Uthred

1 hour ago, SaxBasilisk said:

I should add that the Book of the Warlord does present a potential path upward from vassal knight. It's not definitive by any means, but it might give you a way to think about it in addition to our conversation here.

Cool, I'll check that out

That helps to clarify it. I think I was a bit overwhelmed with all the sourcebooks and was mistaken thinking that one "had" to go through them as opposed to them being additional resources for different tiers of play. The default being that there isn't much "social climbing" is fine.

So fresh new knights start out as Vassal Knight's with a shiny manor. But where do they go from there? Obviously feudal society is rigidly hierarchal with limited social mobility. But what can a vassal knight realistically aim for? Certainly for starting knights catching the attention of the king in battle and getting bounced up the ladder to Banneret or Baron. Is there a more reliable way to accrue land or rank? Can someone like Roderick raise a vassal to banneret status? Or is there no real planned "career trajectory" and its largely dictated by the campaign and GM whim? 

So I'm wondering do you start each new combat round with your spell or weapon prepared or do you have to pay the usual cost? e.g. in Round 1 I cast Demoralize, if I want to cast Demoralize again in Round 2 do I need to pay +5 SR to do so? Similarly if I end Round 1 with my missile weapon out of ammo do I need to reload it in Round 2 or is reloading subsumed into the "free" prepare?

I can't see any entries for natural weapons in the skill chapter. Is it Manipulation like all other weapons? 

On 6/29/2019 at 11:40 PM, galafrone said:

Hi there

i just wanted to know how the community feels about the HP being basically just a measure of CON with some little adjustments and not more the average of CON and SIZ

Actually with this system ducks have an average hp total of 12 and the dark trolls 13.. and if the latters are unlucky the can easily being worse than ducks.

So, fellow gamers, you are playing with the HP total as it is or ... not ?

I think it's fine. Hit points are an abstraction as is and I don't mind moving away from verisimilitude (or "realism" if you prefer) in order to make combat against large foes less of a slog against a bag of hit points. In some ways if this was a design goal I think they should have went the whole hog and divorced "hit points" from "meat points" entirely, adding in a bonus for POW is a nod towards that but a more clean division would have avoided any mental dissonance that not having SIZ play a larger factor creates. Quicker and more lethal combat suits what I want out of the system so I've been running it as is. 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Personally I'd say a "good" system of mechanics for 'fantasy gaming' should scale?  It's a facet where RQ3 absolutely had a more rigorous approach (in HP, anyway).

It should only scale within the bounds its designed for, a "good" system is one that does what its designed to well, in this case (and the case for the vast majority of fantasy roleplaying games) that is to model roughly human scale characters fighting against a variety of different sized foes. The system is not designed to emulate big monster versus big monster battles. So while its certainly true that the system fails to make that interesting it also never set out to do so so the complaint feels orthogonal at best to the systems stated aims. Of course if your own aims are similarly orthogonal I can see how that might be a problem. 

Also I'm not sure comparing how large herbivores fight is particularly useful, most monsters are carnivores and it seems as valid to suggest a monster sized carnivore will fight like a bigger version of itself than like a whale or an elephant, this holds even truer for sapient creatures. 

3 hours ago, Nevun said:

While I have Heroquest voices at home (I think I have almost about every RQ/Glor product available) I haven't referred to it in a while.

I don't recall it referring to the great winter and resulting famine that would have recently occurred in characters timelines. Nor do I recall it referring to the Dragonrise. I might have just forgotten it though. I'm going to re-read it tonight. It may be that I just have to take that resource and add in some of the events from the Character Gen timeline. Characters should CERTAINLY know about those events. Some of the more important need to be highlighted.

Well if you're using the generate personal history portion of the character creation process it will briefly cover or mention all the recent major events. If you use it in tandem with HQV you should be able to get general cultural info along with recent major world events. 

