Sunwolfe

Members
  • Content count

    253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Sunwolfe last won the day on September 22 2015

Sunwolfe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

132 Excellent

About Sunwolfe

  • Rank
    Book Burner
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    California's drought-ridden Central Valley

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Sigh...same as most: started with DnD, then ADnD, then...Arduin, TFT, TnT, Stormbringer, Gamma World, Traveller, hybred, hybred, hybred using Stormbringer rule set, blah, blah, blah, Warhammer, Ringworld, Hawkmoon, Elfquest, BUT...skipped over all the RQ I, II and landed on III. I'm not sure how that happened being familiar as I was with BRP-mini and playing all the other BRP based games. I was happy, however, to miss all the Glorantha based stuff and ended up in the alternate earth camp which fit my home-brew setting that folks have been playing in for over 30 years now.
  • Current games
    Presently GM's Magic World and plays in a D6 Star Wars game and a 1st Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game
  • Location
    Damn near smack dab in the middle of California's Central Valley
  • Blurb
    I'm a high school teacher and a bagpiper. I have a gorgeous wife, two grown daughters, a grown son, three amazing granddaughters and a grandson (yeah...the gray ain't make up); I enjoy writing and have a load of killer friends, both here on the boards and abroad!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,195 profile views
  1. Greetings, OQ2 explorers I thought you all might find a House Rule mod my players and I cooked up concerning shields interesting. Trying to be mindful of OQ2's simplicity, we still felt our game needed some shield tweaks. Weapons including shields are designated light, medium, heavy, and huge in the Close Combat Weapons table on page 45. The term “huge,” however, is only used in relation to shields and can be problematic as it is truly a size designation, in contrast to the light, medium, and heavy designations which seem to describe weight. This dichotomy is further exacerbated by use of the term “Large” in the passage on page 60 which reads: Shields with a size of Large or Huge (i.e. Medium and Large Shields) provide a cover modifier to the ranged attack of the attacker -25% and -50% respectively against arrows, sling shot and cross bow bolts. As there is no “Large” size designation in the table's Size column, “Heavy” is what was obviously meant, which is again more a reference to weight than size. After discussing further shield category concerns and rather than rename the column Weight, my players and I felt a re-designation of shield size was in order. Thus it was decided that, small shields (buckler, targe, etc.) would be sized “Light” rather than Medium; medium shields (heater, round, etc.) sized “Medium” rather than Heavy; large shields (scutum, hoplon, etc.) should be sized “Heavy” rather than Huge; and truly enormous shields, such as the pavise, should be termed “Huge.” Thus the above excerpt was revised in our game version to read: “Medium, Heavy, and Huge shields provide extra protection from arrows, sling shot and crossbow bolts. Archers, crossbowmen and slingers suffer a -25%, -50%, and/or -75% modifier to their attacks against targets armed with Medium, Heavy, or Huge shields respectively.” In addition to the above, it was decided to modify the Ranged Attack Situational Modifiers table and “Cover” section on page 59 to better reflect the House Rule addition and modification. The RAW passage reads: “For missile attacks the defender benefits from the best of the shield modifier in the table above and the cover modifier below,” but there is no “...table above.” Our version reads: “Against missile attacks, the defender benefits from the best of the shield modifiers in the table below...” To the “Target Visibility” section, we then added three rows: Target is armed with a Medium sized shield -25% Target is armed with a Heavy sized shield -50% Target is armed with a Huge sized shield -75% Sorry about the huge table there...something exploded in the translation from word processor to forum :-( A reminder of these penalties was suggested as an additional note under “Range” in the “Ranged Weapon” section on page 47. We also decided an addendum to Newt's excellent “Taking out Life Insurance” advice on page 54 would be in order: On Shields “Your shield is your friend. Regardless of character concept, get a shield and use it. It will prolong your character's life.” For new players, we wrote the following House Rule summary: Small shields sized Light, such as bucklers and targes, will block all incoming damage from Light weapons with a