styopa

Members
  • Content count

    550
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

styopa last won the day on June 19

styopa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

387 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

968 profile views
  1. I'm actually trying to calculate right now the odds comparison of resist table for various scores vs opposed roll for various scores (x5 or whatever)...just to see if statistically it's comparable. It's ... surprisingly complicated to put in a spreadsheet. However, I would say this - thinking more about it: if we did it as an opposed roll, then the winner probably would reasonably get a skill check in armwrestling, starting at STRx5. (And then, forever after I'd have to use opposed rolls, I guess.). The logical extension of that is...how important is skill in armwrestling? Should a STR 13 (with a lot of skill) have any realistic chance of beating a STR18? I would say pretty much no...but THEN, one would wonder, why even roll on the resist table? A resist table roll implies there IS a chance of failure, which in this example the STR 18 would only have an 80% chance to win. Is that reasonable? Armwrestling is about as pure a STR vs STR contest as there is. Curiously complicated question for what should be a simple example.
  2. IMO arm wrestling could be STR vs STR on the resist table. If it's a player vs NPC, probably how I'd do it. If it was two PCs, I'd go for MGF because everyone rolling dice competitively is more fun, which would be the opposed roll (probably using STRx5).
  3. And just to add the last logical point: 3. If there's an active opponent using a contrary skill (ie Scan vs Hide, or Orate vs Orate to sway an audience), it would be an Opposed Roll for resolution.
  4. Er...my understanding is different. For humans, (MOV 8), they can move: 24m/round if out of combat. 8m/round if in a combat situation, but doing nothing but moving 4m/round if in a combat situation, but want to reserve your ability to attack/parry/dodge (likely including spellcasting other than rune spells, I expect) So 1 MOV = 0.5m in combat, 1m in combat but not doing anything but move ("sprint?"), or 3m if out of combat entirely. What's "in combat" is open to interpretation, or is likely better described in full rules. Could an archer, firing in combat at targets that cannot harm/reach her, in the next round put away the bow, declare she's 'out of combat' and run 24m? Unknown. And to answer AlbertG, my understanding is yes, if you move 4m in a round, then that's the limit of your move, even if you have more SR. It's hard to wrap one's head around the concept, but SR aren't meant to be taken literally as a clock ticking through the round where they each equal 1 second of time, it's merely an ordering mechanism to calculate what actions happen before others - it's purely relative. So that '4m' of movement over 12 seconds really is taking 12 seconds to accomplish. At least, that's my understanding.
  5. I was thinking that too. That was the point of my comment (here? elsewhere? too many threads to track) with the same mechanical conclusion: During statement of intent, a toon can declare (or defaults to) standard action: this allows you to either move full, or move half with the usual ability to attack/parry/dodge. OR, one can declare* all-out attack: the toon uses the 'rolling SR' system for their attack SR like missiles but may not dodge, parry, or move more than half. all-out defense: the toon is able to parry and dodge each once in the round at no penalty; subsequent parries or dodges are at -10% (instead of -20%), may move half all-out move: may move full non-combat speed but may not parry or dodge. *as all-out attacks could be gamed to be of more use to NPCs who rarely care about living until tomorrow, I'd limit NPC all-out moves to ones with a specific reason - enraged minotaurs, or targets of Berserking spell, or toons that are mindless/care nothing about their own safety Zombies (who are so slow it likely wouldn't matter), skeletons, gorp, etc. This makes all attacks (missile or melee) use the same mechanism, albeit missile users are (likely) going to always be all-out attacking unless in threat of melee. It also provides a useful realistic mechanic for the application of effects like Berserking - they don't get BETTER with their weapons nor particularly vulnerable, necessarily, just focused on attacking exclusively. Maybe they'd also get -1 on their SR to enhance the likelihood that they'd get that 2nd attack.
  6. Who hasn't had a new player sit at the session with NO knowledge of the game at all and say "OK, I've read the background stuff, I want to be a sorcerer"?
  7. The simple answer would be: then don't give them such in your game. To be clear: I'm truly NOT telling you to 'shove off'' at all, I hope that's not implied. It's what's GREAT about d100 games (IMO): they're so bloody amenable to these sorts of comfort-level tweaks that just make it 'feel better' for a given GM/group. I like where Jason and Jeff are going with RQ, I truly do. But I'm fully expecting that once the rules come out, I'm going to have (and quite freely share, for anyone that wants it) a rather large compendium of houserules that will make the game more fun, playable, interesting, logical in my opinion.
  8. I don't know that semantic dissection is terribly useful here? We all understand that characteristics are GENERALIZED representations of peoples abilities, don't we? Certainly we can all think of someone who's dexterous (in terms of hand-eye coordination) but couldn't balance on a 12" wide balance beam. Certainly we know people who are BRILLIANTLY smart but can't recall where they parked their shoes last night. CHA isn't appearance (any more), but....it's a stand-in approximation. DEX isn't specifically reflexes, coordination, balance, speed, or agility...but a simplified concatenation of all of them. Unless you want to have 20+ stats that quantify every nuance of a persons physical, intellectual, psycho-social, magical(?), etc (and we've all seen games that go down that road) I think most people are comfortable with the admitted simplification of STR, CON, SIZ, INT, POW, DEX, CHA.
  9. quicktstart

    That comparison goes way too far - Humakti aren't (necessarily) in any way 'good'. They also represent that death is implacable, remorseless, and necessary. Certainly they CAN be good people, but a regiment of Humakti would ALSO make the greatest stormtroopers ever.
  10. I read it slightly differently? You can use your RP to cast any of the common spells. You sacrifice your RP to your cult to add a spell from your cult's specific list to that list of spells you can use RP for. (So it's not that the spell points sacrificed for a spell have to be used FOR THAT SPELL. They just add them to the pool of potential uses for your RP.) MOB said "...you get to pick another spell for each additional point spent..." I *presume* that's per-point, and stackables are limited to what you bought into. ie if Sever Spirit's a 3 point divine spell, it would take the sacrificing of 3 POW for 3RP = able to pick it and add to the list. In the second case, I'd presume that if you have 5 RP, and sacrifice 1 POW to Orlanth for Lightning, then you would be capped at Lightning I, not immediately able to cast Lightning VI. (These are obviously all details that are likely laid out in the full rules. At this rate, we're going to have dissected every single page of the new rules before they're even published.)
  11. Terrific, wise approach. Even if go-get must be a weird Australian malapropization of get-go.
  12. quicktstart

    A squad of 20 humakti's can basically kill anyone, regardless of POW. Maybe working as intended..
  13. OK, so that makes the tactical comparison simpler: Dodge: all or nothing - beat or tie your opponent's success to avoid all the damage. Parry: limited, ablative defense but you merely need a success to have it work to at least some degree.
  14. quicktstart

    I think you meant to write 'terrifying packs of uncontrollably lethal thugs'? Remember, Humakt really isn't about fairness or justice or compassion or mercy. Most of the comments say he is "worshiped and feared"...