Bren

10 hours ago, Godlearner said:

Is it possible to become a priestess if for example one lays eggs?

 

Only if one of the eggs hatches a healthy infant.

46 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Same  for me, having played it for four years I feel I should know it better, but just beginning to come to grips with it.

While I really like a lot of what has been done with RQiG, I find the rulebook much more difficult to use as a reference book in play than I found RQ2 & Cults of Prax.

For example, finding the rules for calculating the physical and spirit combat damage bonuses in the middle of the long character creation section is awkward for me as a GM as I need to reference those calculations whenever I create a new NPC or creature.

12 hours ago, lordabdul said:

That's an interesting analysis, thanks Phil. Here are a few notes:

• Augments don't necessarily last for only one roll. Runic and Passion inspiration last a whole scene, and skill augments last for however long you can keep doing the thing that the skill augment has you do (which could be the whole scene too). So it's possible that with one augment roll, you actually augment many rolls. This is especially true for combat, in which you will augment several of your attacks with a weapon (potentially all of them!), or whatever. That compounds the interest of getting that bonus in a way the spreadsheet doesn't represent (although of course it can compound the penalties, but not necessarily, see below).
• Runic augments have no downside for the thing you were trying to augment on a failure. A failure only means that the Rune rolls themselves (such as Rune Magic rolls) will get a -20% penalty. A Fumble is bad, and may have some consequences on your actions (such as preventing you from acting in accordance to the Rune), but it doesn't give any penalty to your skill rolls. So it's "somewhat safe" in that sense -- you cast your Rune magic, and run into combat while screaming "FOR ORLANTH!" or something (i.e. roll your Rune augment after). Again, the spreadsheet info must be used with this in mind too.
• Passion rolls are the most risky IMHO. If you fail a skill augment, you get -20% for the next roll, but then you just stop doing the augment if possible. So if you were singing to try and motivate your troops with a Battle roll, you just stop singing after you realize everybody is holding their hands to their ears, and you got -20% to just that one roll (unless somehow you're oblivious to your failures!). But for Passion augments, that doesn't work, you're going to be depressed for the whole scene.
  • However, the more you use your Passion, the more it has a chance to go up. And you can use it for other things such as getting resources from your clan and such. So it's still a good idea to use it at least a few times every adventure. Plus, probabilities be damned, it makes for some good action and excitement around the table!

 

Good points. Also the Passion roll failure is -10% to all rolls for the scene while the success is +20% to only one skill for that scene. So a lower penalty for failure, but applied very broadly. And fumbling a passion often (like say in the case of combat) means your PC just auto-failed the entire scene. Passion augments do seem to have the worst cost benefit ratio. As the GM I don't think I'd want to rely on a die roll for the duration of despair. Fumbling a Passion is like a temporary death. Sort of a little death. Ironic, really.

I'm curious how people have treated Fumbles for Rune augments. It says, "The adventurer must even avoid acting in accordance with the Rune during that time." Depending on the Rune, the situation, and the breadth of the interpretation a fumbled Runic inspiration could also result in an auto-fail the entire scene. I'd be interested to hear any examples for how people have treated that outcome in a way that enhances fun.

20 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Is the special success chance on the Darkness Rune roll based on the Darkness Rune rating, or on the Greatsword skill?

The Darkness Rune rating.

20 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

If the former, then you're allowing an augment to entirely replace all skills that it covers, so with a 70% Darkness Rune, you have 70% in all skills that can be Darkness-augmented, which is rather generous!

If the latter, then the Darkness Rune rating is rather irrelevant, you're just allowing a re-roll on the original skill.

You would also entirely eliminate any potential down side to augmenting (which could be intentional and desired), or would you keep the turmoil result if the Darkness roll was a fumble?

Good point. I was too focused on the one example, where the skill being augmented is higher than the source of the augment.

I did not intend to completely eliminate the potential for a down side, but it would be nice not to have double the chance of fumbling because you are making two percentile dice rolls.

I think what I'd like to have (at least some of the time) is a method where the augment is attempted after the first die roll is made. So the player avoids turning a roll they perceive as good enough into a roll that fails or worse still turns what might have been success into a fumble. So they instead can try to push their luck with a second die roll and hope to do well enough with the augment to turn what might be a failure into success.

This seems like it would really only work well for a single die roll contest. Not for something like combat or an elaborate stealth entrance where multiple die rolls will be attempted. This will require more thought.

23 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Were you planning on trying this. If so let us know how it went!

Not yet. Just noodling ideas. I don't have enough experience with the new rules to feel comfortable making significant changes.

Thanks for the analysis. This makes explicit something that has implicitly concerned me about how augments work and whether its sensible for players to even try to augment. I want augments to be something players will try to use when success matters, not something they should choose every time they try to do anything. But the way augments work, it seems that often times if success matters, augmenting has too much downside for the potential upside. So rational players should avoid augmenting in important situations...which is the opposite outcome that I want to see in play.

I'm wondering if augments would work better as something PCs can use to push for success. (Setting aside for a moment whether they are pushing their luck, their will, or what have you.) Instead of rolling the augment ahead of time and then adding or subtracting a bonus or mallus from the main skill, I wonder if a better mechanic would be to roll the augment as a separate roll where the player can choose whether to use their roll for the main skill roll or the roll for the augmenting skill/passion/affinity roll. In effect, this would be similar to rolling with advantage in some systems.

