Harshax

I'm toying with revisiting and updating a house rule from my RQ3 campaign and thought I would share. This rule is suitable for high-octane action oriented adventures, where there are many opportunities for combat. Verve represents spiritual vigor and luck. It fuels magic and also represents temporary injury that is "shrugged off" after a short rest. It replaces the derived attribute: Magic Points. A player may choose to reduce an injury received in combat by a number of points equal to the amount of Verve spent. Spending Verve this way reduces the available pool for powering Magic. Verve spent to reduce injuries or power magic should be tracked separately. Verve reduced by injuries is regained after a short rest. I haven't yet settled on how much is regained or the limit to how many rest periods can be had per day. This will very much be determined by how over-the-top action oriented of a campaign I intend to run. I'm thinking of using the Endurance skill on the Spirit Magic Table found on page 201. So a character with a 65% Endurance would recover 1d8 Verve after a short rest following combat. Incidentally, if I want magic use to be as common and prevalent as found in many d20 campaigns, I may introduce a meditation mechanic. Using the same Spirit Magic Table, the spell caster would compare their Trance, Shaping, or Invocation skill to determine how much Verve spent on powering spells is recovered after meditation ... this is essentially the rest mechanic for spell casters. I need to think about which of the two skills for each tradition should reflect the character's ability to refocus and draw depleted energy back into their bodies. That leaves the raw Luck mechanic. I'm thinking I will simply remove the wound reduction usage for what one can do with Luck points if I implement Verve. Keeping in mind that this is intended for heroic adventure, what do you think?

I do think you have summarized part of the issue correctly, skoll. The other issue being presented is that certain character traits have zero skill development. eg - Combat Actions and Initiative. A character is only ever going to be as good as the Ability scores they rolled at the beginning. After spending an hour or two trying to trim down the skill list to its most essential list of valuable skills (for my campaign) I began to notice that while RQ replaced Ability Checks (the BRP Effort, Stamina, Idea, and Luck Rolls for example) with skills (Brawn, Endurance, Willpower), there are still vestiges of these permanent values in derived Attributes. How can you have a 100% Brawn but a -1d8 damage modifier? I know there is a mechanic for improving Ability scores in RQ, but the game heavily dissuades its use. Ability scores improvements must be maintained with constant Improvement Roll expenditures and there is a racial maximum that an Ability score can achieve. If derived Attributes were calculated from a Skill rather than raw Ability scores, you could set caps on skills universally and dispense with the Ability score improvement sub-mechanic altogether. The cap could also determine the power-level of your game and could be used to better emulate different genres. Want gritty realism? 60% + Ability1 + Ability2. Grim heroic fantasy? 200% + Ability1 + Ability2. Are the characters Paragons but not super-human? Set the skill cap even higher.

It seems that this is already to the purpose of a Brawn score. An elephant for example is incredibly strong and while they already have an equally impressive Brawn (120?) I think the score would be much higher if the elephant could articulate that strength more precisely.

I wouldn't change anything about the way I create creatures or other supernatural adversaries. These ideas may result in more varied human adversaries and also contribute more options for creating rabble. In regards to damage bonus, I long ago opted to use the modified as a step change in die type. So if you are wielding a sword, and have a -1d2 DM, you simply roll a 1d6 for damage instead of 1d8. A positive DM will likewise increase the die type of a weapon.

