[Rq-rules] Re: Fatigue rules for carrying and running contests/Rune Metals

[Simon Phipp]

Peter Brink:
> David Smart skrev:
> > Well..I found a set of rules on the web (see below) which I've been using
> from a 3-year campaign now and they've worked well for me. Keep in mind I
> didn't draft these rules at all. The really bad news is I can't remember
> where I grabbed them from. Otherwise, I'd just send you all the hyperlink
> to the page. If anyone happens to recognize the rules and can tell me who
> authored them, please do so! By the way, I modified the example slightly to
> make it more meaningful for my players. Also, there's a mention of the
> skills "Marching" and "Running"; I don't have copies of the definitions.
> >  
> 
> The rules are (as far as I can tell) an edited version of the fatigue 
> rules from the RQIV Playtest Draft 1.0, by Oliver Jovanovic, Michael 
> Dawson, Martin Crim, Carl Fink, Ken Rolston and Michael McGloin.

I used these towards the end of my old RQ campaign and may well be using them
for my current campaign. They are good because:
1. They are very quick and easy
2. They are reasonably realistic (the more ENC you have the more tired you
get, the more stuff you do the more tired you get)
3. They are not very intrusive

I tended to allow the PCs to go for their CON in rounds before they had to
make a roll, for ease of use. Since they all had high CONs and high STR, they
rarely had any bother.

Leon Kirshtein:
> > I can't really see who, in their right mind, would
> > use a lead scimitar,
> > anyway. Lunars would use silver ones, fair enough,
> > Lunar trolls might want a
> > lead one but would prefer a silver one, non-Lunar
> > trolls have big, heavy
> > smashing things and don;t need scimitars.
> 
> Annila worshiping trolls are the most likely
> candidates for this. Lead scimitar may have
> interesting properties for an assassin and is better
> suited form darkness type activities.

Yes, of course, those Blue Moonies could use lead scimitars so that they
don't clink about and can have poison put on the blades.

> I would feel better about this spell, if there were
> other spells of this type, which allowed to
> temporarily disenchant magic items, but there aren't
> any. In addition, I have to point out again that the
> user of the runic item sacrificed POW to attune it. he
> has therefore forged some sort of a link with the
> item.  This islink you are trying to intrefere with,
> therefore there should be a resistence roll agains
> thte person who is attuned to the item and an
> additional resistance roll if the item in question
> contains a spirit.

Why can't there be other similar spells?

Mask (Property) with similar effects. So, depending on how anal the GM is,
you could have Mask (Enchantment), Mask (Armouring Enchantment), Mask
(Strengthening Encahntment) and so on. If they were location-specific, it
would make GMing a nightmare, but then again everything does that anyway.

> > In RQ2, Iron had half the ENC of bronze, something
> > that is missing in RQ3.
> > That would be funny - armour that reduces in APs and
> > gets heavier. 
> 
> I think is was the other way around.  I belive it is
> x1.5 enc of bronze. Copper was is the metal which
> could be made into lighter armor (x1/2 enc but 1/2 AP
> as well).

Was it? According to the RQ2 rules, which I happen to have at work, Iron is
one thing less in ENC than bronze, so iron plate weighs two things, not three
things, but something weighing one thing still weighs one thing.

In RQ terms, rather than gobbledigook, a bronze item of 3 ENC would be 2 ENC
in iron, but a sword (1 ENC) would still have 1 ENC if iron.

I don't have the article in Elder Secrets, as that is one of the supplements
I sold ages ago. I know they changed a lot of things, but I always played
Iron was slightly lighter than bronze, but Copper has half the ENC.

Clive Wickens:
> Leon said
> 
> 
> 
> > In addition, I have to point out again that the
> >user of the runic item sacrificed POW to attune it. >he
> >has therefore forged some sort of a link with the
> >item.  This is link you are trying to interfere with,
> >therefore there should be a resistance roll against
> >the person who is attuned to the item and an
> >additional resistance roll if the item in question
> >contains a spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd disagree with this, certainly the person has
> Sacrificed POW, but why does that mean they're
> Attuned to the item? All that has happened is
> That they have altered the object and it cost them 
> POW to do so. Unless they have set conditions
> (eg: only I can use this item) anybody can pick
> It up and use it. To me 'attuning' an item means
> establishing some form of link to it. With an
> Enchantment it's a simple trade off:
> POW(cause) for magical property (effect)
> done deal, end of story.

Also, if you cast Crack at an enchanted item and it broke, you lose the
enchantment. Even if you walloped it and broke it, then you could lose the
enchantment permanently. So, a spell that takes a while to cast and is very
rare could temporarily mask the effects.

> So standard enchanted lead armour still has an ENC malus,
> so whats the point of owning it ?(apart from status etc ) 
> answer: increased AP, which would kind of tie in with the Secrets 
> book comment.
> 
> So it would appear that there are three kinds of troll lead armour
> 
> 1] unenchanted - more ENC, less AP
> 2] standard enchanted - more ENC , bonus AP
> 3] special Karrgs sons armour - reduced ENC, bonus AP + 1

That's useful to know. I tended to use the RQ2 versions as I thought the RQ3
versions were a bit too complicated.

Each GM would probably have the properties of Rune Metals written down
somewhere, anyway, so house rules probably apply.

See Ya

Simon