Atgxtg

It's not that Religious/Chivalrous knight are bad, just that Chivalrous knights show up in far greater proportion in KAP5+, thanks to K&L than they did in the past, and more frequently than intended by, Greg, the game's designer. Greg who point in his thread on this is that Chivalric Knights are not supposed to be the norm. They are supposed to be the ideal. The fact that most starting PKs from Logres can not start with the Chivarly bonus wasn't something that he intended. The 96 threshold for the Chivarly bonus was also from Greg, and based on the idea that the chivalry total is calculated with six traits instead of five. That is 6x16=96 while 5x16 =80. Religious Bonuses don't have quite the same problem. Souce they rely on the having all the traits meet or exceed a threshold value rather than be the sum of traits. Somebody with a 10 Energetic, but who has 19s in all his other relevant traits will get the Chivalrous bonus, but not the Religious bonus. As far as random generation goes, Greg had mentioned in the past that the GM shouldn't determine the homeland for the PKs randomly, but instead he should pick a region where the majority of the PKs come from in order to be able to keep them together for a campaign, and Salisbury has been the default location since KAP3. Now that Book of Sires is out, that might change somewhat(congrats!), but I suspect not by that much, as a default setting serves a propose, and Salisbury puts the PKs close enough to, and far enough away from Camelot to make it easy for the GM to rplay up or play down Arthur and the Round Table Knights.

But doesn';t bladesharp only add to attack? And if so wouldn't that mean it would bump down the opponent's parry, but not the opponent's attack? My gut feeling would be either force the character to assign his "anti-parry" among his opponents, or to get rid of splitting and bring in a version of Stormbringer's riposte rules, that originally went with the cumulative parry. Something like if a character parries he can riposte on the next SR at -20%. To me that would seem to go with the spirit and intent of the cumulative parry, and you wouldn't need an anti-parry rule as the back and forth of sequential attacks at -20% would accomplish that.

Does the raw say that the opponent's skill is reduced by a skill over 100% of ability? I'm curious as to the actual wording, as it might clear a lot of this up. Depending on how it is worded, something like bladesharp might factor in before or after the reduction. And that could possibly get an opponent back up from the minimum.

Yet that's the way it always was. Up until now the odds tended to go with he numbers. Two or three opponents vs. a Rune Lord in RQ2 was pretty much an even fight, until you factored in for iron and magic, and then it was still a risky proposition, and one of the main reasons why Rune Lords had retinues-so they could fight opponents one on one, where they would have an advantage. Now, it looks like a foregone conclusion. Now I'm not stating that the rule is wrong or broken or anything like that, but I think we can all agree that it is a game changer, and one of the biggest changes in the rules for quite some time. I don't really see someone fighting more than four or maybe five people at a time, unless he's attacking a spearwall or gets shot at by archers or something. So functionally, your idea would probably just make things worse, by reducing the penalty. BTW, how exactly is the reduction worded? Does it specifically state a reduction to the opponent's attack? his skill? and when the reduction is determined (i.e. during declarations, at the time of the attack,, etc.).I just wondering if I'nm not interpreting it correctly. I also think part of the difficulty lies in the fact that RQG has both skill splitting and the -20% for cumulative parry rule. Stormbringer didn't have skill splitting but instead had a riposte rule.

Except the character has no good reason to split his ability. At 150% skill he can confidently strike one troll per round, and only have a 5% chance of being hit, unless he splits.

Opponents. Unless they've changed things even more that I thought, by RAW you can't split attacks against a single opponent. But other than that, yeah, it does. In fact I would say that it makes splitting attacks undesirable, as it will severely impair your defense, and a character facing multiple opponents is much better off not splitting. That seems to be where the problem lies, with the effects of the high score, not with the method of achieving it. What ever problems might exist from Sword Trace would appear to become permanent with characters with combat skills over 100%

I think you're missing the key point here, the fact that the guy with a skill above 100% won't need to parry much at all. because he is reducing all of his opponent's chance to hit him. For example: Let's say we have a lone fighter with Sword 150%. He get's attacked by a group of dark troils, each of whom have maul at 50%. Now, from what people are saying about RQG, the swordsman, due to his high sword skill, reduces the maul skill of all of the trolls by 50%. So the trolls are now attacking at the default of 5% and do not pose much of a threat. If that is indeed how it works in RQG, then it is in stark contrast to every over version of RQ, including RQ2.