successful parry. Small shields will only block half the incoming damage from a Medium sized weapon and no incoming damage from a Heavy sized weapon.They offer no protection against archers, crossbowmen and slingers. Medium shields sized Medium, such as heater or round shields, will block all incoming damage from Light and Medium sized weapons with a successful parry but only half the incoming damage from Heavy sized weapons. Luckily, there are no Huge sized offensive weapons. Medium shields offer greater protection from arrows, bolts and sling-stones, levying a -25% modification against such missile attacks. Large shields, such as scutum and hoplon shields, sized Heavy will block all incoming damage from Light, Medium and Heavy weapons with a successful parry. They offer even greater protection from arrows, bolts and sling-stones, levying a -50% modification against such missile attacks. Huge shields, such as the pavise, levy a -75% modification against missile attacks. Nearly stationary and deployed for siege or large scale battle purposes (both offense and defense), they cannot be used in the quick of Close Combat situations like the above sized shields can. And don't forget: "Shield-carrying characters may attempt to Parry hand thrown missile weapons (daggers, darts, hatchets, rocks, etc.) if the target is aware of the attack" (58). Cheers!
  2. LOL! No doubt, Simon, no doubt
  3. Greetings Newt and sundry: I'd like to ask for some clarification concerning the process of Unarmed Combat and Grappling. The issue concerns the proscribed "...one Combat Action...and one Combat Reaction...per combat round." I offer four scenarios, and while I'm not necessarily seeking comment on all four, I do hope some one can explain step-by-step how a grappling round proceeds. Is it an exception to normal combat procedure? Thanks in advance, Scenario one: Wherein Bob the Samurai gets two chances "...to dish out the damage!" Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits. Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob too succeeds and with his parry inflicts 1d8 worth of damage because Bob's katana is a "...crafted weapon..." Bummer, Gary. To add insult to injury Bob now takes his ACTION and swipes at Gary with his katana. Ninja Gary, however, fast guy that he is, takes his REACTION in the form of a successful dodge. End of scenario one: all parties got one A & R each and Gary is wondering why he chose to grapple with an unsympathetic samurai in the first place. Scenario two: Wherein Bob the Samurai objects to the "...injustice of it all!" Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits. Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS. Gary does not do any damage at this point: "Instead [Gary the Ninja] opposes his UCS to [Bob the Samurai's] UCS, in a roll similar to an opposed skill test" (58). Gary succeeds, "...and immediately follows up on this success by Throwing, Inflicting pain or immobilis[ing] the target"(58). Gary scratches his head, "So I have to roll my Unarmed skill again? Didn't I win?" "Yeah! It's like he gets another ACTION...where's my ACTION?" demands Bob. "Right. Sorry" mumbles the GM once again and turning back to his reference sees that Bob may "...attempt to break free or may attempt to turn the tables on..." Gary. "Go ahead and try to Break Free with a UCS. If you succeed and Gary fails then you will have "...succeeded in breaking free--" "Wait a bloody minute," Gary interjects. "Didn't I win earlier and he fail? Didn't I grapple him?!" Gary and Bob rise from the table and, on the living room floor, begin acting out the now stalled round while the GM mumbling curses frantically re-reads the grappling rules. End of scenario two...and the game. All parties didn't seem to get an A & R each. Scenario three: Wherein Bob the Samurai accepts the situation but thinks "...it were crap." Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits. Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS. Bob and Gary now oppose each other with UCAs; Gary succeeds and Bob again fails. Gary applies the Inflict Pain option, and Bob takes damage. Bob asks when he can take his ACTION, and the GM explains he already did in his opposed roll. With a raised eye-brow, Bob nods and asks politely what he can do to break Gary's hold? The GM explains politely in return that he may attempt to Break Free once per round, which he already did just after he failed to counter Gary's attack. "Hmmm..." says Bob as he checks off hit-points. He then turns to his smart-phone and begins checking his messages. End of scenario three...and Bob's interest. Gary of course, can't wait until next round. Did all parties get an A & R each? Scenario Four: Wherein Bob the Samurai accepts but makes an observation Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits. Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS. Bob and Gary now oppose each other with UCAs; Gary succeeds and Bob again fails. Gary applies the Inflict Pain option, and Bob takes damage. As Bob checks off the damage, the GM offers that, "...you'll be able to attempt to Break Free next round..." Bob nods, "This grapple thing...it sure isn't like Close Combat: he acts; I react; I act; he reacts..." End of scenario four. All parties did not get an A & R each nor will they get them next round...Gary still has control, he will inflict damage (an action); Bob will try to Break Free (a reaction) and the round will end free or not.
