Elric Magic

[DamonJynx]

Hey. I've got a quick question; If you denounce your pact with a chaos lord and become a servant of the balance it says you lose your gifts but keep your compulsions and your dedicated pow is gone. No problem. But if one of your gifts was runecasting, do you lose that ability? even though is says in the text, once you know a rune you know it forever? or do you still know it but lose the ability to manipulate (cast) it?

I need to know for an NPC that one of players has to kill.

 

[Loz]

I'd allow the runes to still be cast. They're not chaotic necessarily, although a servant of the balance would be very selective as to when runes are used.

 

[DamonJynx]

Thanks Loz.

I guess the only time you wouldn't then, is if the cult entry specifically said otherwise (as some do).

Did you check out the campaign site I posted the link to? This last session we had very little combat and a great time as some of he PC's drowned/got eaten by sharks and almost sold into slavery.

This system is very lethal isn't it.

One of the things I'm really liking about this game, is the fact that the authors take the time out of their schedules to personally respond to what some would consider silly questions. That, in and of itself, makes it a worthwhile purchase IMHO.

 

[Loz]

I guess the only time you wouldn't then, is if the cult entry specifically said otherwise (as some do).

Yes. Magic isn't always chaotic and if you note the automata rules, the runes are sometimes used. Also, in the saga, Sepiriz of Nihrain (not the biggest proponent of chaos!) inscribes a rune on Moonglum's sword, so the use of runes is not limited to chaotic practioners and they can be used by those who serve the Balance. Its more how they use them that's important.

Did you check out the campaign site I posted the link to? This last session we had very little combat and a great time as some of he PC's drowned/got eaten by sharks and almost sold into slavery.

Not had time, but I'll try to check it out!

This system is very lethal isn't it.

Yes - but it needn't be. The way combat works means that a foe can be put down rapidly but this doesn't, and shouldn't, always mean death. The combat manoeuvres are there to provide more options than simply hacking away until an opponent dies.

One of the things I'm really liking about this game, is the fact that the authors take the time out of their schedules to personally respond to what some would consider silly questions. That, in and of itself, makes it a worthwhile purchase IMHO.

And that makes our day! We enjoy helping, clarifying and trying to assist you get bthe very best out of the game. We're gamers too so we know how important clarity is.

 

[ThatGuy]

The authors are very good at checking out the board members games. One of mine got a checking out and feed back.

I agree, the involvement makes the game hugely worthwhile as far as involvement as there is no real "wall" that can't be broken through- knowledge and system wise.

I will just say combat wise, if a character is intent on not killing another character...it is very difficult to force the situation without reverting to GM fiat. My players have gotten familiar enough with the system where they have figured out how to disarm, trip, and stun to force surrender with alarming efficiency. When designing plot points and resolutions I can no longer assume they are going to just "kill" the villain. It forces a different thought process on the part of the GM. Of course, my baddies can be as mean as I want them to be...

 

[DamonJynx]

My original question aside. I decided not to have this NPC be a servant of the balance, here's why:

Her brother is a Life Stealer (Warrior Priest, Chardros) and to acheive the Maker of Knots rank, he has been sent on a mission to kill a "traitor" to the Cult of Chardros (he met the other prerequisites for the rank early on, but I told him he had to complete his mission. This isn't D&D, you have to earn this stuff, not just have the numbers to qualify).

He has just found out that the traitor is his older sister. I was originally going to have her renounce Chaos, and Chardros in particular, for the Balance, but then I thought it would show the fickle nature of the Chaos Lords better if she venerated Chaos generally. Her "treachery" being that she hasn't entered into a specific pact with Chardros as did the rest of the family.

He will have to roll either his pact skill, or his passion - love family, to determine whether or not he tries to kill her. His pact skill is in the low 80's and his passion will be probably 50 or less. Which way he should roll? Any suggestions? I'm thinking a fail on his pact skill spares her.

I do have another question though: Could the Rune of Sleep be inscribed on to the inside of a goblet or similar, effectively making any liquid drunk from it a sleeping potion?

