an issue that's always bothered me about RQ/BRP: POW gains. The standard RQ mechanic is that you get a chance to make a POW gain roll if you overcome an enemy with a POW which is not more than 5 points less than your own (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I don't have access to the books here). You may overcome them with an offensive spell, or in spirit combat if that's appropriate. Alternatively, RQIII introduced the mechanism of earning POW gain rolls after conducting ceremonies on High Holy Days. That may have been Glorantha-specific, I can't remember. It seems to me that this places an unnatural emphasis on offensive acts. A character without any offensive spells is left with very few opportunities to gain POW, even if they spend a great deal of time adventuring (unless they're a shaman, of course). Why shouldn't it be possible to get a POW gain roll for successfully *resisting* an enemy spell or spirit? Arguably that takes as great an effort. Frankly, I'd love to see some alternate means of POW gains as well. Perhaps a roll could be earned for mastering a skill, for example, or as a special GM-decreed reward for making a critical success at a desperately needed moment. Luck should be a part of it, I think. And as it is, this "overcome to gain" mechanism feels artificial and forced. What do you think? ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/6c45759b/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Feb 24 04:33:54 2007 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:33:54 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls In-Reply-To: <007401c7576f$c43962b0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> References: <007401c7576f$c43962b0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: Interesting. How does the attribute increase interact with species maximums? That's another topic which has always stuck in my mind. Obviously exceptional individuals can far surpass species norms, but at the same time we don't want to see people running around with characteristic scores in the hundreds...not unless it's superhero campaign, or demigods, or something like that. :D ->Peter On 2/23/07, Robert Hoffman wrote: > > Personally I put the risk/reward on the person rolling. So if I have a > creature that attacks a player and fails to break through, I do not reward > the player. On the other hand I have used persistent effects in certain > areas that require a player to roll for in order to resist. We also use a > general rule where if a player is given any attribute test (ie STR x5, DEX > x3) and they roll the attribute x1 they get a dot for that attribute. Quite > a rule bender, I know, but it allows for more character development. > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto: > rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Maranci > *Sent:* Friday, February 23, 2007 9:11 AM > *To:* RuneQuest-Rules > *Subject:* [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls > > > > The discussion about the relative power level of Disruption reminds me of > an issue that's always bothered me about RQ/BRP: POW gains. > > > > The standard RQ mechanic is that you get a chance to make a POW gain roll > if you overcome an enemy with a POW which is not more than 5 points less > than your own (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I don't have access to > the books here). You may overcome them with an offensive spell, or in spirit > combat if that's appropriate. > > > > Alternatively, RQIII introduced the mechanism of earning POW gain rolls > after conducting ceremonies on High Holy Days. That may have been > Glorantha-specific, I can't remember. > > > > It seems to me that this places an unnatural emphasis on offensive acts. A > character without any offensive spells is left with very few opportunities > to gain POW, even if they spend a great deal of time adventuring (unless > they're a shaman, of course). > > > > Why shouldn't it be possible to get a POW gain roll for successfully > *resisting* an enemy spell or spirit? Arguably that takes as great an > effort. > > > > Frankly, I'd love to see some alternate means of POW gains as well. > Perhaps a roll could be earned for mastering a skill, for example, or as a > special GM-decreed reward for making a critical success at a desperately > needed moment. > > > > Luck should be a part of it, I think. And as it is, this "overcome to > gain" mechanism feels artificial and forced. What do you think? > > > > ->Peter > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/21f203b7/attachment.html From IQuinn at surewest.net Sat Feb 24 04:58:10 2007 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 09:58:10 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008801c75774$2f211ab0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> We use species max - current x5% (and 05% is always a success). So if you where at 15 a human would have a 30% chance for increase (21-15 = 6x5% = 30%). As it stands we've never had any character increase attributes in this way more then 2-3 times total, and maybe only once even from 18 to 19 (never higher). -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:34 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls Interesting. How does the attribute increase interact