styopa

Members
  • Content count

    637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

styopa last won the day on June 30

styopa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

442 Excellent

About styopa

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Been playing RPGs since 1979, incl RQ since about 1980.
  • Current games
    RQ(3), BRP, D&D5e
  • Location
    Mpls, MN
  • Blurb
    Nah.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,045 profile views
  1. I have plate armor and shield 8, I'm being attacked by pixies with toothpicks that do 0-1 damage. I wouldn't need some special circumstance to feel completely safe from harm. Again, I'd say leave it to the PLAYER to decide their own survival instinct. If they want to throw caution to the wind, I'd say it's an extraordinarily intrusive DM to say 'you wouldn't risk your life like that'... (As I've mentioned before, because NPCs rarely care about "tomorrow" I would definitely restrict NPCs from using it unless they had some sort of special circumstance ie Minotaur berserk rage, etc.)
  2. And I'm saying, let that spear wielder decide if their self-preservation is a priority. Don't take that choice away from them with the patronizing ruling that "well anything else is absurd". If they want to be able to deploy defensive actions on their own behalf (as most sensible people would, in most situations), then sure, they get that one melee attack unless they're over 100%. IF THEY DON'T - as can be the case for, say, berserkers, or people who believe themselves immune to harm, like say an archer at range - then let them act according to SR availability.
  3. Not sure why the strawman. Nobody's saying they want to roll for every swing, thrust or riposte. But wait: We do track every single arrow fired, in detail. We do not resolve missile fire as "the meaningful results from 12 seconds of sustained fire". It's pretty clearly perceived to be each shot is a roll of the dice. We do track every single spell cast, in detail. We do not resolve the results of magical attacks as "the meaningful result from 12 seconds of casting". It's clearly modeled as each spell = a roll. We don't roll for every riposte (because that would be 'absurd', right?) but we DO roll for every parry and dodge... Yet melee attacks, for some reason, are treated entirely differently. And in RQG it's even more evident - you get to keep parrying and dodging repeatedly as needed. The attack is the 'decisive result of 12 seconds of (whatever)', but the dodges and the parries aren't? I've been the one saying all along that what's broken isn't the rationalization of 12 seconds of melee activity into a single resolved roll. SRs are - as Jeff has again laid out - ordinals; they establish order of resolution, they don't count seconds. ...Which is why allowing spells and missiles (only) the luxury of second shots without >100% skill is so completely inconsistent. It grossly overpowers missile and spell combat for no real reason.
  4. Well, actually, a round is very clearly stated as a set amount of time: about 12 seconds. From RQG QS: "Melee Round: About 12 seconds long, this is the basic unit of time used in combat" Your other comment (that 1 SR doesn't equal 1 second) is true of course. Nevertheless it doesn't change my point: even if the SRs are a time-independent unit of measure (nobody thinks it takes 5 ACTUAL SECONDS to draw a sword or nock an arrow, it doesn't take 1 full second to take a 1m step, etc), they're still ostensibly objective units of measurement that we inject into the event-ordering system to determine who acts when. What I object to strenuously enough to keep writing about it is that 'some ticks are more equal than others' (apologies to Orwell). I object to the inconsistency. 5 SR to shoot an arrow or throw a spell are precisely and only that. Once a character has completed that action, they are free to use the other 7 SR in the round to do whatever they like even if it's to do the same thing again (if they have the SR available). That seems pretty clear & simple. 5 SR to poke a stick into someone is treated ENTIRELY differently. Those 5 SR are for the action, of course, but then (hand-wavy bit) the other 7 SR in the round in this case only have certain subsequent actions precluded because the act of stick poking inherently requires (more hand-waving) the rest of the time to be spent square dancing or moonwalking or whatever to "protect themselves"... even if they don't want/need to protect themselves! Aside from being redundant - we have a great system that in fact already simulates the very act of defending oneself (dodge or parry) as a distinct thing - why are we rationalizing it into the melee mechanic only? It doesn't make logical sense: 1) archer shooting immobile target butt can strike as fast and frequently as SR allow. 2) spell caster casting at immobile spell-target can cast as fast and frequently as SR allow. 3) spear wielder pokes a combatant that cannot harm her, the rest of her round she is unable to attack again, even if she has the SR for it. Huh?