Yes it did only apply to Rune Lords, but that was because only Rune Lords could get a weapon skill above 100%.Now spells like bladesharp could get attack above 100% but they were temporary. Yes, the fact that the character had to split the skill is what kept the character in check. Same happens in Pendragon. A character with a 40 skill is unstoppable in one-on-one, but not if he gets double or triple teamed. But in RQG a character with a 200% skill is virtually immune against practically any number of characters with a skill below 100%. That's a huge change from earlier versions of the game.

It's a huge change in how the game runs. Before, a guy with 200% skill would have a tough fight against two guys at 100%. Now they both get bumped down tot minimum and he just walks all over them. Now if that is a problem or not is a matter of opinion, but that is is a major change from before isn't. It did, but in old Strombringer combat skills were capped at 100% (plus any bonuses for a demon weapon) so there was a upper limit to how many parries one could reasonably get off, plus the opponent's attack skills weren't bumped down to the gutter.

While high attack did reduce parry in RQ2, I don't recall a high parry reducing the opponent's attack, let alone multiple opponents attacks. Not could they parry a half dozen opponents. In RQ2 characters were limited in how many attacks they could defend against. In RQG having a 150% skill knock 50% off all the oppoent's attacks, and then the character can actually attempt to parry all of those attack too. It wasn't anything like that in RQ2. Not really. Stormbringer doesn't do a lot of damage in the Stormbringer RPG, compared to other demon weapons, and a Humakti has a ton of magical boosts that don't exist in Strombringer. In SB1-4 Elric would have been capped at 100% plus the bonus from Strombringer, which would put Elric at a big disadvantage.

No far from it. I was just pointing out that your statement that it wouldn't matter because the shot would have to hit the same exact spot isn't the case. As far as the OP and the RAW goes, and this was answers by tystero, armor is not reduced in CoC7.

It doesn't have to hit the same spot. It might only have to come close. Since armor works in part by spreading out the impact force, the area around the impact can be damaged and weakened. Thus is true of both modern ceramic armor (which isn't malleable and thus will break instead of warp), and older armor (which was often made of bronze or iron, which could deform, possibly even leading to sections of armor coming off).Modern ballistic armor is probably more vulnerable to a drop in protection though, not only because the ceramics can shatter, but also becuase the protective material are encases in a cloth, which can be damaged and lead to bits armor falling out. Now in both cases, just how likely either result would be on a particular hit is hard to quantify in game terms, and in most cases it probably wouldn't be much of a factor during a fight. Generally speaking any weapon powerful enough to weaken the armor that much, that quickly probably will penetrate the armor in the first place.

The King, probably at the request of her enemies. If it happens. If such were to occur, then it would be because some powerful rival or enemy has the ability to make this stick. Basically the event would be seen as an opportunity. Now assuming for the moment that somebody with a claim and the connections to get the King to act on this, then it turns into a case of does she step down quietly and her supporters swear fealty to a new liege to safeguard their own interests, or does she defy Uther and risk the consequences?But if such a thing were to happen would depend a lot on just what the scandal/charge is, just who the rival claimant is, their connections, how well he is viewed by the other knights of the barony, and then what Uther decides, and if he wishes to act upon that. But almost anything could happen, depending on the other details.

You miss the idea of the sweeping and circular parry. The idea is for the blade to "make significant contact" with the other weapons and brush them aside. Now, yes, it can easily go wrong, especially if one weapon is missed in the sweep as it would probably leave the defender exposed. But, the point is that parring multiple weapons at once is not only possible but it was practiced. So it's not just something from the movies. Now that said, combatants in a real fight would rpobably try to maneuver to avoid just this situation. Well that's very different from every version and variant of RQ until now. In old RQ several bumbling opponents were always a threat to a single character, even if his skill were 160%. In RQG they really aren't. I agree with you, somewhat. I don't believe every opponent could or should have a detailed plan and approach to challenge a 160% skill character. I don't think every opponent would being able to come up with or implement such a plan. Most probably wouldn't know that they needed such a plan unless they had previous knowledge of the skilled swordsman. Plus, from a role playing standpoint, what is the sense of improving the character is every improvement is mean with a counter action by the GM? But, there should also be times when the opponents are aware of the skilled character and try to do something to negate or minimize his advantage in skill. Since these NPCs would be putting their lives at risk facing such a formidable individual, they would most likely take steps to try and protect themselves, if they could. Coordinating attacks to hit at the same time is, frankly, probably harder to pull off than it is to defend against, and I think the characters would need something like MIndspeech to pull it off without telegraphing it. Still, there are lots of other things they could try to do to make things difficult for their opponent. Speading out to get on the flanks, getting in close, or using missle weapons or magic all come to mind. If I were one of the opponents and I knew the guy I was going to fight was a skilled swordman or a Humakti with Sword Trance or some such, I would do everything I could to avoid melee. I probably want to hang back with bows and use spells like firearrow, mutimissle, and speeddart to take the guy down at range. Why fight his fight?

