Sunwolfe

Members
  • Content count

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Sunwolfe last won the day on September 22 2015

Sunwolfe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

134 Excellent

About Sunwolfe

  • Rank
    Book Burner

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

1,311 profile views
  1. The section explaining the point distribution in more detail spans pages 19 and 22. The section of it you want says: "Finally, distribute 40 points to one skill and 20 points each to three skills not listed with your occupations. These represent personal interests, hobbies, and learning outside the scope of your Adventurer's occupation, and the points may not be added the previously selected skills" (22). Thus, you're free to add those points to skills of your choice as long as they aren't perviously chosen skills. Cheers!
  2. Nope its a case of Protection offers 1d8, that's it. If you want more than 1d8 you learn different spell say "Bob's Amazing Shield" which gives you an increased amount of protection that overrides the Protection spell. Oh, I see. Interesting...hmmm (Sunwolfe muses). Thanks for the reply, Newt! Cheers!
  3. Absolutely! The, "...PC must face parry damage..." mentioned above is a reference to just such parries. Rather than minimum damage, however, I go with the "...rolled damage of the parrying weapon, with no damage modifier" (58). Great description, by the way: "...8 unarmed but dangerous Adepts of the Yellow Mountain in the dining room of their ape-temple." Awesome. Cheers!
  4. Hey, Newt and sundry: Just an FYI for the interested, here's the Grappling mod we cooked up after consulting the MRQ source document and reviewing BRP & MW. Grappling is employed when a PC intends to make an entangling/grappling attack meant to immobilize, inflict damage or throw an opponent. The PC must declare such an intention during the Statements phase before he rolls his die. Due to its unique particulars, Grappling modifies the typical combat round and follows the steps and modifications outlined below. Establish Grapple PC makes an Unarmed Combat attack roll. If successful, his opponent opposes with an Unarmed [Weapon, or Dodge] skill reaction. If the opponent wins, the grapple attempt will have failed, and PC must face parry damage and an incoming attack (Action). If his opponent fails, the combatants are now engaged in a grappling situation and no longer have access to any Combat Reactions. Apply Grapple The combatants will remain locked together, actively engaged, until one Breaks Free or is Thrown. Both will suffer a -25% penalty to any tests that are not targeted at or directly responding to each other. PC rolls his Unarmed Combat Skill minus DEX + STR for Immobilize minus DEX + CON for Inflict Pain minus DEX + SIZ for a Throw If PC wins, immediately apply one of the following special Unarmed Combat Actions: Immobilize: Target is helpless; may only attempt to Break Free Inflict Pain: 1d4+db; armor does not help Throw: 2m, 1d4 damage; armor does not help; breaks grapple In the case of Immobilize or Inflict Pain, the PC's opponent may attempt to Counter-Grapple or Break Free at round's end. In the later-case, the defender uses his Unarmed Combat skill in an opposed test vs. PC's Unarmed Combat skill. If successful, he Breaks Free from the grapple. Cheers!
  5. Hey, Newt: Very interesting! If you would/could/should find the time and the inclination, the spell titles in those three lists would be super. So...if there's no longer a MP economy, casting a more powerful spell version of say, well, "Protection" would simply be a matter of degree; for example, Protection renders a 1d8 variable; Protection 2 offers 2d8; Protection 3, 3d8, etc. ...correct? If you know it/learned it, you can cast it at whatever your casting skill might be at the time. I'd like to explore this "...quick dirty hack..." of yours further ;-). Cheers!
  6. 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!
  7. LOL! No doubt, Simon, no doubt
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Thanks, Newt!
  11. 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!
  12. Hey, Newt (and sundry), Has anyone put an OQ2 errata sheet together? Cheers, Sunwolfe
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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!