styopa

I'd use it as written: the skill is 1d6+magic skill modifier as a base. 

That's the skill %; so in play, the chance to succeed would be that PLUS the magic skill modifier.  Yes, you're double-dipping a bit on the magic modifier but it makes sense that someone innately better at something would start better at it than a complete schlub.

(And I would also put the profession bonuses atop that, not in replacement for that.)

You might ask if that's consistent, as weapon skills don't get a similar innate-ness bump when they're learned, but:

- you could add it, sure, or

- you could recognize that they DO get it: weapon skills already have a base skill level.  Personally, I prefer the idea that an ability score category bumps that for the same reasons it makes sense for spells.

27 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Getting even 1 sorcery to do the 5 points damage at 100m takes way longer than the 100 local clanspeople to learn the 1.5 point damage...

Wasn't meant to be a SPECIFIC example, just an example of why sorcery and spirit magic and divine magic and dragon magic and whatever magic DO need to have some sort of meta balance to result in a world where none of them have essentially 'taken over'.

9 hours ago, metcalph said:

I think comments that certain sorcery spells are overpowered miss the point IMO.  Sorcerers aren't interested in learning a system of magic that puts them on a level footing with priests and shamans.  Sorcerers aren't interested in playing fair.  If they find or discover a spell that gives better results, they will use that spell.  Why some spells are more effective than others is a better question to ask but one that is slightly beyond the scope of this forum.

Meh, I agree with you in objectivist principle, but while RQ makes an effort at simulationism, it is still a GAME (and I'd argue that RQG deliberately tries to retreat from 3's simulationism toward the playable-game end of the spectrum) in which balance, or at least rational power-costing needs to make some sort of sense.

To say nothing of the fact that it's an entirely fictional world; to have any semblance of credibility supporting the fictional-extant of various powers, they HAVE to have some balance.  If a divine or spirit magician can cause 1.5 points of damage at 25m for 1mp, and (all else being equal) sorcerers can do 5 points of damage at 100m for the same 1mp, why wouldn't sorcery have trounced the world?

(The only place where I can see breaking this deliberately is Lunar magic.  The above posits a sort of static equilibrium, and the Lunars are BOTH 'fresh' and 'kicking ass' suggesting that their stuff is intrinsically more powerful...now there may be larger, contextual, meta-limits in the background, but I believe there's a strong argument for giving Lunars better magical kit PARTICULARLY if they're intended generally to be dramatic foils.)

Peace, 3 pt Rune Spell

This spell causes all persons not of Rune Master status within a 1-kilometer radius to lay down their weapons and forget all violence and war. For the duration of the spell, they prefer
rather to listen to the wonders of peace and love which the spirits send ringing through their minds.
 

Doesn't say anything about a resist, so essentially 1 rune point can defeat an army (except it's Rune masters).  3 points of extension mean it works for a week. 

Unclear what it does to sorcerers and shamans.

3 hours ago, prinz.slasar said:

Something I would like to have for RQG are rules for Rabble and Extras, but I wonder if they appropiate to the RQG mindset.

 

As you seem to suspect, the very idea is anathema to the premise of RQ.  RQ is founded on the premise that everything is mechanically equal.

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

That has always been the case, in the rules. We have never played it that way, we have always played that Overcoming POW is an Active thing and that is how you get POW Gain Rolls, just resisting is Passive and doesn't get anything. However, the rules have always said differently.

If by "the rules" you mean RQG, maybe so.

But not RQ 3, as I'd quoted the pow gain rule previously.

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

That's always been the case in all versions of RuneQuest. Any spiritual struggle, the winner gets a gain check.

Nope, not really even close.  RQ3, Book 1, page 38: "When a spell using adventurer matches magic points against a target's magic points on the resistance table, then the Attackers POW (the source of the active influence) has a chance to increase if the attack succeeds."

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Same way that ducks get good at fighting by being constantly picked on and fighting off their attackers. 

That's conclusively different, eg the 'fighting off' bit.  ACTIVE ACTION. 

Saying that POW can increase because something attacked you is like saying you actually get to be a better fighter because someone punches you ...provably not true.

Quote

Increasing POW Through Spell Use or Spirit Combat
POW can increase because of use of POW during situations of stress. An adventurer can attract POW from the universe with the high emotional output found during a crisis.

Even sillier.  You get POW from being stressed?  What if you fall off a cliff?  Your house is on fire?  Have to take a really hard test?  Aren't sure your date's going to show up?  Your dog is lost?

5 hours ago, Kloster said:

According to RQG p 418, both.

Wait, you get a POW check for resisting?