Actually it is quite possible to do so. That what sweeping and circular parries are for. The idea is that you catch both weapons with your blade and sweep them aside. It one of the reasons why many styles of greatsword fighting have such sweeping maneuvers. That and the fact that it can prevent the enemy from attacking in the first place, just by forcing them to keep their distance. So it is possible. Not that it is easy, and it does reply on the attacks coming in on similar lines. Parry a strike to the head, right shoulder and right arm is one thing,, parry attacks to the head, left foot and abdomen is something else.

Yeah, seneschal has a very good point. The BGB has practcially every alternative and variant rule from just about every RPG Chaosium had produced up until that point. In most cases a GM won't need most of it, and the players. will need even less. So for the most part concentrate on the rules you need for your setting, then decide which way you want handling things like armor and hit points. As to your points: 1. CoC7 is very different. If you are going to try and incorporate it into things, I suggest you use CoC7 for your base game system and then port over the stuff you need for the BGB, such as weapons and high tech. It would probably be simpler that way. 2. If you know what you want, you can just print out the stuff that you are actually going to use and not print the sections that you won't use. You can also cut & paste stuff from the PDF to a document. But, frankly I'd suggest just printing out the basic rules that the players need to know, and not everything. Another option would be to type up a sheet telling the players which rules you will be using. 3. You can do a custom sheet. Party of the problem with any sort of modular concept here is that the only one who knows just what he will need in his campaign is the GM. Things like SAN and skill category modifiers might be useful or might be a waste of space.DO you have an idea of what you want/need on the sheet? That would help to determine which basic character sheet to start with. 4. Yeah. I'd suggest NOT using the BGB as your core rulebook if you have another option. It's not that I don't like BRP, it's just that every other version of the game is customized for a specific setting and it can be easier to use something else as a base and add in the stuff you need than it is to start with the BGB and throw most of it out. But then, I have most of the alternatives already and don't have to buy another book to do so. If you do stick with the BGB, make sure you have your concept worked out and just pick the stuff that you know you are going to use. Especially which version of a given rule, like hit points, or armor. Anything else you can ignore for now, especially as far as your players are concerned.You might decide down the road to add something that you intiatlly didn't think would fit,but that's okay. 5. Have fun. Don't overwhelm your players with too much at once. Focus more on the basic game mechanics you will be using, things like general hit points or hit locations, fixed or variable armor, DEX ranks or Strike Ranks. Get all that cleared up right away to keep things simple. Don't go into rules and variants that you won't be using. That just confuses players and somebody will somehow get the idea that you will be using something that you won't.

I think the problem here isn't with Sword Trace, Humakt,or anything like that. It is with how powerful weapon skill over 100% has become is in RQG compared to every other related game (RQ2, RQ3, Stormbringer/Elric!, Pendragon, BRP, etc.). The fact that having a skill over 100% can reduce the ability of multiple opponents to attack or defend against the individual is a game changer. Up until now a character with Sword 150% fighting two foes at 75% was actually at a disadvantage. Now he bumps them both down to 25% and has little to worry about.

Good Luck. Maybe your book could lead to a Magic World revival?

Isn't that kinda off topic here? I think both of you have some good points on this, but I think it should be a separate thread. Again off topic, but I will point out that Pendragon does make some modifiers reflective (i.e. +5/-5) and that might work in RQ.

