Atgxtg

Yeah, but in BRP you usually don't have to whittle down a character's or creature's total hit points to take them out of the fight- normally you just have to disable a hit hit location such as the head, chest or abdomen. So using 33-40% of the value as the resistance would probably give you results closer to BRP/RQ. Since you are putting POW into the equation (which lowers the value), I think the .40% value would be about right. For example, going back to the RQ3 Dragon (CON 35 SIZ 70, POW 20), it would have 53 hit points in RQ, and a Resilience of 42. But if you used the 40% hit location value, you get resistance scores of 24 (by hit points) and 17 (with POW factored in), which would make dragons about as killable as they are in RQ. And, after you factor in the 24 point armor (!!!) things should work out fine, mechanically.

LOL! I guess I'm a creature of habit. I think I'd like to try and come up with a better, simpler way to handle the problem. I think there might be a way to make the "aimed shot" thing work. Probably something along the lines of Pendragon's double feint, where you could half the resistance with a skill roll. While zeroing out resistance is too far to go, quartering it with a more difficult roll might not be. Another idea might be to have some hits that don't impair a character or creature have a sort of stunned/shocked/reeling effect that requires some time to recover. Some time of ability to gang up on an opponent could help too. But probably resilience is just too high, compared to how hit points work. For example a creature with 24 hp in RQ isn't all that much tougher than one with 16 hp. Especially when you factor in for hit locations. It's only like 2 more HP per location. But on the resistance table it's a huge jump in durability. I think I'll look at torso or abdomen hp for creatures in RQ and see if I could match that sort of progression.

Some concerns that I have with this approach is that you can wind up with a big tough creature (or character) being "proof" against attacks that don't do enough damage to have a chance on the resistance table. For example, a typical human warrior with a broadsword that does damage 13 (9+4db) fighting a RQ3 Dragon (resilience 53, and ignoring armor).

Forget them? I never had them! WF 2 was a bit before I started playing RQ, I think. As for Arduin, it would be an interesting argument. From what I've read Dave Hargrave wrote it for Glorantha, but Greg rejected it. Odd that Greg went with the RQ rules though, as we've been told that RQ isn't a good fit for Glorantha. Odder still that Greg's gone back to it.

I think how a skill cap is implemented depends mostly on why you are implementing it and what you are trying to get from it. For example, if your goal is to keep the new characters at the same general skill ratings as existing characters then you'd want to set a cap at around the same skill % scores as the existing characters. In such a case you wouldn't want things like cat mods or such to add to that, since it would circumvent the purpose of using skill caps in the first place. I've never implemented a skill cap in my games, mostly because I've rarely had to deal with people bringing in experienced characters, and when I've had to, I haven't had to worry much about "one trick ponies" breaking the game. Then again, I'm the GM who let a PC bleed to death for lack of any first aid skill, so my players have gotten the idea that characters that have too narrow a skill focus have a lot of vulnerabilities.

Cool. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page. Generally speaking, I agree and do the same. I say generally because there are some situations and games where I would allow a NPC who might be more powerful than a PC could really hope to become (for example, it's virtually impossible that a PC hero is going to be more powerful that Superman, no mater how much training and experience he gets.-but that is an extreme case).

I hope it took a bit that than just "wanting to be." I'd expect it to be difficult. Just as long as "can become" isn't "wlll become", that's kinda what D&D does. As long as you don't get killed, you eventually end up with enough XP to match up with anything. Nor do I think that the "can become" thing shoul apply completely to everything. I wouldn't want to see a Killer Whale's STR nerfed down to the PC range.

Ya mean something along the lines of Fangs and Foes? I feel like a kid again!

I figured the best approach Not all that fond of that approach. Basically if you start accommodating for it being tough in that way, it no longer is heroic,or all that tough. Think AD&D where the PC fighters can have three times the hit points of the dragons. I figure the best approach is to rely on the few friendly powerful NPCs that Arthur has in the beginning, especially Merlin (allows the GM to fudge quite a bit using "it's magic" excuse), and then try to squeeze in enough training to let the PCs hold out-specially Battle skill. That's what happens in the stories. There is one instance where Merlin pretty much aves Arthur from being killed by Pellinore. Of course, knowing what would be in store for the characters I could prep them a little (or a lot) with adventures that take place before the Sword in the Stone and the big reveal. Anyway, back to the topic, I figure that any GM who is willing to let the PCs derail/alter the timeline of events by fighting one of the major heroes of the age should be prepared to work up game stats for said hero. But I would like to see RQ Gloranthan benchmark NPC stats similar to how they did in in Pendragon and RQ3's Vikings to give us some type of idea of what the scale is.

Got it (years ago), although If I recall correctly, it doesn't have it all. Stats for the major NPCs were cut from the book but later released online as a PDF. Unless they were restored in a later printing.