with species maximums? That's another topic which has always stuck in my mind. Obviously exceptional individuals can far surpass species norms, but at the same time we don't want to see people running around with characteristic scores in the hundreds...not unless it's superhero campaign, or demigods, or something like that. :D ->Peter On 2/23/07, Robert Hoffman wrote: Personally I put the risk/reward on the person rolling. So if I have a creature that attacks a player and fails to break through, I do not reward the player. On the other hand I have used persistent effects in certain areas that require a player to roll for in order to resist. We also use a general rule where if a player is given any attribute test (ie STR x5, DEX x3) and they roll the attribute x1 they get a dot for that attribute. Quite a rule bender, I know, but it allows for more character development. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Peter Maranci Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:11 AM To: RuneQuest-Rules Subject: [Rq-rules] POW gain rolls The discussion about the relative power level of Disruption reminds me of an issue that's always bothered me about RQ/BRP: POW gains. The standard RQ mechanic is that you get a chance to make a POW gain roll if you overcome an enemy with a POW which is not more than 5 points less than your own (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I don't have access to the books here). You may overcome them with an offensive spell, or in spirit combat if that's appropriate. Alternatively, RQIII introduced the mechanism of earning POW gain rolls after conducting ceremonies on High Holy Days. That may have been Glorantha-specific, I can't remember. It seems to me that this places an unnatural emphasis on offensive acts. A character without any offensive spells is left with very few opportunities to gain POW, even if they spend a great deal of time adventuring (unless they're a shaman, of course). Why shouldn't it be possible to get a POW gain roll for successfully *resisting* an enemy spell or spirit? Arguably that takes as great an effort. Frankly, I'd love to see some alternate means of POW gains as well. Perhaps a roll could be earned for mastering a skill, for example, or as a special GM-decreed reward for making a critical success at a desperately needed moment. Luck should be a part of it, I think. And as it is, this "overcome to gain" mechanism feels artificial and forced. What do you think? ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/7aed2921/attachment.html From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 24 06:27:40 2007 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:27:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <20070223173152.A6D231472A9B@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <672536.13380.qm@web53911.mail.yahoo.com> Ok, I get it, most people feel it's not too powerful. My campaign is pretty low magic, so most opponents are not magically protected and the main caster has a high POW, so the spell is usually effective. The fact that it ignores armor makes it more effective than the few points indicate. Tactically, my players use it to provide a 'gang-up' on melee opponents where an arrow is as likely to hit a friend as a foe. Maybe my main issue is consistency: I tend to think that 1 POW/MP = 1 damage or 1 Characteristic boost, and this spell violates that -- more in the range than the average. Steve PS: Drat the SPAM tag on yahoo mail. I may have to start sending from a gmail account instead. From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Sat Feb 24 06:34:48 2007 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:34:48 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> References: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8E731F51-659F-4EA3-8B2F-2FF229C4305F@comcast.net> I find "Disruption" sufficiently balanced - or perhaps even leaning toward puny. Under certain specific occasions (with a magical artifact, for example), I've included a spell that I call (nods to the old Tunnels & Trolls game) "Take That, You Dastard" - where damage is variable according to Magic Points spent. that is, 1 MP does 1d3 HP damage, 2 MP does 1d4 HP damage, 3 MP does 1d6 HP damage, 4 MP does 1d8 HP damage, 5 MP does 1d10 HP damage, and 6 MP does 1d12 HP damage. In practice, this is usually utilized by a primary nemesis of the player character party, for as long as I can before they defeat the nemesis and capture the item for themselves. On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Steve Davies wrote: > ... So my question is: Has anyone changed the Disruption > spell to either lower damage to 1 point, or by making > the damage affect total hit points instead of > location-specific hit points? If so, how did it work > and do you recommend it? From lordtwig at cyberkeep.com Sat Feb 24 07:51:57 2007 From: lordtwig at cyberkeep.com (Eric Bailey) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:51:57 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <672536.13380.qm@web53911.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20070223173152.A6D231472A9B@mini.thinbits.net> <672536.13380.qm@web53911.