Another Enchantment Question

[Tywyll]

Going back to RQ3 again...

I know there is an 'Armoring Enchantment' that can be used to add armor points to a character's locations, or to objects.

Now, if it's added to an object, that is also a piece of armor, does that make it protect better? It seems like a really gross way (even if you did have to do it per location) of making magic armor. But I don't recall seeing any NPCs from the old modules who went that route, including the disgusting Strangers in Prax.

So anyone know if it could be used that way?

[soltakss]

Going back to RQ3 again...

Of course, RQ3 was the Prince of BRP ...

I know there is an 'Armoring Enchantment' that can be used to add armor points to a character's locations, or to objects.

Yes, it is very useful.

Now, if it's added to an object, that is also a piece of armor, does that make it protect better? It seems like a really gross way (even if you did have to do it per location) of making magic armor. But I don't recall seeing any NPCs from the old modules who went that route, including the disgusting Strangers in Prax.

Strangers in Prax has the Coders with cloaks enchanted for extra APs. They don't have enchanted weapons, but that might be because the Coders were not set up to be particularly powerful.

Enchanting armour cost 1 POW to get 1D6 APs in a location, so for a human it takes 7 POW to get an average of 3-4 APs all over. For 7 POW you could get Shield 7, as a Priest or Acolyte (if cults have the Shield spell), so enchnatment is not that powerful.

We had a house rule that no object could be enchanted beyond its original APs, so Iron Plate (9 APs) could only be enchanted to 18 APs. However, we also played that skin and clothing could be enchanted as high as was required - it's inconsistent but we liked the idea of walking around in our enchanted silk pyjamas.

So anyone know if it could be used that way?

Absolutely. In our Dorastor Campaign, the PCs routinely enchanted their skin, armour and weapons. Sure, it costs POW, but with a POW-fluid game POW is a commodity that is spent very easily.

... disgusting Strangers in Prax.

As a matter of interest, why do you say this? What is it about the excellent Strangers in prax that you don't like?

[Al.]

Of course, RQ3 was the Prince of BRP ...

It certainly has bits which no other edition has, although I like the 'yes we can' attitude of Elric! personally. The enchantment rules have certainly inspired some of the GM characters in the Great PenDragon campaign and Ritual Magic slots seemlessly into Magic World to describe the tantalisingly brief descriptions of other types of Magic.

We had a house rule that no object could be enchanted beyond its original APs, so Iron Plate (9 APs) could only be enchanted to 18 APs.

That's a house rule which we've used in an expanded form in all sorts of BRP-type games.

such as

Demon Weapon: max additional damage is equal to mudane.

i.e. my Demon Greatsword could do 2d8+2d8 max even if I spent MORE than 8 MP/PP/OtherP on it.

Al

Edited February 10, 2009 by Al.

[Tywyll]

Strangers in Prax has the Coders with cloaks enchanted for extra APs. They don't have enchanted weapons, but that might be because the Coders were not set up to be particularly powerful.

Seriously? I know you ran high powered games, but I have to disagree that the Coders weren't meant to be powerful. Heck, the module (at least as I read it) assumes that the PCs will do everything they can to avoid direct conflict with the Coders and their overwhelming force.

Enchanting armour cost 1 POW to get 1D6 APs in a location, so for a human it takes 7 POW to get an average of 3-4 APs all over. For 7 POW you could get Shield 7, as a Priest or Acolyte (if cults have the Shield spell), so enchnatment is not that powerful.

But wouldn't you say that 3-4 pts of armor all over that never goes away, doesn't take a round to activate and doesn't need to be regained in a temple pretty darn potent?

How would you handle it in a system without Hit Locations?

We had a house rule that no object could be enchanted beyond its original APs, so Iron Plate (9 APs) could only be enchanted to 18 APs.

Seems like a reasonable idea.

As a matter of interest, why do you say this? What is it about the excellent Strangers in prax that you don't like?

Sorry to be unclear... no I think Strangers is a great module, I think the Coders (I couldn't remember their names) are sickeningly powerful (versus most characters in most campaigns... especially starting ones).