27 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I certainly didn't put something in the rules requiring that. The Statement of Intent is an opportunity for everyone to quickly remind themselves what they are doing and when it will happen. I find it a useful opportunity for help make everything go faster.

So it would be fair to say that the statement of intent is descriptive rather than prescriptive? 

1 hour ago, klecser said:

I'm not a Glorantha rules expert, but I searched the PDF of the core book for all instances of intent and re-read the strike rank section. I'm also recalling what I've heard from veterans. All that combined, I don't think you are going to find an explicit statement that says this. There isn't one needed, IMO, anyway. The 5 SR rule is deliberately vague. The goal of Strike Rank is just to establish an order. And if you begin with a Statement of Intent that places you in an order, but then elect to do something different, it makes sense that the "something different" takes you "time" (measured as a simplified 5 SR to prepare. After your Statement of Intent, if you were to keep the intended action, you can go on any SR after your original one. I think it also important that SR matters much more if you are "engaged" versus not. That seems to be a key distinction.

I think Runequest is squiggier than what your expectations are suggesting. There is nothing wrong with that. But I also think that if you keep going as if the ruleset is more precisely defined than it is, you are just going to get frustrated. Let go. Maximum Game Fun. It's ok.

If you can whatever you want when it comes to Strike Rank resolution than why bother with the intent phase at all? RQG is not a "rules light" game. I've no problem with broadly defined rules in games like FATE but for a crunchier game like Runequest I'd appreciate more clarity. My "fun" is not hampered by clearly understanding the rules. I enjoy Mythras for example because of its mechanical complexity but I'm entirely clear on how everything works in it. I dont think having an explicit rule would hurt much and I also don't think the +5 SR rule is vague, it very explicitly mentions what it covers even going to far as to specify exactly how you get rid of the weapon you're currently holding. Thanks for clarifying that there is no textual support for changing ones intent. As I said above I'll allow it as it makes sense. 

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Getting back to the real topic at hand... a legitimate question... some have mentioned that it's fine to cast multiple spells in the same round - as long as they're not offensive (in nature, not, perhaps, in the words used to cast them 😛 ). Why does this matter?

I was wondering that as well. 

17 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Don't bother. He came for a  fight. We are two of the mellowest people here and who is he going toe to toe with?

Firstly, she. Secondly, I came here seeking clarity on unclearly written rules, thats it. I'm not looking for a "fight" and it's sad that you think this constitutes one. Your contributions to this thread are mis-reading the initial question, posting a confusing re-hash of the rules and then consistently failing to read the posts responding to you and (unsurprisingly) failing to engage with any of the points you're responding to. 

12 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

and I think people have to quit attacking mistakes. It's a mistake!

One that people keep making and failing to acknowledge. It is beyond tedious to have to constantly re-state the same point because people keep making the "mistake" of not reading. It's not an "attack" to point out a mistake, that's how discussions work. It's also, as we seem obsessed with conduct, incredibly rude. I responded to you several times with length quotes on the topic at hand and you clearly didn't read them. Don't you consider that rude? How helpful to the discussion or the site is it for people to engage in discussion on a topic when they wont even read what they're responding to?

1 minute ago, klecser said:

*pinches bridge of nose and sighs*

So, Uthred, you're going on my Ignore list. Ever since you've started posting you've been nothing but combative with people. I think you do have a huge problem with different perspectives, or at least with courteously navigating things that frustrate you. That isn't something I'm interested in engaging with here. 

Good luck to you.

 

"Nothing but combative"? That's frankly nonsense. Other than you and "Bill" my exchanges in the topic have been as neutral as anyone else's. We were in fact discussing the topic at hand until I, and I cant say how much I regret it, brought up the special damage example and we disappeared down this rabbit hole. I do think calling out putting someone on an ignore list is a bit cringey. Dont get me wrong, now that I realise the forum has the functionality I'll be using it. But I wont be announcing every addition. I suppose it is interesting that you again didnt actually respond to the argument being made, instead simply casting aspersions and having your little press conference moment. 