I've been looking very closely at the skill lists between Magic World and RQ6 lately. I've always liked MW's quick character creation, but RQ6 fixes all the problems I had with the POW economy and other aspects of BRP that prevent me from using Magic World as written. As I read the skills, it becomes glaringly obvious that regardless your ability scores, you can eventually excel in every aspect of adventuring life except one - professional combatant. For example, even a fumbling buffoon with a Dex of 8 can, with diligence exceed 100 percentile in lock-picking. Additionally, there are lots of skills that are dirived similarly as other attributes but otherwise have no bearing on combat abilities. For example, a slight weakling's damage bonus never improves, even if the character has an exceedingly high Brawn skill, which is a skill that is very clearly defined as, '<...> the efficient application of technique when applying raw physical force. The skill covers acts of applied might, including lifting, breaking and contests of strength.' I'd argue that the words "efficient" and "raw" work counter-purpose to defining what Brawn is meant to represent in that opening sentence, but I'm not here to discuss semantics. So my question is: What if Brawn was the basis for damage bonus? It could have a starting value of (STR+SIZ) * 2.5. The tiers for damage bonus would also be modified by 2.5. A human with an 18 in both STR & SIZ, would have a starting percentile of 90% which equates to a 1d6 damage bonus. Additionally, Attributes could have skill limits that reflect species maximums. In RQ3 for example, this limit was always MIN+MAX of any score. In other words: 21. Using the formula above, this would limit the skill to 105% and the damage bonus would cap out at 1d8 without the use of magic. Hit Points would be a reflection of Endurance and would be calculated using CON + SIZ, instead of CON * 2. HarnMaster uses a skill called Initiative, which reflects a characters training to react quickly and decisively in combat. This skill would determine combat actions and of course be based on (INT+DEX) * 2.5. Another skill could represent one's ability to hold mana or magic energy and would reflect training beyond the value of one's initial POW. In summary, Ability Scores represent a starting character's initial focus and training and are used to derive all skills. It represents there natural ability to pick up new skills. However, a character's overall competence in all arts (martial or otherwise) are uniformly represented in their skills, not their original Ability scores. A character's devotion to martial training can be summarized by their Fighting Style, Brawn, Endurance, and Initiative and not just their raw Ability scores and Fighting Style Skill. I think this combination is a better reflection of the devotion required to be a professional soldier. If you take the existing rules at face value, I realize now that they can be easily abused by simply placing your highest Ability Scores in slots that affect Attributes that are too costly to improve through normal Characteristic Improvement rolls. In turn, this allows you to focus on improving skills that aren't limited by a character's natural talent (Ability Score), which is the current definition of Ability scores. My Sorcerer? Yeah he has an Combined CON and SIZ of 33. He has the hit points of a teenage oxen, with his INT of 8 he's barely smarter than one, but because he single-mindedly devotes all his improvement rolls to the magical arts, he rivals the Archmage of Winterhold in magical arts. Please, spare me any argument that rely on oaths to refute min-maxers or otherwise ban power gamers from the table. This is an attempt to engage in a discussion about the way the game works mechanically, not the way the game should work if we promise to pretend these loopholes don't exist and that we'll never ever ever abuse them. EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe these starting skills have initial values determined like every other skill. A character with an 18 STR and SIZ has a starting Brawn of 36. This gives him an initial damage bonus of -1d4. The character has to learn to apply might to wield weapons effectively and train his body to apply force efficiently. As his fighting style improves, he must also improve his brawn so he can strike with both accuracy and deadliness.

You lose critical successes when switching to d20 or at least, you start to stagger step them, eg a Skill of 20 means you critical on a 1 or 2. I've often considered using masteries by using the same mechanic on the d100. A skill of 117% is 1m17. Bottom line, I don't see a mechanical reason to switch (or keep) the dice mechanic. I would default to the source material I reference the most.

I haven't given this question too much thought, but how about granting a free attempt every 10 years of life after age 20?

This is also the conclusion I've arrived at using my non-academic research skills. Naval warfare still mirrored land warfare. Archers fought from the stern castle and boarding actions took place when ships were bow-to-bow. It is no wonder that the Age of Sail is a much more popular period of time for campaigns featuring the Caribbean. Here's a neat tidbit too, an early gunner was known as a culveriner.

I would be shocked to learn that you could mount more than one or two, fore or aft, of any sailing vessel. I'm not a naval warfare historian, but guns in the time of Columbus and Cortes were huge and probably a waste of space for missions primarily surrounding exploration.

Thanks for your help with this research. I like to be precise when I do games grounded in reality. Cannons weren't mounted broadside until the earliest 1500's. I'll probably save this for a special encounter.

Do you have non-wikipedia references?

Found another good web-article about caravels. The author seems to have determined that a caravel is no more than 20 tons. With a crew of nine plus, I'd gauge its size as M. A nau, with tonnage ranging from 500 - 1000 would be of the colossal category in Ships & Shield Walls. Need to do some reading on clinker versus other methods of building boats to determine AP and Hit Points.

In my reading, I realize that black powder shouldn't be a huge element in a game set in this era, nor should naval warfare. Most naval warfare involved ramming or boarding actions via bow-to-bow confrontations. The culverin should be a rare and shocking encounter. The petard would be more common than the hand cannon. The technological height of the middle ages would be rare and powerful in the Caribbean and black powder is moreso fantastic, strange and terrifying. The most important attributes for caravels and naus is sailing speeds for chases and maneuvers.