Yeah, there is a lot of Pendragon on my mind with this topic. I'm not opposed to PCs alterting the storyline for a campaign. Frankly, that's the point of the game, isn't it? Otherwise we could just read a book or watch a film. But I think for anything major the GM should probably write up their own customized stats to better reflect the power levels of his campaign. I don't mind epic games, but they tend to place epic demands on the PCs- who may or may not be up to the challenge. One idea that I've had kicking around for decades was a Pendragon campaign where one of the PCs is, to everyone's surprise, actually Arthur, and when he takes a shot a pulling the Sword out of the Stone , he succeeds. It would make for a very interesting game, with the PCs ending up in positions taken by great knights in the stories. But, such a campaign could prove to be very tough on the PCs, since they would be forced into a lot of tough situations that Arthur and his Knights had to deal with in the stories, and they probably won't manage to be as heroic or successful at overcoming the odds.

Yes, but going off in a different direction means that you won't be following the timeline that much. Sure, but I don't think you need thier game stats to do so. All you really need for such encounters are some sort of "benchmarks" to show what is considered good, great, exceptional, etc. in the game. A lotof that though is determined by how the PCs develop in a given campaign, and isn't an absolute. That's why a lot of the old D&D writeups in Wryms Footnotes for those don't seem to make much sense now. Back in the early days, not as many people had played for a long enough time to build up PCs to 10th level or higher, so a 12th level character seemed pretty tough. Much of the same thing happened in Pendragon, a game with an established timeline and powerful NPCs that the PCs can interact with, and possibly even kill. The orginal stats for Arthur, Lancelot and such were okay back when Pendragon first came out, but are woefully underpowered in Pendragon now. But the gneric benkmarks of what makes a poor, average, good knight hold up much better and are easier to adjust as time goes by.

Because will almost certainly end the campaign. At the very least it will force the Gm to do alot of work working out what will happen in the campaign, probably for nothing, since such reckless player probably won't be lasting too long with any characters. Now if the PCs have actually been developled into the same leauge as the major Heroes of the Fourth Age it would be different, but I've never see a PC built up to Harrack's ability.

And the GM doesn't need the NPC game stats for that to happen. It's like pulling out Superman's stat sheet when a mugger jumps Clark Kent. Because either outcome is desirable, nor should they be encouraged. Both outcomes will effectively end the campaign, and neither option really need game stats. In the first and most likely) case the PCs get killed off, beaten down, whatever so fast they won't need to bother with stats. In the second case, the PCs probably wont be around long enough to enjoy their success when the entourage and affiliated cults kick into action. But, again, you don't need the NPC game stats to handle such a situation. Unless tje Crimson Bat or Harrack the Bersek fumble, a PC is pretty much dead. It's like knowing how many megatons the bomb was. Its not like a PC could withstand a 1 kiloton blast, let along anything in the megaton range, so you don't need to know.

To be honest you probably don't really need those stats, not really want them for play (wanting them to look at is another thing). The reason being that since those NPCs are so powerful, and have such a major effect on the events that take place you don't want to put your PCs in situations where they could come into direct conflict with them. Either the NPCs will be so powerful as to wipe out the player characters, or the Pcs take down a major player and significantly alter the timeline.

I think if the big problem with the damage taken by the attacking weapon thing is that most metal weapons shouldn't get "whittled down" so quickly. They should have some sort of inherent armor, maybe not RQ3 ish Armor Points/Hit Points, but say some measure of APs based on their construction. As it stands in RQ2, it's just as easy to damage a sword as it is to damage a wooden spear or even a bare hand. And the bare hand could get armor protection! If wooden weapons had a couple points of armor, metal ones 6 ish. I think it would keep weapon damage/breakage common enough, but still allow most weapons to last for more that a couple of parries.

It's not too bad for melee, and there used to be modifiers to hit location when dealing with large SIZ opponents.

Yeah, I suspect for us ol' timers we can and will take the bits that we want and attach them to whatever version of the RQ game engine we prefer. Probably 80% or more of the various rules are compatible and/or interchangeable. They can't miss what they never had. In order to miss it they would have to be aware of it in the first place. What I suspect they will do is raise the same sorts of questions and complaints people raised in the RQ2 era. Yup, but neither of those game are RQ, especially not RQ set in Glorantha. Personally I suspect that there is far too much that I prefer about RQ3 to want to revert back entirely to RQ2 rules.

Yes I could, and would. I did and will. Considering how many of my RQ players lost characters from impaling arrow hits, I think most of them will miss it too.

I'm with you here. In melee it makes sense that chest hits are rare, since it is one of the areas that will be best defended, and because arms are almost always in the path of any blows. With missle attacks, its different since the chest is such a large area of the body. By throwing out the changes to the game mechanics Steve Perrin made in RQ3, they also threw out all the improvements and bug fixes that came with it.

Pepsi? Pathfinder or World of Darkness is Pepsi- they got the sales . CoC is more like RC Cola.

And the new RQ seems to have thrown a lot of the "solidness" out the window and reverted back to RQ2. Weapon breakage was a real problem back in the old days, with anything other than a shield breaking after a few parries. Now, with characters doing more damage and weapons having fewer hit points we'll be lucking if a weapon can parry twice.

Yeah, but you missed my point. The problem with that approach is that aimed blows were entirnely due to SR, not to skill.

Yes, does the table flatted out (like RQ3 and most BRP games) or continue doubling (per Superworld).

Can save Jason the virtual ink here. Yes, they can attack the following SR. Generally speaking SR game mechanics won't ever prevent someone from attacking outright, unless thier attack would take place after SR12, meaning it would be the next melee round.