Just now, klecser said:

I think that, if you want to remain a positive contributor to this board, you need to take a second to center yourself and not take differing opinions personally.

Ah, I think people need to stop defending their mistakes by hiding behind the shield of "opinions". It is not an "opinion" that both sections are mechanically identical. It's an objective fact. One which people responding to it have either not read or defended with a string on increasingly bizarre justifications. I have absolutely no problem with people not caring about it. It's a minor editing issue. That's obviously fine, different things bother different people. I do have a problem with people pretending that the sections arent the same and then when being called out on their errors deciding not to address that mistake but to hide behind swipes at peoples posting style. I have no problems with differing opinions but it has to be a question of opinion for one to have differing opinions on it and to mercilessly belabor the point, the two sections being mechanically identical is not an opinion. 

2 minutes ago, klecser said:

Opinions on that are going to vary. Personally, if aspects of combat have similarities and differences, I don't mind them being kept separate in all cases in which they are recorded in the book to help to remind me that there are differences. You prefer the editing to be different. That's fine too. Everyone has different learning styles, and your learning style being different doesn't mean that there is a failure in editing choice. It means that this editing choice happens to not match your learning style.

There are no differences. Why do people keep talking as if the two sections aren't identical? This isn't a subtle nuance, this isnt a question of different learning styles, both are purely textual sections describing exactly the same effect, you are literally learning the same thing in each section. If one section was written while the other was pictorial it and they had different titles then yes it would be an opinion on learning styles. But again this has literally nothing to do with learning styles. You know, this is ridiculous, I wasted so much time on this minor point which I brought up in passing to illustrate how the mechanics of the game arent always clear. I'm done discussing this tangent now. 

38 minutes ago, styopa said:

And here I was thinking that saying "men are usually bigger and stronger than women" was oddly, just a fact.  Are objective facts still allowed in 2019?  

Who knew that it was illustrative of my entire psyche?  LOL

Some people would wonder why the attempt to dehumanize (frankly: demonize) someone with whom you simply disagree.

Honestly I think you're doing a bang-up job of dragging yourself through the muck, why would I bother piling on? But no, keep telling me how in a game world where reality is based on magical runes your "objective facts" justify your sexism. The rules of the game reflect the physical reality of the setting. The only purpose of the "realism" you want to inject is to make it less appealing and less mechanically sound to play a female combatant (a role the book goes out of its way to say is common). But sure, your concern is "realism". 

1 hour ago, klecser said:

It seems pretty clear to me that while the mechanical effect of the damage are the same, the potential consequences of an impale and a slash are very different. Hence, the different subheadings. 

The "potential consequences" of doubling damage rolled is identical there is no "subtle nuance" there it's simply an editing oversight. The potential consequences i.e. having a weapon stuck in you for impale and maybe being knocked out for slashing are covered in their own discrete sub-sections. It's laughable to suggest that you don't like "nuance" if you have a problem with sloppy writing. Nuance should arise from the mechanics not from trying to decipher unclear rules text. Mythras is more complex and has much more mechanical nuance, it also has much clearer writing, its a question of clarity not nuance. 
 

7 hours ago, Russ Massey said:

Isn't impaling to roll the damage and double it, while slashing is to roll the damage twice and add them together? That is a difference, since slash damage will have a bellcurve distribuiion while impaling damage will have a linear distribution.

Shiningbrow already covered this. But no, they work identically I mean the post you quoted has direct quotes from the book with page references that says exactly that. 
 

7 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That'a how I recall it, myself.

Why would you need to recall it? You twice responded to posts with direct quotes from the book that shows they function identically. As we're pulling people up on behaviour it's pretty rude to engage in a discussion if you aren't even going to bother to read what you're responding to. Admittedly it does make the extended back and forth make more sense in light of that. 

4 hours ago, David Scott said:

Can we keep the thread on topic please, contributors have veered into special damage results.