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070223123925.06f20bb8@cyberkeep.com> But most spells are not 1 MP = 1 damage. A Bladesharp 1 adds +5% to hit and +1 damage PER HIT. A Speedart adds +15% to hit and +3 damage. Just something to keep in mind. Eric At 11:27 AM 2/23/2007, Steve Davies wrote: >Ok, I get it, most people feel it's not too powerful. >My campaign is pretty low magic, so most opponents are >not magically protected and the main caster has a high >POW, so the spell is usually effective. The fact that >it ignores armor makes it more effective than the few >points indicate. > >Tactically, my players use it to provide a 'gang-up' >on melee opponents where an arrow is as likely to hit >a friend as a foe. > >Maybe my main issue is consistency: I tend to think >that 1 POW/MP = 1 damage or 1 Characteristic boost, >and this spell violates that -- more in the range than >the average. > >Steve > >PS: Drat the SPAM tag on yahoo mail. I may have to >start sending from a gmail account instead. >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Feb 24 11:02:41 2007 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:02:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <8E731F51-659F-4EA3-8B2F-2FF229C4305F@comcast.net> Message-ID: <31875.2463.qm@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think a geniune case can be made that Disruption is scary when encountered in a spell matrix and multiple disrputs are applied to the same location. Ouch. ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail From DevinC at aol.com Sat Feb 24 12:55:32 2007 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:55:32 EST Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell Message-ID: In a message dated 2/23/2007 8:58:29 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, IQuinn at surewest.net writes: Again I would agree that the same encounter could be versus 6 intelligent archers hidden in the trees that target a single player each round; just as deadly if not more so since they are only limited by their arrow supply and by diminishing mana. . . . The big difference is armour. Arrows can be stopped by even remotely decent armour. Disrupt does not. Devin


**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20070223/55fe5f15/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Feb 24 17:09:21 2007 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 22:09:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <18062.59040.qm@web33507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <92035.87111.qm@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> And lets compare to something like Speedart +15% tp hit +3 damage! --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > > The problem I always had with it is the prospect > of > > concentrated firepower. > > Put the PCs up against six opponents with Disrupt, > > and if the foes have any > > sort of intelligence they are going to fire 6 > > Disrupts per round at one target. > > That often equals a dead PC every round or two. > Not > > very fun. > > > > Devin > > > But they still have to overcome resistance, knock > down > Countermagic, get more than one point of damage at > widely separated hit locations at a time, resist > counterattacks, etc. Powerful foes against > beginners, > you're right, but that would apply to any other > situation as well. > > Paul Cardwell > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Finding fabulous fares is fun. > Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel > sites to find flight and hotel bargains. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > ____________________________________________________________________________________ TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Feb 24 19:49:34 2007 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (Lance Dyas) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 02:49:34 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <92035.87111.qm@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <92035.87111.qm@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45DFFC1E.5000706@inetnebr.com> I am used to Stormbringer so my understanding of the numbers is skewed.. not identical to baseline RQ In Stormbringer at least the idea that Arrows can be "stopped by even remotely decent armour" is hog wash between variable armor coverage (die roll) and critical hits which double damage and the disabling impact of major wound effects it is not very predictable...averages would make the Speedart far better in this context. Note in Stormbringer the tactically correct thing to do... is not to target and assassinate one enemy but rather target as many as possible so that you might in one fell swoop disable enough adversaries that they all give up ... yeah I like it. Leon Kirshtein wrote: > And lets compare to something like Speedart +15% tp > hit +3 damage! > > > --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > > >> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> The problem I always had with it is the prospect >>> >> of >> >>> concentrated firepower. >>> Put the PCs up against six opponents with Disrupt, >>> and if the foes have any >>> sort of intelligence they are going to fire 6 >>> Disrupts per round at one target. >>> That often equals a dead PC every round or two. >>> >> Not >> >>> very fun. >>> >>> Devin >>> >> But they still have