So my Humakt initiate fighting in a night battle would roll against his 95% Greatsword skill and also roll against his 70% Darkness Rune affinity and use the better result from the two rolls, e.g., rolling 48 for Greatsword and 13 for Darkness Rune. He would choose to use the special result from the Darkness Rune rather than the normal success for the Greatsword.

Thanks, I didn't read enough of the Aldrya entry in Cults of Prax. (I stopped before the Gardeners). That answers my question.

Oddly, the write up in the Glorantha Bestiary doesn't include the Recover Spirit Spell.

Recover Spirit is mentioned in the Gamemaster Adventures

I can't find a description in RQiG or the Red Book of Magic. I failed to find a correction addressing this and I even went back to my old RQ3 Magic Book and Gods of Glorantha, but no luck there either. Anybody know what this spell does?

We almost always used the previous experience rules in the Appendix. That resulted in characters who would succeed at the skills they were good at at least as often as not.

Since the mid to late 1990s virtually all "knowlege" about Glorantha is said to be subjective. So the player who wants the character to know what they, the player, know, may end up thinking their character "knows" many things that are contradicted by objective fact or other subjective beliefs in the Glorantha that their PC is inhabiting.

I'd thought that the physical damage applied to embodied spirits who are currently discorporate and I like the image of the body of a discoporated character showing wounds based on spirit combat effects. But looking at the page again, I'm less sure that is the correct interpretation of the rule.

If it is true, that's a problem for the Chalana Arroy worshiper attacked by a shaman. If not, then I suppose the issue would be moot.

The target for Resurrection is the spirit of the deceased, and the body is already dead, so presumably damage wouldn't occur in that specific instance.

Sometimes spirit combat does physical damage.

Hit Point Damage
When suffering a special or critical attack in spirit combat,
an embodied target (such as a human) takes actual physical
damage to their hit points equal to the number of D6s rolled
for the attack’s damage. Thus, 1D6+3 points of spirit combat
damage will inflict 1 hit point of physical damage. RQiG p 369

Here's a different thought. Instead of a high devotion making DI more likely and less costly, maybe a low Devotion should make obtaining DI more difficult. For instance, an adventurer might need a successful roll of Devotion (Deity) to be allowed the usual roll for DI.

Put yourself between the boar and the child.

On 8/20/2021 at 5:51 PM, Akhôrahil said:

One important difference between tricksterism and Illumination that I could see is this: To the Illuminate, the rules are ephemeral and don’t matter (you might decide to go with them anyway, but that’s your own personal, somewhat arbitrary, utterly subjective choice). To the Trickster though, the rules matter a lot - they need to be deliberately broken! If the rules don’t matter, then what’s even the point?

So for a Trickster "rules are made to be broken" and you can't break the rules if there really aren't any rules. I like it. 😀

😃 Ah...the light begins to dawn.

Who's Ian? I got the Scooby Doo reference, but you lost me with the second sentence, though "kid" would not be an apt sobriquet for me.

Bill, that sounds wonderful! I'd be interested. Over the years I've played and GMed, RQ2, RQ3,and RiG so I'm somewhat experienced.

a/ Have not played or read Trouble at Days Rest.
b/ I've playtested some other games in the past and I'm very comfortable with an NDA handshake or otherwise.
c/ I won't be attending Gen Con, so not playing is a given.
d/ Getting to play for 6 hours in one day sounds heavenly.
e/ I have: RQRiG rule book, Skype account, and a Roll20 Account (I use and have used Roll20 as a player and a GM, so somewhat familiar.)

f/ I hope I have a sense of fun and I'm perfectly willing to help out! 

21 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I would as well (though might depend on whether it was +4 or +24).

It's Chaos. I'd be tempted to have the player make a new die roll each time they use their new strength.

Interesting event.

I would expect a +4D6 Strength to visibly manifest in some way. What I immediately thought of was Cuchulainn's warp spasm. If the Chaos Gift manifested that way he might look normal until he decided to use the extra STR. And a successful roll on his affinity Chaos in a situation where lots of STR would be useful could cause him to undergo the warp spasm without a conscious decision.

22 hours ago, Joerg said:

Your typical viking long sword has a pommel which allows two-handed use once your shield has been hacked into kindling.

 

 

 

One could increase the damage when used 2H to 1D10+1.

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

I dropped Bastard Swords - as far as I am concerned they are pretty much a rules construct. 1D10+1 damage instead of 1D8+1. Greg was never particularly happy with them. Originally we were going to drop greatswords (or two-handed swords), but they were far more popular with players and writers (and much easier to justify).

And that answers my question. Thanks Jeff! 😃

Now I'm curious what happened to the one-handed longspear, which aside from the lance, has also disappeared from the weapons tables.

13 hours ago, Graeme P said:

Well, here I was just floating an idea and then in the blink of an eye someone helps out.  That is very kind - thanks Bren.

 

You are welcome.

Sadly I haven't figured out how to remove the incorrect skill check box next to the Customs (_______) entry nor how to replace the specific entries for the Melee Weapons, Missile Weapons, etc. with fillable entries. Some parts of the character sheet don't seem amenable to change.

He gets knocked down, but he gets up again....