<html><body><div>Keep in mind that the original rules called for a Priest to have a POW of 18. Period. It was points of POW over 18 that got sacrificed for spells. Thus, the Priest was always lucky (90% Luck roll). A Thief could be lucky, but that would be because he happened to have a high POW, and thus be noticed by the gods.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So in answer to Simon, No, the idea of a low-POW-but-lucky person does not work in standard RQ. Changing the rule that makes POW a detriment to Stealth could be done, but high-POW = high visibility to the gods is one of those core ideas, in my view.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>One thought that occurs to me is to drag Luck away from being a straight take off of POW. Instead, it depends on the affected characteristic. Of course, that is already present in CON rolls, DEX rolls, etc. What are they really but luck rolls, after all? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>It also occurs to me that a Sacrificing adherent could buy Luck as a spell. Either as a temporal spell that would give him a 15% add to his Luck roll (up to a max of 95, of course) for a short length of time, or a one shot for one roll that would give him an automatic success.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Or, if you are playing the MGRQ, take Hero Feats that increase the Luck Roll.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Steve Perrin</div>
<div> </div>
<div>YMMV,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Steve <BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] House Rule Query<BR>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com><BR>Date: Mon, February 11, 2008 9:22 am<BR>To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." <rq-rules@crashbox.com><BR><BR>At 11:58 AM 2/10/2008, you wrote:<BR>>Wayne Shaw wrote:<BR>>>At 05:11 PM 2/9/2008, you wrote:<BR>>>>Hi, All,<BR>>>> I wonder if the following idea for a house rule would be a mistake.<BR>>>> Instead of sacrificing POW, a character may sacrifice an animal at the<BR>>>>temple. (Said animal must be bought from the temple priests at some<BR>>>>inflated price, of course.) Better spells would require a larger, more<BR>>>>expensive animal -- goat for weaker spells, bull for stronger spells,<BR>>>>and human sacrifice a possibility for bad guys worshipping disreputable<BR>>>>gods. (Ba'al, anyone?)<BR>>>> So, would this make divine magic _too_ accessible, _too_ cheap?<BR>>><BR>>>It essentially allows you to turn money into Divine Magic points, <BR>>>which I think is almost certainly a bad idea.<BR>>><BR>>I guess its already been said.. even rarity is overcomeable with <BR>>enough money...<BR>>so the sacrefice might be worded as a wild tiger captured by your own hand..<BR>>and similar things which make it obvious if you do something to get too much<BR>>help will invalidate the sacrefice.<BR>><BR>>In effect it is the effort and personal involvement which is <BR>>sacreficed.. you cant<BR>>rely on your daddies inheritance for this one boy...<BR><BR>As I commented, it might be okay in that case, but at that point I'd <BR>suggest it not be the only method, as it'd get incredibly tedious <BR>having to do that for _every_ divine spell you want.<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>RQ-Rules mailing list<BR><a onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=RQ-Rules%40crashbox.com'); return false;" href="http://email.secureserver.net/pcompose.php?aEmlPart=0&type=reply&folder=INBOX&uid=1637#Compose">RQ-Rules<B></B>@crashbox.com</A><BR><A href="http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules" target=_blank>http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules</a><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>