Checking, and yeah, that seems to be the implied intent of the paragraph:

Quote

If an adventurer obtains a success either attacking or parrying during spirit combat, POW can be increased or wth successful POW vs. POW resistance roll. Spells that have a 95% chance of success against an enemy do not provide sufficient stress to allow a POW gain roll.

There are two assertions:

- you get a POW gain check for successfully attacking "or parrying" in spirit combat. - as far as I understand it, Spirit combat is now resolved with a single opposed roll, so I'm not sure what 'parrying' in Spirit Combat means?  I assume it means 'winning' even if you're not on the attack?  But considering you could get that result with both actually failing ...that seems odd.  Anyway...

- you get a POW gain check with a success in any POW/POW resistance contest

So for the latter, yes, @Kloster seems to be correct....although I'd submit there's room for interpretation here?  I'd probably interpret that you have to be the active party on the resistance check - ie the aggressor - to get the check.  It just seems odd to me that Bumble the Useless, luckily somehow avoiding being prey to the spirits he's CONSTANTLY accidentally running into and managing to survive, somehow could gain a godly level of POW for it.

13 hours ago, Crel said:

Yeah, I mean we've all always had a blast playing the system. I'm not sure I'd say "Gods are the only true way to RQ!" or "This is Unique and Better!" or anything like that, but just realized that my own experience is somewhat off-norm, and was curious if anyone else had similar.

I find this interesting, because that's sort of my "this is what a RuneQuesty game is." A fair amount of big magic, but most of it sorcery, not divine/Rune magic. More defined by the grittiness of the combat in comparison to PFRPG, than by a sense of cultures or connections.

Understand that RQ before RQG had nearly nothing to do with Runes mechanically anyway.  So the system before RQG *was* almost exclusively defined by:
- crunchy combat

- skills not classes

- MP for spells, not Vancian magic.

- mostly played in a weird non Tolkienesque fantasy world with ducks

....none of these having anything to do with Runes in the slightest.  In fact, the pre-RQG approach to Divine Spells was...basically Vancian magic. (the horror!)

16 hours ago, gochie said:

Depends on your rolled stats... 

My Orlanthi/Humakti with 18 STR, CON, and SIZ, and 16 DEX is special for sure 😊. 

I'm not saying it's impossible to have rolled that, but it's below 1/100th of 1 percent chance.

https://anydice.com/articles/4d6-drop-lowest/

No, but sometimes my players make me think that they might be...

32 minutes ago, DerKrieger said:

Does it really get detailed on different regions and their cultures? I heard it was great for reading about the areas but that it didnt go very detailed on the people themselves more so the locals.

If so I'm even more interest than I was before but I would certainly like to see an easier entry point to the people's around Dragon Pass.

Well, no, it's not an osprey book certainly, I mean it's covering two massive continents, history, mythology, so it's general at that level.  But it talks to some degree about the various cultures (mostly cnp from the RQ3 Glorantha books).

IMVHO the Bestiary cover is still way too dark.

9 hours ago, DerKrieger said:

What I would love to see more than anything else is a visual culture guidebook almost in the style of Osprey's historical reference books. Show me what Sartarite Orlanthi look like, let me see their homes and their festivals. What makes a Tarshite so much more different and what weird foods do they enjoy that an Esrolian would be baffled/enthralled by?

I can point at an Elf or a Dwarf and everyone can picture it in their heads. If I mention French (or not-French) soldiers everybody has an easy reference point. Glorantha requires me to mesh some things together to explain but even then it can also give kind of the wrong idea. Orlanthi aren't Greeks but they also aren't vikings, but they kind of are? Each culture is its own unique thing and having a visual and low level reference would make a world of difference in introducing players. Reading Prince of Sartar recently has greatly influenced how I see and portray the world, I want more of that but focused on just the cultures themselves! I feel like King of Dragon Pass has taught me more about the Orlanthi than the corebooks but even then I have to remember that is several hundred years prior so things change.

Honestly, much of what you're talking about is in the Guide to Glorantha - really, a Gloranthan encyclopedia.

9 hours ago, DerKrieger said:

. Orlanthi aren't Greeks but they also aren't vikings, but they kind of are?

7 hours ago, g33k said:

Technically, I think that honor goes to Tekumel.  Their fan base & grognardia kept (is still keeping) their flame alive.  It may yet blaze forth again, burning brightly.

But MARBarker had about 2 decades' head start on Ed Greenwood & Greg Stafford...

Their community is sadly nearly moribund, while RQ's is, dare I say it, thriving.

I will say of Arneson, Barker, and Stafford (all of whom I was fortunate enough to meet or get to know), Stafford was by far the nicest!

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Everyone here should watch Jeff and Jason’s latest video choc full of RuneQuest announcements...