The problem here, IMO is two fold. First is the reduction to the opponent's ability to attack. In RQ2 a high attack did reduce the opponent's chance to parry but not his chance to attack. in RQG it does both. Secondly, is the fact that the penalty seems to be applied to all opponents, which makes double triple teams much less of an issue than in every other RQ or related game from Chaosium. It's a huge departure, and, IMO, not a good one. I'm not so sure. Since it is rolled into one skill, then someone with Sword 50%, Shield 50%, who used Sword Trace to up his Sword skill to 150% would just use his sword and not bother much with the shield. The way the game seems to work there isn't any problem with doing that. I think the big difference from Pendragon here is that in Pendragon you have to split skill in order to defend against multiple people. So a guy with Sword 30 in Pendragon (the equivalent of 150%) fighting three guys with Sword 10 (equivalent of 50%) is is a tough spot, while the same character in RQG gets to go on a rampage.

Me too, but then that's one of many reasons why I prefer to stick with RQ3. I know it works.

First off, I wasn't being stubborn about it. I was pointing out that there isn't any soert of consesus saying that Sword Trance is broken. Far from it. Secondly, the problem doesn't appear to be with Sword Trance per say, but with attack skills reducing parry, combined with mutiple parries, ans weapons taking damage. The basic problem, such as it is, remains regardless of how skill gets over 100%. IMO that seems much more serious too, as eventually I would expect Rune Lords and the like to have combat skills over 100%. No, that is a problem with ultra lethal actions. It's like how back in the days when most rifles fired one shot per trigger pull, the guy who carried an automatic weapon or flamethrower would draw lots of enemy fire as soon as he opened up. He was just so much more lethal than the rest of the people in his squad that it painted a target on his back. Likewise, if one character appear much more lethal than the rest, then he will not only draw heavier fire, but will also draw more extreme responses because the opposition cannot endure the possibility of his attacks. You get that same sort of response with any sort of rapid increases in lethality that the opposition can spot. The reason why the NPCs fighting the Humakti will kill him is because that is exactly what he is doing to them, so they will do whatever they can to stop him.It's just simple escalation. From what I've read here, and please, somebody correct me if I misunderstood something, what seems to be the real problems are: Very high parry skill is reducing the opponent's attack skill. That's new to RQG That this reduction applies to multiple opponents, without breaking up the skill. That is also new to RQG. Most of the other stuff, such as Sword Trace, or cumulative parries might exacerbate these problems, but the two above are game breakers. Now, somebody with 200% parry becomes virtually unhittable by a group of sub 100% skill melee opponents. And that too is new to RQG. Before, highly skilled fighters were still vulnerable to double and triple teams. Again, I don't have RQG, so I'm just going on what has been posted here, but does it really work that way?

That doesn't indicate that the defender can parry those attacks though, just that they are easier to hit.

Odd. Pendragon has had a single skill for years, and it works out fine, mostly because you have to split skill. It seems like in RQG they combined one skill with "anti-parry" and then that with cumulative parry, and with parries damaging the attacking weapon. Of, basically, combining rules from RQ and Strombringer that were never designed to work together. If so then Sword Trance still isn't the problem, it just the a symptom, since there are other ways to get combat skills over 100%, including good old experience. So just to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else here, if one guy with Sword 150% were fighting two opponents at 50%, he would be able to make one attack at 150%, but still reduce both opponents attacks by 50% (down to the default 5%)?And, since their attacks will most likely miss and his parries will most likely succeed, he will be probably be damaging both of their weapons in the process? Is that a correct assessment of how the combat would play out in RQG?

I wasn't aware that high parry ability reduces the opponent's attack %. So I would expect the five Uzdo to attack at full. While I expect the Humakti to parry most of the attacks in, I would also expect a decent amount of damage to get past the parry, and atg the very least, weaken the Humakti sword or shield. I was aware that high attack skill does reduce the defender's parry, I also assumed that the Humakit would have to split attack to attack multiple opponents, and thus reduce his skill to the point where the opponent;'s wouldn't be affected. For example, if the Humakti had a Skill of 200% and was attacking two Uzdo, he would only be at 100% for each, and thus no penalties for the Uzdo. Yes, but in RQ that usually meant that the parrying weapon could take damage. Don't tell me they ported over the dysfunctional combat matrix from Elric/Strombringer!