to overcome resistance, knock >> down >> Countermagic, get more than one point of damage at >> widely separated hit locations at a time, resist >> counterattacks, etc. Powerful foes against >> beginners, >> you're right, but that would apply to any other >> situation as well. >> >> Paul Cardwell >> >> > > From anders at california.com Sun Feb 25 03:00:21 2007 From: anders at california.com (Anders Swenson) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:00:21 -0800 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <8E731F51-659F-4EA3-8B2F-2FF229C4305F@comcast.net> References: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> <8E731F51-659F-4EA3-8B2F-2FF229C4305F@comcast.net> Message-ID: Back in the day, Disruption was this little throwaway dink spell intended to annoy the enemy. Only trollkin casting it en masse made it a threat, and that was rare. I fail to see the problem, in terms of practical RQ --Anders From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Feb 25 03:05:12 2007 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 08:05:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <672536.13380.qm@web53911.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <687687.29001.qm@web33502.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Steve Davies wrote: > PS: Drat the SPAM tag on yahoo mail. I may have to > start sending from a gmail account instead. Just delete it before replying to a post containing it. That removes it from future discussions derived from your post as well. Paul Cardwell ____________________________________________________________________________________ Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun Feb 25 21:05:04 2007 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:05:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] *** JUNK MAIL ***Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <267024.33959.qm@web53906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <150012.46065.qm@web86108.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Watcha all, I wouldn't say Disruption is overpowered - 3 points of countermagic and their having to boost it to even knock the CM down, let alone have it have a chance of taking effect. One point of Shield and it becomes very costly (3 points to get it through) to use. It can be useful when used as a volley fire weapon on heavily armoured opponents but a decent bow and arrow with Speedart on it is likely to be more efficient for 1 magic point. Of course it's really handy against poofy little critters with low POW and hit points. Disruption can often knobble a Trollkin a shot, but then so can sneezing on them. Cheers, Ash --- Steve Davies wrote: > I've been trying to finish a set of "Old Magic" > rules, > and using the Disruption spell as my test case. The > goal is to see if I can reproduce the effects for a > consistent cost. > > I've long regarded Disruption as one of the more > powerful spells, but it's become a hobgoblin because > its high damage (1D3 damage for 1 POW), and hit > location specificity (instead of doing damage to > overall HP). > > So my question is: Has anyone changed the > Disruption > spell to either lower damage to 1 point, or by > making > the damage affect total hit points instead of > location-specific hit points? If so, how did it > work > and do you recommend it? > > Thanks, > Steve > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun Feb 25 21:23:45 2007 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:23:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <146513.31855.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> On the flip side 3 points of countermagic will stop distruption, 3 points of protection will reduce the pain of an arrow but it'll still hurt most of the time. I think the ignoring armour thing is overated - most of the players I've seen are more worried about being impaled than volleyed disruptions (and I have NPCs use them a fair bit, just to make sure that shield and countermagic get a fair outing). Cheers, Ash --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/23/2007 8:58:29 A.M. Pacific > Standard Time, > IQuinn at surewest.net writes: > > Again I would agree that the same encounter could > be versus 6 intelligent > archers hidden in the trees that target a single > player each round; just as > deadly if not more so since they are only limited > by their arrow supply and by > diminishing mana. > > > . > . > . > The big difference is armour. Arrows can be stopped > by even remotely decent > armour. Disrupt does not. > > Devin >


**************************************
> AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free > from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From joemills at columbus.rr.com Sun Feb 25 21:58:58 2007 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:58:58 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] re: Potency of Disruption Spell In-Reply-To: <146513.31855.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <146513.31855.qm@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001c758cb$f4b9ef60$0201a8c0@laptop2> I can't imagine Disrupt is overpowered when compared to a 2-pt Befuddle, which effectively incapacitates an opponent, at least until a friend can whip off a Dispel Magic 2. -- Joe