Sorry about contributing to that. In an effort to get back on track. To summarise magic in melee combat i.e. while engaged:

While "Engaged" in Melee combat you can:

-> Cast a non-attack spell and make a melee attack
-> Cast any number of spells you can afford the strike ranks for but only one of them can be an attack spell
-> Cast Sorcery or Spirit magic on the same turn but Rune magic is exclusive

13 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I am not sure but it seems that you may be getting mad. I hope not, that would be a drag

Again, I said earlier that is there is more damage going in and if it stays in it does more damage again,   Pulling it out also causes damage, It has always been this way since I started playing RQ and this argument has happened a few times with someone always getting extremely annoyed and yelling  why?

 Now , one last question for you. Are you saying impaing and slashing are the same,?

Cheers

I'm genuinely confused as to what you're talking about. I thought I had been painfully clear but apparently not. I will try and make myself clear one more time and then I'm dropping it because either I am communicating this terribly or you're being deliberately obtuse. If you have the book handy maybe opening it and following along would help. But before I begin, yes I am saying that Impaling and Slashing damage (before any additional damage the impale might trigger) do the same damage. Are the physically the same? No, of course not, but who cares because thats not what this is about. Which makes it all the more bizarre that you keep bringing it up. 

Open your Runequest Glorantha to page 203. You will see a section titled "Special Damage" under that you will see a heading "Impaling Damage".  Under that there are two  sub-headings "Double Damage" and "Weapon stuck in target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads 

"An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. An impaling blow with a short spear does 2D6+2 damage points, not the normal 1D6+1. If the impaling adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage—the damage bonus is not doubled. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells."

So if a 1D8+1 Impaling weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Double Damage" "Mechanical Effect A"

Turn to page 204. You will see a heading "Slashing Damage". Under that there are two sub-headings "Roll Damage Twice" and "Incapacitating the Target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads

"The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. A slash with a broadsword does 2D8+2 damage points, not the normal 1D8+1. If the slashing adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the slash is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible damage (18 points in the case of the broadsword) is done to the victim in that hit location."
 

So if a 1D8+1 Slashing weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Roll Damage Twice" "Mechanical Effect B"

Do you understand that Mechanical Effect A is identical to Mechanical Effect B? That is the complaint. Identical mechanical effects should be labelled and written consistently. If you have a mechanical effect you dont redefine it with a different name every time its introduced. Its sloppy writing and editing. Thats the extent of the complaint. 

6 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That's what I am saying, impaling does do more damage than slashing. I am not a physicist, Physician, or combat technolgist, so I an not tell you why. The larger brains or followers of said disciplines can give you the whys. I am just reapeating what I have heard for 35 years from folk who seem to know what they are talking about. that the spear on the accent battlefield did more damage, more quickly that did the slashing weapons. 

No, according to the rules they do exactly the same amount of damage when it comes to damage doubling. The extra damage impaling does is covered in a different subheading "Weapon stuck in target". The damage doubling effect for Impaling and Slashing damage, for the third time, FUNCTIONS EXACTLY THE SAME. There is no justification beyond sloppy editing for describing the same mechanical effect with different text and subheadings.  

On 10/14/2018 at 6:21 PM, Psullie said:

4. Yes you can change your action, but you may suffer a +5 SR is the new action is very different

 

Do you have a page/rules reference for that by any chance? It seems logical that this is how it works but there doesnt seem to be anything about changing your action after you state your intent in Phase 1. The +5 for changing to a different weapon seems to be simply the cost of doing so rather than permission to change intent. I'm going to run it that you can change actions but an actual textual reference would be great. 

7 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Actually. in fairness, there is a game reason for doing it this way.

The ancient battlefield's big hitter with the glass jaw was the impaling spear. Get it into a foe and the damage just keeps coming. Hit it and it could well break. The slashing weapon was more something that took time to bleed a foe, but was more robust and able to take a beating. So, more damage is awarded to an impale initially and again the next round if the weapon remains impaled. 