  4. Dear Newt and sundry, I'd appreciate some clarification on the Create Charms spell. I may have simply thought myself into a stupor and apologize if what follows seems a dense question, but the term "reusable" in the passage... "If the caster spends one Improvement Point at the time of creation the spell within the Charm is reusable. Other wise once the spell is cast the Charm is dispelled" (106). ...does it mean "reusable" as in a never-ending lighter versus a single-strike match? In other words, does it mean that once it is made reusable, the charm may be used over and over without limit? Thanks in advance, Sunwolfe
  5. Thanks, Newt!
  6. The amendment sounds logical to me. I've got one player in love with kusarigama and wants to entangle for control, then close and grapple. What you've got here would make sense concerning Immobilized limbs. Cheers!
  7. Hey, Newt (and sundry), Has anyone put an OQ2 errata sheet together? Cheers, Sunwolfe
  8. Thanks for the replies! I was thinking the same thing: if magic were very rare, rather than simply the exception in my setting, I might consider following the more conservative route. As it is, I'm going with the: you have it at three...and two and one...for 3 slots. Cheers, Sunwolfe
  9. Greetings MW-Users, My queries concern spell levels and memory. A 16 INT spell-caster wants to add Sorcerer's Talons (1-4) @ level-three to her repertoire, taking up three slots in her memory "...book shelf...". She now has 13 levels/slots left (16-3=13). All well and good, but then with narrowed eyes she asks, "I'll also be able to cast this spell at level one and two. I mean, I know it at level one and two...right?" Blink Can she...or to know all three levels of the spell, does she have to dedicate a slot for ST (1), two slots for ST (2), AND three for ST (3)...meaning she'd have had to dedicate SIX INT slots rather than three? Cheers, mates, and thanks for the replies.
  10. Greetings all MW loyalists and Chroniclers, The Entangle spot-rule (86-7). I find the phrase, "A successful entangle prevents movement or attacks by the target, for the rest of this round and all the next round" (86), problematic. I cannot imagine an entangled target passively awaiting his or her or its fate during their turn to act in the round. I would imagine they'd resist at every opportunity or attack with whatever means remains at their disposal. I've done my homework, researching BRP BGB, RQ3, SB/E! versions of the rule. I am leaning hard toward Durall's "...there are few entangling attacks that do not allow for some method of attack, whether a kick or a head butt"(196). Before I adapt or qualify the rule and drift away from MW RAW, however, I thought I'd query what remains of the once mighty MW cadre (sigh) and ask how you handle this spot rule? For the sake of full disclosure, the spot rule in question is for a PC who is using a kusarigama with a 3m chain. Cheers!
  11. For any who were curious, I just got the official word. The MW EG is definitely bye-bye, but when it was available some, particularly myself, greatly appreciated the resource and the work involved. Cheers, Sunwolfe
  12. Hey, Skoll & Hkokko, I know the link to the MW enemy generator is no longer valid in light of time and all the changes, but might the MW generator be available via another path...or is it a completely dead project? Cheers, Sunwolfe
  13. This is great to hear, Newt! Power on, brother, with what you know and love--the absolute best advice in the world to keep back to the darkness. Long live OQ!
  14. You all certainly saw Smirogan's flow chart: http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/4025-im-with-brp-any-edition/?do=findComment&comment=62421 Interesting to see how the two compare and contrast. Cheers!
  15. I check here twice a day--after clicking the Glorantha, Call of Cthulhu, and More From Chaosium>HeroQuest forums "mark[ed] as read..." . And as I'm presently out of the GM loop having been religated to "player" mode (in WH FRP and SW D6), I've got nothing productive to offer. Sad :-(