Jump to content

bigandy

Member
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Retained

  • Junior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    I am a long time player/gm. I have played or ran WHFRP, DnD, Kult, CoC, Runequest, Savage Worlds, Spirit of the Century, Top Secret, Gamma World, Elfquest, Fading Suns, amongst others.
  • Current games
    OpenQuest, Tekumel using OpenQuest
  • Location
    Ohio
  • Blurb
    I am dashing and handsome. I excel at most sports. I am an accomplished pianist, fluent in 8 languages, a mathematician/philosopher/poet Renaissance man/polymath.

    I am also given to delusions of grandeur and the fabrication of falsehoods.

bigandy's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/4)

10

Reputation

  1. On the Combat Actions chart on page 67, in the Description for a Great Attack, it "one attack at +20% at maximum damage" On the next page, it says "+20% to attack and automatically does the maximum damage bonus value" Which is it- maximum damage or maximum damage bonus? Both? For example, would a great attack from a PC with a 1d4 damage bonus using a 2 handed sword be: 1. 20 damage (maximum weapon damage, 16, + maximum damage bonus, 4) 2. 16 + 1d4 damage (maximum weapon damage, 16, + 1d4 damage bonus) 3. 2d8 + 4 (2d8 weapon damage + maximum damage bonus, 4) OQ2 said the same thing. I know how we played it but wondered if it has changed or even if we played it correctly to begin with, lol
  2. I ran 15+ sessions of another campaign where we dropped in combat styles from Mythras and it worked well so I can see Feats like this as very viable. You could drop it into its own sub-space of OQ, like where the characters are all greek style demigod/heroes or even Mandate of Heaven and I think it would be right at home.
  3. I agree with this. As a GM I am glad to get rid of 100+ skills, and more so the combat ones that granted multi-attacks! I won't say they were a mess but they were not as clean and elegant as the rest of OQ for sure. Thanks! When Great Newt commands, I obey!
  4. We've been playing a campaign for years and some characters have combat skills that have gone over 100%. They crept over the line by adding the standard 5% to skills in the high 90s and then threw Improvement Points in here and there. None exceed 100% by large margins (all under 120%) but enough that they picked up the extra attacks, etc. OQ3 does not allow this but has so many other neat things added so I definitely want to switch! And, to be honest, as a GM I was never completely happy with 100%+ skills, especially combat skills. I played Stormbringer and loved it but I play OpenQuest for its clean simplicity! How would one handle converting combat skills, or any skill for that matter, that exceed 100%? Although there are more combat options available that still make the PCs at 100% super formidable, giving up the extra attacks granted by the higher skills makes my players super leery of converting. Giving them back the Growth (former Improvement) Points would be fair but is it enough? Too much? Any other ideas?
  5. I see both interpretations and would be happy with either, honestly. The second is certainly more brutal! And it does help. Thanks, Newt!
  6. I think I already know the answer to this one but... Per the rules, if a Fetch defeats a corporeal being, it can either render it unconscious or eat 1D6 POW, as the Shaman’s chooses. Is the POW loss permanent? Also, can the fetch turn right around and attack the same being again? Could it render someone unconscious and then attack it to gobble up POW? What does it do with the POW?
  7. This is great news! I have talked the Company up many times on the web and irl so I am happy I can point to where people can get it! As someone who bought the book years ago when pdf was not an option, do we get a discount on the pdf?
  8. Much obliged, good sir! I take it this will be put in the official errata?
  9. I have a question regarding the main gauche. In the equipment section of both the Clockwork and Chivalry and Renaissance SRD, the main gauche is described as being for "superior parrying". However, when compared to a normal dagger it costs six times as much, does less damage on average, cannot be thrown, requires a DEX of 11 (a dagger has no DEX requirement) but parries exactly the same and offers no other benefit. Is this correct? Under Two Weapon Use it says "Some main gauche weapons allow special Actions to be performed with a Parry – see individual weapon descriptions for details." The sword breaker and trident dagger both have special actions listed but nothing for the main gauche. Under Dual Weapons skill it says "Some Main Gauche weapons also allow bonuses to certain close combat actions such as Disarming Attack – see weapon descriptions for details" but no weapon has anything listed. I checked the errata but saw nothing in it. I am all for picking a weapon (or armor or whatever) for feel rather than mechanical benefit but this seems more like I am missing something.
  10. that is the standard! Anyway, thanks for the stat up. That is pretty close to what we were guessing. We have played with those stats and they have worked out great. This is a fun game. Reminds us of what all of TSR Top Secret games turned into when we were kids but the system is actually set up for it and really works! My group and I are playing the heck out of this!
  11. Got my book and I really like it. My group and I are already getting a game up and running. Everybody loves it and are really excited. We have run into one minor snag- you have the big list of guns but of course we have one guy who wants a gun not on the list! You have such a good list we would normally be able to find the nearest thing and go on but of course what he wants (AS Val assault rifle or a Vintorez - he's been playing STALKER) has such odd characteristics (integral suppressor, shortened range, high armor piercing) that nothing matches it.
  12. I know and love Nifft! Although I have never formally BRPed this world, I have drawn on it a great deal over the years. I don't know how exact you could go with it as the author does not give a definitive geography but it does have some wonderful ideas. Supposedly there are maps in the limited edition leatherbound edition, but I don't have it! As for the demons, I found Stormbringer to be the way to create the denizens of the upper layer of the underworld which are the only ones anyone encounters. They are so widely varied in appearance and in power, it is a very useful tool. The Secondary or tertiary demons do match up in scale and in how you deal with them very similar to Cthulhu etc now that I think about it (why didn't I make that connection before?). The magic from Stormbringer is also useful for Nifft. A lot of calling up demons and making them do stuff for you, doing rituals, etc. matches how some of the magic worked in Nifft. Everything else is pretty much straight up BRP. I tried incorporating stuff from Nifft in AD&D many moons ago and, not surprisingly, the system wasn't flexible for it. When I switched to Runequest/BRP not long after that, the Nifft stuff went in seamlessly, especially after Stormbringer came out. I have been using some of the ideas from Nifft in campaigns now for a long time. I never got a far future vibe from the Nifft stories. Did I miss something?
×
×
  • Create New...