[Trifletraxor]

Strangers in Prax was great. But I don't think the Coders were supposed to be actual melee opponents (my group did of course end up in a fight with them and got a draw), more a "moral" group to show the "nice" side of the empire.

SGL.

[Harshax]

I think the Armor Enchantment in RQ3 was erratted to 1d3 points for 1 POW.

[soltakss]

Seriously? I know you ran high powered games, but I have to disagree that the Coders weren't meant to be powerful. Heck, the module (at least as I read it) assumes that the PCs will do everything they can to avoid direct conflict with the Coders and their overwhelming force.

RQ has always had woefully underpowered NPC Runelevels, with the honourable exceptions of RuneMasters, RQ3 Sazdorf and Dorastor. It always amazed me that NPC were generated as if they were highish skilled startups, not as fully fledged NPC characters.

But wouldn't you say that 3-4 pts of armor all over that never goes away, doesn't take a round to activate and doesn't need to be regained in a temple pretty darn potent?

Fairly potent, but next to nothing when compared with Shield 10/Crush 10. Even Bladesharp 8 cuts through the armouring enchantment like a hot knife through butter.

How would you handle it in a system without Hit Locations?

1 AP per POW expended, adds to normal AP protection even with random APs, treated in every way as normal armour/skin armour depending on what form it takes.

Sorry to be unclear... no I think Strangers is a great module, I think the Coders (I couldn't remember their names) are sickeningly powerful (versus most characters in most campaigns... especially starting ones).

Against starting characters the Coders are powerful. Against reasonably proficient PCs they are a match. Against RuneLevel PCs they would go down without much of a struggle. The Damage Boosted arrows/javelins might cause a few worries, but not for long.

If a campaign lasts for 10 scenarios then PCs won't get powerful enough to match the Coders. After 100 scenarios, the Coders won't match the PCs. It's all a matter of perspective.

[RosenMcStern]

Fairly potent, but next to nothing when compared with Shield 10/Crush 10. Even Bladesharp 8 cuts through the armouring enchantment like a hot knife through butter.

And entry level Humakti know Bladesharp 4 at least.

Against starting characters the Coders are powerful. Against reasonably proficient PCs they are a match. Against RuneLevel PCs they would go down without much of a struggle. The Damage Boosted arrows/javelins might cause a few worries, but not for long.

If a campaign lasts for 10 scenarios then PCs won't get powerful enough to match the Coders. After 100 scenarios, the Coders won't match the PCs. It's all a matter of perspective.

Absolutely true. The campaign I am playing in currently features Julan and Anderida as PCs (*). The Rune Level PCs we use are so powerful that to let players who have been away for years "catch up" the only solution is to have them play established NPCs, or they would simply not be able to cope with the average threat level.

BTW, the BRP stats for Anderida & Julan should be available soon, as we have finally moved everything to BRP.

(*) and me as Minaryth Purple

[jean]

Fairly potent, but next to nothing when compared with Shield 10/Crush 10. Even Bladesharp 8 cuts through the armouring enchantment like a hot knife through butter.

My favourite combinaisons

shield10/crush8/seal wound

shield10/axe transe/slash9

shield10/sea strengh/Washaza's fang and maybe truespear

But the thing to remember is 'you cannot cover all the possibilities, so study your foe before even thinking of fighting it"

Jean

[Nightshade]

I suspect many people never saw some of of the synergies advanced RQ characters could generate; even post-RQ3 (where it was a bit harder to pull power out of thin air because it was a little more complex getting bound spirits) it could get pretty thick on the ground just with battle magic, and it was very easy for experienced priests to have an astounding amount of divine magic available.

[Tywyll]

Fairly potent, but next to nothing when compared with Shield 10/Crush 10. Even Bladesharp 8 cuts through the armouring enchantment like a hot knife through butter.

But that guy who blows his 20 levels of Divine magic goes back to being a wuss in 15 minutes, and will take 20 days to recover. The armor is there forever (so flying away from said target or escaping in whatever fashion to come back later and deal with them seems fairly sensible). Granted, this can be countered by good tactics, but still... shooting the bolt like that seems quite wasteful unless you know this is a final battle no one can escape from.