When I get home I'll post her stat block.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

He will have to roll either his pact skill, or his passion - love family, to determine whether or not he tries to kill her. His pact skill is in the low 80's and his passion will be probably 50 or less. Which way he should roll? Any suggestions? I'm thinking a fail on his pact skill spares her.

You could do an opposed roll of his Pact versus his Passion, which is the most elegant and fair way of resolving the conflict. If both rolls fail, then make the player decide. :twisted:

 

[DamonJynx]

Cheers Pete. I'll do that.

BTW: I have decided that all players will have an assumed passion (based around and appropriate to their backgrounds) regarding their family, that will come into play in situations like this. This way it isn't something the players have to think or worry about at character generation. Unless of course it is specific to the character like the Lady Enissa example.

 

[DamonJynx]

Another sort of question re Summoning Rituals; I have an NPC who has Pact (Sword Rulers), for runes he has Chaos, Man, Protection and he also has Command and Summoning; Demon of Combat, Hunting Dogs of Dharzi & Elenoin.

My question is, when cults teach summoning rituals do you still have to meet the prerequisites listed in the summoning ritual for the particular creature? I'm assuming you don't as the Cult of the Sword Rulers don't teach Opish or the Beast rune which are the prerequisites for summoning the Hunting Dogs. :?:

 

[Loz]

You'd learn enough of the prerequisites to be able to do the summoning, but you wouldn't be able to hold a conversation in Opish.

 

[hegan]

... such as giving orders or asking questions to the creature summoned ...

good luck !

 

[DamonJynx]

With a successful Command roll (why is it the NPC's never seem to fail these rolls, particularly when their actions are 'off-screen'?) you'd be able to issue simple orders like, guard, hunt and kill. Anything more complex would probably be a bit dodgy and could turn nasty without the appropriate language skills.

 

[sdavies2720]

...(why is it the NPC's never seem to fail these rolls, particularly when their actions are 'off-screen'?)...

Because those opponents never last long enough to make it on-screen. :lol:

 

[PhilHibbs]

...(why is it the NPC's never seem to fail these rolls, particularly when their actions are 'off-screen'?)...

Because those opponents never last long enough to make it on-screen. :lol:

Also, it's the same reason that NPCs don't get Hero Points - they already spent them setting up the scenario.

 

[DamonJynx]

...(why is it the NPC's never seem to fail these rolls, particularly when their actions are 'off-screen'?)...

Because those opponents never last long enough to make it on-screen. :lol:

Mine do, briefly...

I posted earlier in this thread that this system is very lethal and Loz replied, quite rightly, that it didn't have to be with the various non-lethal CM's and so on.

That's all very true, except when you have a party of thinly veiled psychopaths who leave no witness'. My guys aren't noble adventurers, they're murderers and thieves!

What they forget, they're still not over D&D, is that their actions have consequences...

 

[DamonJynx]

I do have another question though: Could the Rune of Sleep be inscribed on to the inside of a goblet or similar, effectively making any liquid drunk from it a sleeping potion?

Any thoughts?

 

[Loz]

No, the rune itself needs to be ingested, so it could be inscribed onto a food, but not onto the vessel.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

What about as rock (the seaside sweetie type)?

 

[DamonJynx]

No, the rune itself needs to be ingested, so it could be inscribed onto a food, but not onto the vessel.

OK. I thought it may have worked like the rune of Taste.

What about as rock (the seaside sweetie type)?

Do you mean, inscribed on a candy of some sort? Please clarify.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

What about as rock (the seaside sweetie type)?

Do you mean, inscribed on a candy of some sort? Please clarify.

No, made in the rock... i.e. through it.

Very small runes enclosed within sugar-balls... they would be almost impossible to spot (especially if with a few others as decoration on a cake). A food-taster might well also not pick-up on it, as likely they would test a small piece of the cake itself.

It would also make pastries and pasties rather dangerous, as being enclosed with pastry they are rather hard to inspect thoroughly prior to eating.

Ah, the "mince-pie of DOOM"!!!