  5. That's pretty cool!
  6. RAW, perhaps - but honestly, why not? If you're willing to forego protecting yourself by dodging or parrying, why not let the player have that choice? Maybe you're being attacked by trollkin with daggers and with your plate armor and Shield 8 you really aren't worried they're going to hurt you even if you totally ignore them. So you stab one with your sword and toss a spell at another. IMO I think this rule exists only because it runs aground on the (arbitrary) everything-goes-on-a-rolling-SR-count-except-melee reef. If doing X takes 3 SR, and the 'between action interval' is 5 SR, then you can do X on SR 3 and again on 11. This is valid as long as X is casting a spirit magic spell or shooting an arrow. But in RAW *not* if X happens to be poking someone with a stick? The rules as quoted by jajagappa are extraordinarily loose semantically anyway. Technically, an archer firing at an enemy is "engaged in combat" (just not in melee). Technically, an arrow shot IS a "physical" attack. So could you shoot a bow and cast a spell? If a mouse attacks me, am I "in melee"? Seems like a lot of the handwaving exceptions and special case interpretations could easily be simplified-out by treating spell casting, shooting missiles, and physical attacks consistently. All those things are actions. You get two a round, as long as you have sufficient strike ranks to do so. Other details I'd apply: Defensive actions cost 1 SR by default (so yes, if you're being attacked in your SR, you have to choose do I defend this SR and delay my attack by 1SR, or do I attack simultaneously, forcing my opponent to make the same decision? In a given SR, highest dex chooses first). You have to have 2 weapons to attack twice. A high skill allows you to perform 2 attacks with a single weapon at the cost of only 1 action that round. (for simplicity, I'd say those two attacks happen in subsequent SRs) So yes, as well, a very high skilled attacker with a very low SR could indeed split her attack for each attack action, and end up attacking 4 times a round....regardless of whether this is a missile attack or a mace attack. You can parry or dodge twice a round, or one of each, with no penalty (but of course, you have no attack actions left either). If you defended at least once this round, and have no actions left, you may perform that same defense again repeatedly, with a cumulative -20% modifier for each time you use it this round.
  7. May be RAW but I don't know anyone that used that...
  8. Our read on this is simple: barring high-skill splitting, you can perform 2 actions in a round. Attack, defense, or spell casting each count as an action. You can do two of any them as long as you have the tools (ie two weapons for two attacks) and sr available.
  9. That rationalization worked with D&D's 1 minute combat rounds, where the collection of attacks, parries, dodges, trivial hits, etc was all rationalized into an "attack" roll against an "armor class". It is less persuasive in a simulationist system with 12 second rounds where we're precisely rolling to check our success for individual missile shots, individual dodges, individual spell castings, individual parries, hell even individual blows against the specific amount of armor covering individual limbs...but somehow the attack roll (alone) is *actually* only the single effective blow out of many feints and strikes that come to naught? I concede, it might be slightly more credible if RQG was going with the 'defense' ability, but that conceptually has a host of worms if that particular can is opened.
  10. Huh? Ernalda and Babeester Gor weren't "proper women's cults"...in what True Scotsman sense were you referring? I think going down that road would be very foolish, opening cans of worms thus far avoided. Personally, I think much of the ethos of Glorantha has been that there's LESS of the gender specificity (ie women and men don't have as rigid role exclusivity) than historical earth. In point of fact, the only gender-exclusive cults we've seen in Glorantha are ...women-only. Unless, of course, you believe that some animals are more equal than others...
  11. quicktstart

    That's why you don't want to learn spells from just any spirit off the street...you have no idea where they've been....
  12. quicktstart

    Really? I'd be curious to know which? In my view, from D&D5e and other peers, the systems are designed ever more NOT to be lethal, NOT to kill characters.
  13. I can too, but not to the same location? That's really the result of per-location deductions, is that the accumulation of harm to that location stops at a point.
  14. quicktstart

    Just so. This would be why there's a reasonable sense among some that it shouldn't be called spirit magic at all. Common magic, simple magic, whatever, but spirit magic is purely a misnomer. Hell, battle magic is less wrong because really, nearly all of it in the game IS combat related (that may have other uses as mentioned, but c'mon, they're mostly combat magic).