That doesnt explain why the two subheadings have different names for literally exactly the same mechanical effect. Impaling damage, other than the additional impale effect doesnt do any more damage than slashing damage. 

RQG pg. 203 "Double Damage

An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. An impaling blow with a short spear does 2D6+2 damage points, not the normal 1D6+1. If the impaling adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage—the damage bonus is not doubled. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells."

RQG pg. 204 "Roll Damage Twice

The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. A slash with a broadsword does 2D8+2 damage points, not the normal 1D8+1. If the slashing adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the slash is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible damage (18 points in the case of the broadsword) is done to the victim in that hit location."

It's literally the same mechanical effect but has a different subheading and is written in a slightly different way, its emblematic of the kind of sloppy writing the combat chapter is full off. 

30 minutes ago, styopa said:

CERTAINLY magic in Glorantha can overcome disadvantages in size and strength, but to hand-wave-away reality because it doesn't fit what we wish it to...?

The irony of complaining about people wilfully ignoring "reality" while wilfully ignoring that Gloranthan reality from physics on up explicitly functions differently is, well too sad to be truly amusing, but its something all right and thats not even getting into "Realism justifies my sexism!"

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Here is where I see,a failure of the rules (at least as far as the description goes)... On SR 1, you quickly mentally petition your god to send down it's power. (For some strange reason, this always takes precisely 12 seconds, regardless of the spell, God, player or location...unless you need to power it up with magic points - although this has a contradiction in.the book).*

For some unknown reason, this petition to the gods stops you from casting any other magic, but doesn't stop you from doing anything else... 

For some bizarre reason, you can only begin this petition at the beginning of a melee round, and not in the middle (say, right after getting your leg hacked off...)

*it could be suggested that this invocation itself is going for all of that time, which would be valid.

Strike ranks explicitly aren't discrete second in the combat round. Also isn't the "bizarre reason" simply a result of the combat systems abstraction? From what I can see you cant do anything to react to your leg being hacked off, whether its rune magic or anything else, you state your intent in Phase 1 and then the Strike Ranks play out in Phase 3. There seems to be no option for "changing your mind" so the reason that Rune magic always takes place in SR1 is because it happens as soon as you think of it. 

Admittedly that interpretation may be wrong. The combat chapter is not very clearly written e.g. the fumble example on pg. 206 directly contradicting the text before it, the fact Impaling damage has "Double Damage" and Slashing damage has "Roll Damage twice" despite them being mechanically identical, and so on. It could do with another editing pass and a large worked example. 

Just now, Joerg said:

How about vice versa - does casting any spirit magic or sorcery first prevent an adventurer from casting Rune magic that same round? Asking because that's what my bunch of rules lawyers will ask me...

During the intent phase wouldnt you have to state you're using Rune magic thus barring you from using any other type of magic even if in strike rank terms you used Sorcery and then Rune magic?

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

P315 - Casting a Rune magic spell prevents an adventurer from casting any other Rune magic, spirit magic, or sor-cery spells that round. 

It's even in bold! 

I'm sure it is and when I get to pg. 315 I'll feel suitably chagrined. But I've only read to the end of the combat section so far. So multiple spells per turn while engaged in melee are fine once they dont involve Rune magic?

11 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Yes if you aren't engaged in melee (close) combat.

4) You do not move to attack another (become engaged).in the same round as casting a spell

 

If point four is correct then surely the answer is No? The question was about using a spell and a melee attack (which you can only do when engaged) in the same round

1. Can you cast spells that don’t target the opponent e.g. Bladesharp and make a melee attack in the same combat round? The text on pg. 194 specifically says you can but the text on pg. 195 about using either melee or magic attack contradicts this.

2. Can you use different types of magic e.g. Rune and Sorcery in the same melee round (assuming you have the strike ranks for it)?