1 AP per POW expended, adds to normal AP protection even with random APs, treated in every way as normal armour/skin armour depending on what form it takes.

So if it were hit locations you'd require 7 POW for 2 AP (avg of d3), but without, you'd require 1 for 1? Any reason why the discrepancy?

[Nightshade]

But that guy who blows his 20 levels of Divine magic goes back to being a wuss in 15 minutes, and will take 20 days to recover. The armor is there forever (so flying away from said target or escaping in whatever fashion to come back later and deal with them seems fairly sensible). Granted, this can be countered by good tactics, but still... shooting the bolt like that seems quite wasteful unless you know this is a final battle no one can escape from.

All too often you do; its not like fleeing was all that easy to do successfully in RQ.

[soltakss]

But that guy who blows his 20 levels of Divine magic goes back to being a wuss in 15 minutes, and will take 20 days to recover. The armor is there forever (so flying away from said target or escaping in whatever fashion to come back later and deal with them seems fairly sensible). Granted, this can be countered by good tactics, but still... shooting the bolt like that seems quite wasteful unless you know this is a final battle no one can escape from.

And someone who has 40 points of Crush who blows 20 in one go still has 20 points left. If it's a case of blowing all your magic in the vain hope of surviving then that's what you do, in certain circumstances.

An enchanted flying carpet is normally better than a Fly spell, an enchanted scrying mirror is better than a scrying spell, enchanted armour is better than spells and so on. Enchantments are normally better than using the equivalent spells because they are always on and don't need recasting.

So if it were hit locations you'd require 7 POW for 2 AP (avg of d3), but without, you'd require 1 for 1? Any reason why the discrepancy?

Different rules for different systems. If you use Hit Locations than 1 POW/AP/Loc is far too high a cost. If you don't then 1 POW/1D6 AP across the whole body is too low a cost.

Nobody uses Hit Locations and No-Hit Locations in the same game, so it shouldn't really matter.

[Tywyll]

Different rules for different systems. If you use Hit Locations than 1 POW/AP/Loc is far too high a cost. If you don't then 1 POW/1D6 AP across the whole body is too low a cost.

Nobody uses Hit Locations and No-Hit Locations in the same game, so it shouldn't really matter.

No they don't, but they are comparable. I mean, armor doesn't change its value from HL to non-HL. So why would one system charge 3.5 for 1 while the other charges 1 for 1? Why is total Hit Points worth a different value? Is this a gut decision, or is there a deeper reasoning behind it that I'm not seeing?

[Nightshade]

No they don't, but they are comparable. I mean, armor doesn't change its value from HL to non-HL. So why would one system charge 3.5 for 1 while the other charges 1 for 1? Why is total Hit Points worth a different value? Is this a gut decision, or is there a deeper reasoning behind it that I'm not seeing?

Well, the fact that locational damage has disabling capability higher than general hit point damage, even with Major Wounds, seems like it should be part of it.

[soltakss]

No they don't, but they are comparable. I mean, armor doesn't change its value from HL to non-HL. So why would one system charge 3.5 for 1 while the other charges 1 for 1? Why is total Hit Points worth a different value? Is this a gut decision, or is there a deeper reasoning behind it that I'm not seeing?

It's a gut feeling.

It feels about right - I wouldn't want to pay a lot more and there's not much justification to spend 2 POW per point - BRP is normally based on spending increments of 1 POW to get things.

If you spend 1 POW / Location to get 1D6 points everywhere then you spend 7 POW to get an average of 3.5 APs. If you spend 1 POW / AP for non-locational enchantments then you spend 3-4 POW for the same benefit.

So, the enchantment for non-locational games is actually cheaper. You could raise it to 2 POW per point, but I can't really see why you'd need to.

In any case, it's a suggestion for a way to convert an obselete game mechanic from a different game to BRP, so it's hardly canon.

[Tywyll]

It's a gut feeling.

If you spend 1 POW / Location to get 1D6 points everywhere then you spend 7 POW to get an average of 3.5 APs. If you spend 1 POW / AP for non-locational enchantments then you spend 3-4 POW for the same benefit.