I downloaded the Renaissance SRD, but sadly, there isn't anything about ships within. This is surprising to me since the period overlapped so much with the 'Age of Sail'. I have found a gem or two, which I'll share below. Later tonight or tomorrow, I'll start laying out stats and ask for input. Bayonese cogs, Genoese carracks, English dromons and Breton carvels — Late medieval technology transfer in northern and southern European shipbuilding - A Maritime Archaelology blog post by Daniel Zwick

I'm preparing notes for an alternate-History campaign set in the Caribbean that diverges from real world history shortly after Columbus' second voyage. The primary vessels in the region are kayaks, (war) canoes, caravels, and carracks (or nau). I was wondering if anyone had stats on these last two vessels? I don't recall RQ3 having stats for vessels older than the 10th century - knorr and cog. I have some information on crew capacity for caravels but only anecdotal information about nau. Baring that, can anyone point me to good historical resources about these vessels? I guess I also need to start putting stats together for canons and the various vicious ways people killed each other with black powder siege weapons. I have RQ6 firearms which will be an excellent guide.

This guy compared the injuries suffered by recipients in several battles to strike patterns of modern practitioners of European Modern Arts. Very interesting. Do we need a new Hit Location chart in RQ? (j/k) http://www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/06/12/fact-checking-fight-books-comparing-historic-injury-patterns-to-strikes-in-modern-european-sword-arts/

These are great. The tinderbox particularly strange and wonderful.

Flame ofSun has no RR. Also, I looked at RQ6 damage progression for Wrack and it skips d12 and goes straight to 2d6: d4, d6, d8, d10, 2d6, 2d8, etc... Fireballs and Lightning Bolts may look flashy, but you definitely have the right idea that turning your foes to stone is a far more efficient and impressive use magic.

I think that's too much damage. Flame of the Sun does 1d6+2 fire damage and costs 4 MP. I think I once used a sliding scale for damage based on the 4 to 1 rule: d4 d6 d8 d10 d12 2d6 ... A magician with POW 16, would do d10 damage with a damaging spell, while someone with POW 24 would do 2d8.

This is not cometely accurate. All sorcery affect 1 target. The difference with Deep Magic, is that once prepared, you are allowed to cast the same spell in 1 round after the first casting.

Deep Magic has a lot of balancing factors to keep it in check. First, even the most familiar spell costs a minimum of 2 MP. Sorcerer's Bulwark, 2MP compared to 1 from straight Sorcery. Secondly, spells that are far afield from your specialty cost many more MP, but the parameters for targets and duration are unchanged. Some spells which cost 1-3 MP in standard sorcery can cost 8-10 MP when cast with Deep Sorcery. Thirdly, spells outside your specialty require Luck rolls to succeed. Since MW has a POW economy, you're going to spend permanent pow for a variety of benefits, most important of them, is to gamble maintaining a certain level of POW to keep earning POW gain rolls, so you can spend it on binding demons or other enchantments. Lastly, BRP has no arbitrary rules for 'balancing' magic v melee. I rarely use this term, but that sort of arbitration belongs in 'That other Game.' It has never been an issue in my games. Take two skilled and active players who focus their skill attempts in different ways and you will clearly see a difference between magicians and 'fighters'.

From what I've gathered, Deep Magic is the same magic system found in Elric! The Unknown East, right? I don't recall there ever being a spellcasting penalty for wearing armor.

While I was delighted to see concrete enchantment rules in RQ3 and later editions of 3.5, lately I prefer to forego enchantment rules beyond Brazier of Power and Magic Staff, unless the enchantment is a specific plot point. That is not to say that I didn't spend years in RQ3 and Elric! Fashioning impenetrable armor and demon items from the Nth dimension, but over time, these items completely outshone my character's skills and abilities and only served to ramp up the power levels of my opponents without also improving the storyline. After several years of 3.5, magic items completely lost their glamour, because I could just make the thing I really wanted. I definitely prefer the idea that true artifacts are beyond the power on men of this Age.

All spells do indeed last a number of rounds equal to the caster's POW. Since this spell states specifically that 60 cu-meters are dumped by the end of the spell, it would seem that a caster with a 20 POW produces this volume more slowly than a caster with 16 POW. Whether the general rule of spell duration and the specific description of this spell is a penalty to high-POW characters is very much a matter of circumstance. If the spell was cast to prevent pursuit through an area, then 4 additional rounds of effect would be beneficial to the 20 POW Caster - Only the most foolhardy or experienced adventurer would charge through a room that seemed to be magically filling with earth. It's your call though. You could maybe state that the spell produces POW x 3 cubic-meters of earth by the spells end. Less fiddly, is to simply use the caster's POW as the resistance vs. an opponent's DEX to navigate the area without falling or becoming mired in earth. Personally, I'd go for the latter, it assumes that a high POW produces a more violent effect, without adding unnecessary details.

Been on hiatus from gaming but RQ6 brought me back. Thanks for the warm welcome!