Mugen
-
Posts
1,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Events
Everything posted by Mugen
-
Yes, but when the player with the higher skill rolls between his opponent's skill and his own skill, the outcome of the opposition entirely depends on the other roll. That's more a psychological issue than a real problem, though...
-
Well, HQ uses a "high roll wins" (it was "low roll wins" before HQG) rule to break ties. Anyway, you're right the number of ties will be pretty high, and clearly in favor of the "defender" if there is one. My guess is the rule was discarded because it's not intuitive to break ties with a high roll in a game where lower is better. But that was a poor choice, IMHO.
-
No, I meant to replace damage with [tens of roll] +static bonus, based essentially on weapon.
-
As for myself, an idea I've always wanted to try but never had the chance to use is to base damage on the tens of the skill roll, counting criticals as 10 (and also base damage reduction from parry on it). How to factor difference in SIZ and STR into it is a problem. Should I add +1 damage for every X points of different in SIZ and/or STR between opponents, for instance ? That could perhaps lead me to base hit points on CON alone.
-
It was suggested in another thread that RQ3 sorcery was not very like the one you see in fiction. But, what exactly makes RQG sorcery more "gloranthan" than RQ3 one ? Obviously, the integration of runes as a limitation to spell casting is gloranthan, but is there something else I don't see ? Everything else is very similar to RQ3 to my eyes. I'm speaking of mechanisms here. Calling a spell "boon of Babeester Gor" instead of Enhance damage sure helps making it less bland, but it's still the same spell anyway.
-
It's sometimes difficulty to differentiate tier 2 and tier 3. For instance, when I complain about RQG sorcery using mechanisms from RQ3, one can understand I'm complaining RQG is not based on Mythras' sorcery. Yet, from my point of view, I'm complaining all of the various systems that have been done since 1984 (Sandy Petersen's, OpenQuest, RQ IV:AiG, Myhtras) and proposed interesting alternatives to the original rule, were not taken into account.
-
Isn't Fire a must, with Enhance INT ?
-
In MRQ1, runes are physical objects which you can pick over a dead enemy's body, but other means exist to find runes, thanksfully. After you integrate a rune, you can cast spells associated with it and gain a small power. It's not very different in concept from crystals, actually. As I said, it was a draft, and an idea to be discussed and refined, something that didn't really happen. As far as I remember, the only change to the draft was that some spells were created for runes that didn't have any. In the end, the plant and heat runes only had one spell, whereas the metal rune had a dozen (Bladesharp, Bludgeon and Dullblade, among others...).
-
Well, runes and runic skills were central to the mechanic of MRQ1 most common type of magic. And even if the rule (and the game as a whole) is hated, the idea was from a draft from Steve Perrin.
-
That doesn't seem like a very interesting thing to do. With one attack, I have 85.5% chance to hit (150% vs 60% reduced to 100% vs 10%) If I split my skill into 2 attacks, each have 30% chance to hit (.75*.4), which means 9% chance to hit twice (.3*.3), 49% (.7*.7) chance to miss both attacks and 42% chance to hit once. EDIT: I didn't count the fact crits and specials will be more frequent. But I doubt they're worth the reduced chance to hit. EDIT2: Hmm... I didn't take into account the fact the second parry will be at -20%. So, second attack will have 45% chance to hit. Which means 13.5% chance to hit twice, 21.175% chance to miss both and 59.325 chance to hit once. Much better. But is it worth it ? EDIT 3: If the other character now has 100% skill, it's really not worth it, as the chance to hit with first attack is 3.75% and 15% with the second attack.
-
Hmmm... so no-one played a Diamond caste mostali with a 2000% skill, really ? No, I didn't either...
-
Some people on french forum Casusno were hooked by the news of a game based on Glorantha, even if some of them prefered HQG over RQG.
-
Which means a huge number of ties, and a big advantage for passive/defensive characters when there is one.
-
Well, there are differences with RQ3 : sorcerers need to master "runes" and "techniques" before learning any spell, which means you can't just read a spell in a book and learn it, and there aren't skills beyond the spell skills anymore. But Free INT is still the limit on the parameters you put in a spell, and you need to learn one skill per spell. MP cost was also increased, as you need at least 2 or 3 MPs to cast one, and duration and range costs are different. The equivalent to sorcery spell matrix is also now automatically learned when you learn a sorcery spell.
-
Yes, it seems so. Looking at character sheets, the game seems to be heavily oriented towards combat. All have a list of "skills", but those are only combat special powers. An interesting thing is that each have a room for 3 "memories" (omoide), though I don't have a clue what it means. Each attribute is linked to a "modifier", equal to 1/4th its value.
-
No for this : subject of the verb is "spells" and not "enemy" : "Spells (that have a 95% chance of success against an enemy) do not provide sufficient stress to allow a POW gain roll."
-
My guess is the first parry with each weapon is without penalty, and only Parries above those two first suffer from cumulative penalty, but that penalty applies to both weapon. That is, you'll have one parry with full Right hand weapon skill, one with full Left hand weapon skill, and then a cumulative -20% for each parry afterwards, no matter what weapon you use for it.
-
I think the way weapons are damaged by non-special attacks is from RQ3.
-
I will re-iterate my advice to try and read OpenQuest, then. Its combat system is as simple as something built on the classical Attack/(Parry or Dodge)/Weapon damage BRP scheme can be.
-
Well, there is a Dark Souls TRPG, but... https://fujimi-trpg-online.jp/dstrpg/
-
You could try to use the Star Wars D6 progression chart : 1d6, 1d6+1, 1d6+2, 2d6, 2d6+1, 2d6+2, 3d6, and so on...
-
The versions I hosted on my personal page around 1999. www.chez.com/aluban/shamans.doc www.chez.com/aluban/sorcery.doc www.chez.com/aluban/ritual.doc www.chez.com/aluban/grimoire.doc www.chez.com/aluban/saints.doc
-
I actually did some errors in my computations, and the right chance of success is 29.03 %, counting 1% chance of tie.
-
I do like the idea of old heroes coming back, even when they're just the shadow of what they used to be.
-
If you only consider quality of success, there will be a lot of ties. And in cases where there is an active protagonist and a passive one, a tie is the same as a victory for the passive one, as his goal is to prevent the active character from reaching his goal. For instance, if a gard is searching for a hidden character and both have 60% in their appropriate skill, the cases in which the guard finds the other character are when : -He rolls between 13 and 60 and the other player rolls 61+ -He rolls between 4 and 12 and the other player rolls 13+ -He rolls between 1 and 3 and the other player rolls 4+ For a total of 24.35% chance of success, from which we can substract the 1% chance they get the same result on the d100.