Ah, see, I think this is where my confusion stems... but I can see your logic. I'm basing my idea around the errated version of the ritual which was 1 POW for d3 armor. But if it were still set at d6, I can see your point.

In any case, it's a suggestion for a way to convert an obselete game mechanic from a different game to BRP, so it's hardly canon.

No, I didn't expect it to be, but coming from someone who has played the game to it's extremes, I'm curious if you've encountered elements that I, who have not, don't see.

[soltakss]

No, I didn't expect it to be, but coming from someone who has played the game to it's extremes, I'm curious if you've encountered elements that I, who have not, don't see.

Not really. As a GM, I wanted the PCs to spend POW on everything but Divine Magic, so I encouraged them to spend on Enchantments etc. They were quite willing to build up 3 or 4 POW enchantments on each hit location as well as 7 or 8 POW enchantments on the whole body.

In that kind of game, POW is cheap and fluid - you get it and spend it, then get some more.

BRP is probably not as fluid as that, though.

[RMS]

I ruled that you couldn't armor skin without it having a visible, tangible affect to the character: scaling, leathering, etc. and a loss of sensory feel, etc. That pretty much killed armoring to skin in my campaign, which fits my ideas anyway. However, I did allow Strengthening enchantments, which aren't quite as gross IMO, and I also limited them to no more than doubling hit points, either total or for a location. Still, a warrior with 30 total HP has a lot of damage soaking ability compared to a typical person and that only takes ~5 points of POW.

I also capped armoring enchantments to armor as described, but also allowed armoring enchantments to cloaks to go higher. I never thought about that discrepancy before, but it was for the same reason: it just felt right. Maximum AP for a cloak was always based on the materials (typically pelts in our game, so on the creature and condition it was taken from) and just a gut feel of what felt right.

However, as noted, magic in RQ could get very high pretty easily. We had a Humakt Sword who would average ~40 points of damage with his magic up, and could get into the mid 50s pretty regularly. All that AP frequently didn't help. Plus the knockback was leaving the other person always on the defensive, even when they had enough magical defense.

Oh, and Humakti in RQ3 got Bladesharp 6 by default, if they wished. Bladesharp 4 was RQ2.

[Kloster]

Going back to RQ3 again...

I know there is an 'Armoring Enchantment' that can be used to add armor points to a character's locations, or to objects.

Now, if it's added to an object, that is also a piece of armor, does that make it protect better? It seems like a really gross way (even if you did have to do it per location) of making magic armor. But I don't recall seeing any NPCs from the old modules who went that route, including the disgusting Strangers in Prax.

So anyone know if it could be used that way?

The rules incontestably allowed it, and although it was not the most efficient efficiency to POW ratio (SHIELD was far better), almost all our players were / are using it, especially mine (I tend to play sorcerers).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

I suspect many people never saw some of of the synergies advanced RQ characters could generate; even post-RQ3 (where it was a bit harder to pull power out of thin air because it was a little more complex getting bound spirits) it could get pretty thick on the ground just with battle magic, and it was very easy for experienced priests to have an astounding amount of divine magic available.

Absolutely true.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

And entry level Humakti know Bladesharp 4 at least.

...

Same for us. I've even seen Humakti with bladesharp 10. The max case I've seen is a bladesharp 10 matrix on an iron broadsword, with a magic point matrix, 2 linked power spirits with a condition to refuel the 10 point magic point matrix and a condition to activate when the owner wields the sword and says "Humakt, give me power". He thus does not need to wait for 10 SR as enchantments with conditions activate instantly.

With that kind of enchantments, armoring enchantment is both a necessity and a little light with it's high pow cost.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

I think the Armor Enchantment in RQ3 was erratted to 1d3 points for 1 POW.

As far as I remember, correct.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

...

Oh, and Humakti in RQ3 got Bladesharp 6 by default, if they wished. Bladesharp 4 was RQ2.

Bladesharp 4 was the max value for RQ II.

There is no max value for RQ III, but bladesharp 4 is a standard spell for combat oriented cults (like Humakt). Bladesharp 6 is quite common for mid-level members of such cults.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster