Axe, Hammer & Rune rule question

[msjackson]

Runic items a listed with a positive value of +1, +2, +3, or +4. This value represents one of two things: The step increase in die type to any Cliché in which the runic item gives an advantage (cumulative to a maximum +4) OR the ordinary d6 value of a new Cliche the item imparts to the user.

I am curious about this rule. To me this seems like it would present a substantial increase in ability for the bearer. In the example below with a 3d6 the character would have a normal range of 3-18 but with this item his range increases to 3-30 a massive increase.

Example: A Warrior (3) with a Rune Shield +2 gains a two step increase, changing the Cliche from 3d6 into 3d10 for pertinent rolls.

I can infer from the text that these items would be rare and thus the players might never encounter them, but also from the text it can be implied that this is comparable to a magic item of the D&D sort though perhaps of higher stature than a common one.

Anyway, just curious if this method would throw some level of balance off kilter, not that I am advocating it must be balanced.

[Brent Wolke]

You have interpreted it all correctly. Some mitigating factors you didn't mention though: In order for a beginning character to get a +2 Rune Item, he would have to sacrifice 4 beginning dice. So even with a Hook and Tale, that's 1/3 of the character's potential dumped into a single item - which is supposed to have a narrow focus - and can be taken away from the character, lost, and so on.

A +2 Rune Shield sounds wonderful until that character has to do anything other than combat, and suddenly the drawbacks are plain.

As to finding them as treasure, they are meant to be the source of quests, not incidental. In Last Stand of Tyrurk, I tried to put into the adventure as much as I could of what I expected from the setting. The whole point of it is to recover the Rune Rifle...the only other magic items in that adventure are the Rune Quarrel which serves to further any campaign rather than give any character a bonus, and the cursed Hobgoblin weapon which the players can't/shouldn't use anyway.

In the end, it's up the GM how they want to play it.

[msjackson]

Ah, thanks for the information. I read through AHR today (at work) and it is very very good. Excellent work.

[Brent Wolke]

Jun 24, 2011 13:45:03 GMT -5 msjackson said:

Ah, thanks for the information. I read through AHR today (at work) and it is very very good. Excellent work.

Thanks! ;D

Self-limiting to 8 Pages can be a monstrous pain in the ass when a setting clearly calls for more pages - but 8 pages also prevents run-away trains as it were. Enough to provide direction, but then let someone else fill in the details they want to bring to the table.

[msjackson]

Another question.
In AH&R you list some NPCs in the following fashion:
Ortlil (3): Former militia; Maimed; Inn Keeper
You follow suit when describing the goblins and such later in the module. I am interested in how you see this working and how you came upon structuring the game 'stats' this way. The way I am interpreting it is as follows: Ortlil is of roughly 3 dice in strength/power and the GM can use those three dice with any of the listed 'cliches'. In other words, Ortlil could utilize up to three dice for any roll involving something that fits with in the scope of those listed. Sort of cliche shorthand?
Anyway, I was wondering about it, so I thought I would ask.

[msjackson]

Actually I think I just figured it out. You are essentially assigning the name as the very cliche and then listing the ways that cliche could be used. So Ortlil is the cliche, as well as the fellow's name. Correct?

[Brent Wolke]

Jun 26, 2011 13:21:24 GMT -5 msjackson said:

Actually I think I just figured it out. You are essentially assigning the name as the very cliche and then listing the ways that cliche could be used. So Ortlil is the cliche, as well as the fellow's name. Correct?

You are correct, sir!