styopa

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Terrific, wise approach. Even if go-get must be a weird Australian malapropization of get-go.

A squad of 20 humakti's can basically kill anyone, regardless of POW. Maybe working as intended..

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.

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"...

Read that essay again. Even in his "blasphemous" tirade (I agree that rune points as posited are a great way to do it for precisely the reasons he puts), he agrees with the concepts that: - initiates sacrifice for rune points but spend them during casting, and DON'T get them back - priests/lords get them back...unless they use them on one-use spells which are still a concept And Fwiw I entirely agree also with his suggesting that the gm has an active evaluative role in theist spells. We've done that for years that (for example) aoe spells can be cast in the party, a god is smart enough to only damage the "bad guys"...although occasionally very sacrilegious good guys may get a little reminder-tickle of damage...

There's lots of room for creativity here between GMs. There's the RQ2-3 standby: you can STILL rule there are one-use spells, say, for lower (cult) level rune casters. I can certainly see Humakt temples constraining the casting of Sever Spirit willy-nilly. You could have truestones laden with non-regenerating one-use RPs that can be used to power spells and more or less discarded like one-shot MP crystals. Lots of possible ideas. I don't believe RQG will go any of these ways by default, but obviously YGMV. Part of the fun.

I wouldn't disagree. Heck, RQ6 went whole-hog and IIRC every skill's base was the sum of stats. I don't think it's a bad idea, just a different way to handle it. Certainly a place houserules would work too.

I'd say it's simply that this skills are more raw talent to start than anything (and meanwhile sort of justifying a little higher than usual base values).

Ha ha as I read the (very positive) review I was ticking in my head "need to correct this, need to explain that RQ came first, etc" and then the first comment was Jason's saying exactly what I was going to, in the same order of points. Chaosium should take the qs effort as a solid win. It was probably a ton of work to put together, but it gave the system some fantastic exposure and should continue to generate positive word of mouth. The biggest complaint I've heard consistently was "it doesn't come out until DECEMBER?" Oh, and one question the reviewer had: "in what order do you declare statement of intent?" If it matters, for years we've done it in reverse-INT order: stupidest INT toon goes first, with minimal "ok you do this, then I'll..." allowed between the players before SoI. It works pretty well. Smart toons get to know everyone's plans before they decide. Dumb ones sort of have to wing it without consultation or planning.

OK here's the tables as I've parsed them. Apologies if I've missed anything. The "?" means I think that's the inferred result, but it's my supposition unless/until Jason/Jeff confirm. Attack vs DODGE Dodge Critical Dodge Special Dodge Success Dodge Fail Dodge Fumb Att Critical Att Miss Att Crit Att Crit Att Crit Att Crit Att Special Att Miss Att Miss Att Spec Att Spec Att Spec Att Success Att Miss Att Miss Att Miss Att Hit Att Hit Att Fail Att Miss Att Miss Att Miss Nothing Happens Att Hit Att Fumble Att Miss & Fumb Att Miss & Fumb Att Miss & Fumb Att Miss & Fumb Att Fumb Dodge: may dodge all attacks from one source, roll dodge vs each attack. Attack vs PARRY Parry Critical Parry Special Parry Success Parry Fail Parry Fumble Att Critical Nothing happens Att Crit, Parry3 Att Crit, Parry3 Att Crit Att Crit Att Special Att Spec, Counter3 Att Spec, Parry2 Att Spec, Parry2 Att Spec Att Spec Att Success Att Hit, Counter3 Att Hit, Counter1 Att Hit, Parry1 Att Hit Att Hit Att Fail Counter3? Counter1? Counter1? Nothing Happens Att Hit Att Fumble Att Fumb, Counter3? Att Fumb,Counter1? Att Fumb,Counter1? Att Fumb Att Fumb Att Miss: attacker does no damage to defender. Att Hit: attacker does normal rolled damage plus damage modifier. Att Spec: attacker does special damage: Impale: 2x weapon dmg+STR mod, chance to impale (%?) Slash: 2x weapon dmg+STR mod+? Crush: normal weapon damage + STR mod + (max)STR Mod Att Crit: attacker does special effect, damage ignores armor (but not AP of a successful parry) Att Fumb and/or Def Fumb: Attacker and/or defender fumble, respectively. (At this point, only consequence of Dodge Fumble is a hit if the attacker would have otherwise missed) Parry1: att rolled damage vs parrying item, if it exceeds parry item AP, parrying item -1 AP. Excess damage applied to defender. Parry2: att rolled damage vs parrying item, damage exceeding current AP goes to defender AND is subtracted from parrying item AP. Parry3: Att rolled damage is subtracted from parrying item AP, excess goes to defender ignoring armor. Counter1: def rolled damage vs attacking item, if it exceeds attacking item AP, attacking item -1 AP. Counter2: def rolled damage vs attacking item, damage exceeding current AP subtracted from parrying item AP. Counter3: Defending parry item does full damage to attackers weapon AP directly. A couple of comments/questions: Each of the 'parry' effects (what happens to the defender's parrying item) has a 'counter' version (what happens to the attacker's weapon instead, on a good enough success), EXCEPT "Counter2" is listed in the effects, but shows up nowhere on the table. I only put it there for completeness sake, so Jason can confirm that no, it belongs nowhere as an intermediate step between counter1 (exceeding AP results in 1AP loss) and counter3 (damage done directly to AP).. Do subsequent dodges vs multiple attacks from the single attacker suffer -20% after the first? (I don't think it does, just confirming) Are there Parry fumbles, or is their effect the same as Dodge Fumbles? (That's what I have in the table above) Drop Parrying weapon or something? From what I can see then in short: DODGE - good vs one attacker, many dodges without penalty. All or nothing. PARRY: allows multiple parries against multiple attacks regardless of source, but suffers -20% per subsequent after first. Finite protection that degrades. Partial mitigation with merely ANY success. Here's the Quick Ref Sheet I put together for the QS, now with our better understanding of the att vs parry, att vs dodge. I don't think the other stuff has changed at all? RQG QR Sheet.pdf RQG QR Sheet.docx

IMO that sort of stuff - variations as a result of quality, etc - to me is all the sort of stuff that might be in a campaign book, or local houseruled. Good idea on having some example 'stuff' other than shields. Please, please, please: if you do that, you have to include a trollkin.

Not sneaky, just Pocharngo's hand in my daily life. Thanks very much for the replies. Will consolidate them into a table later today. Unlike you, I can't claim my posts as "gainful working" THANK YOU. Smart move times a million.

Clearly, someone is padding his post count today.

That seems to make the most sense, just needed some clarity in the text as the first one implied it was talking about applicability with Runes, Passions, or skills (at least for me).