 

Sorry to be that guy but:
1) if one doesn't have 58 min to watch the video, could anyone recap meaningful announcements?

2) if this is full of interesting bits, wouldn't this be be a thing that should be mentioned on the chaosium blog and/or in the email blast?

1 hour ago, Code Ronin said:

Yeah, page 22 is fine. We watch a lot of documentaries about ancient civilizations, and she's seen worse.

My larger concern rather than content/artwork was whether she'd be able to make a character on her own. At the venerable age of ten years old, she has already decided she Knows It All and can do anything. Seriously. When she wanted to make a Starfinder character, I just handed her the rulebook and fired up Hero Lab. At this point, I've read my way through the first hundred pages or so, and I think she's going to need some help with this, at least the first few times.

10?  She'll crush it without batting an eye.

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Personally I think the best things to buy for an would-be RQG GM are:

• ...
• Snakepipe Hollow from the RQ Classics
• . 

Good list - my only question is ....Snakepipe Hollow?  Considering they're starting a campaign (even with RQG's ramped up character starting) that's a little deep-end-of-the-pool difficulty wise, no?  Or...it's going to be ages of campaign play before they get to the point where they're headed in there (or should be)..?

8 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Yes, there are the runes that make the first syllable in the rpg's name.

Didn't stop them from releasing RQ2 and RQ3 (and MRQ and MRQ2) and RQ6....all without much to do in regard to "runes" specifically, either... /snark

1 hour ago, g33k said:

You can begin with the PDFs, if you want.  Chaosium includes a free d/l with each hardcopy.

OTOH, maybe you're like me, & "just not that into" e-copies of rulebooks... I got the PDF of the core on the day it was available, and was less that 1/3 of the way through it when the physical copy came available, many months later.

At the gaming table, physical copy 100%.

"Looking up some obscure crap, random rule I forget the details of, or creature stats when I'm sitting at work doing non-work things" - PDF 100%.

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

I love it when people were willing to post their pictures of the new books on social media! Fills me with joy!

I will even venture back onto my nearly abandoned FB and twitter accounts for Chaosium.

Posted.

On 4/4/2019 at 3:34 AM, Tupper said:

In this situation, the tricky thing with RAI is that 90% of this section was written by Steve Perrin and friends, and they're not here to enlighten us what they meant.  

Oh Steve's here now and again.  He may chime in.

RAI for us has always been: 

No body part can 'pass on' to body hp anything over 2x that part.**

Parts are ACTUALLY severed by a non impaling, non blunt weapon doing 3x AT A SINGLE BLOW* ...otherwise, after they reach that 2x cap, you're just grinding hamburger.

** except falling/knockback damage

*recognizing that yes, people could eventually hack through an arm with a jackknife (it's been done irl https://www.foxnews.com/story/farmer-cuts-off-right-arm-with-pocket-knife-to-save-life) I'd probably rule that if the target isn't resisting the effort, you could probably do it with a cumulative 3x...?

Yes, one could go far, far down the rabbit hole of simulationism making specific exceptions and detailed effects but this is a compromise between playability and reasonable realism.

22 hours ago, Code Ronin said:

Second, is it relatively child-friendly? My daughter is ten now, and she games. She's played a little Pathfinder, made a character for the Starfinder game I keep trying to get off the ground, and joins me at the 5e drop-in game my FLGS runs. Getting into RuneQuest will be easier to sell to the wife if the kid can play too.

Your daughter might find these delightful pictures appealing.  So yes...absolutely it CAN be child friendly and (if I may say so) also rather woman-empowering in a way no other game I've encountered, is: (these girls seem to have been nearly celebrities at Gen Con  )

And a great one with Greg himself:

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

In play, there are far fewer "killer" combinations than some forum cognoscenti seem to think. Since your starting character usually knows only 3 special Rune Spells and has 5 points of spirit magic, it gets very easy to learn what works for your character and to build up from that.

 

This is 100% true.  While certainly magic scales up to powerful stuff, RQ magic doesn't work at all mechanically like 5e where certain conditions cascade effects (apparently unexpectedly from the devs point of view) into other conditions causing mechanically unexpected results.  (ala corruption druids in 5e, who just got nerf-batted because of this).

I don't know how better to explain it, it's just not that mechanical a system   Spirit magic and Sorcery are really more or less buffing/debuffing magics (with some exceptions); divine is too but also with some flash-bangy direct effects.  

5e is mechanically a much TIGHTER game which has clear advantages for those of us with a wargamey bent *but* the tighter the if-then rules, the more they're open to (frankly) exploitation by clever players.  RQ just ain't like that.