Pentallion

Sorry, my bad for not being more clear.  The Gift #9:

Quote

  Bless specific weapon to do double damage (once armor is penetrated) against a given foe species.

Would Crimson Bat be a "foe species"?  Or Undead?  Undead aren't really a species.  Neither are just zombies.  Broos are a species, but are they a foe?

If my players Humakt rune lord takes geas do double damage and geas do double damage to dragons and geas do double damage to headdoes that do 8 times damage to a dragons head?

The words foe and species both throw me off.  Humakt hates chaos.  Humakt dislikes other death cults.

Help.

EDIT:  I'm referring to the Humakt Gift #9:  Bless specific weapon to do double damage (once armor is penetrated) against a given foe species.

10 hours ago, M Helsdon said:

Not really: they are a bigger target than someone flying by themselves or on a mount... About the only advantage they'd have would be the capability to carry more quivers of javelins.

You forget the armoring enchantments cast upon the chariot which protect the rider, making him harder to hit, especially from below.

Well, sorry I shouldn't have said that.  You guys both bring a lot of good knowledge.  It's just that one of you is obviously Irrippi Ontor and the other Lhankor Mhy and you always disagree and when that happens it seldom stays on topic.

Let's get back to the topic:  Obviously there is enough proof that yes, barding IS a thing in RQG.  What can we infer then about its cost and weight and now that we know there is a STR and SIZ limit for carrying heavily armored riders, how much should barding add to the minimum stats necessary to carry an armored rider AND wear barding?

How many "things" is barding?  Well, first off, I'm guessing the SIZE of the rider is added to his "things" and this must be the what forms the basis of the average size and Str of the horse that's needed to carry a rider.  I"m basing this on a warhorse needing an average STR and SIZ of 26.  Average human size is 13.  Average armor "things" for plate armor is 11 and with leather under and quilted 13.  Total 26.  So how many 'things' does each piece of armor contribute to a horse?  I would guess the same as it does to a human.  For a human, carrying the horses armor would be really hard, but it's meant to spread the weight around a horse so plate shin guards would be 2 "things" for hind legs and two "things" for forelegs and so forth.  These "things" then increase the necessary average STR and SIZE needed for the warhorse.

How much does it cost?  An average horse is about twice the size of an average human.  So a quick off the cuff estimate is twice the cost of the equivalent human armor.  However, I could - and just did - whip out my RQ 3 books and compare barding to human armor.  Doing so, I see it varies but a simple rule of thumb would be that a horses armor cost 50% more than human armor of the same type.

So I guess I unofficially answered my own question.

That is, unless someone spots the answer somewhere in the new rules and I just missed it.

Thanks for playing Pin the Breastplate on the Goldeneye.

On 9/20/2018 at 7:38 AM, David Scott said:

 You'd want fast maturity to keep providing things for players to kill. 

I'm sure that goes into the evolutionary factors of it lol 😀

None of which has anything to do with my original question, but glad to know I can start yet another debate between Metcalph and Jeorg.  We don't get enough of those.  🙄

Survivability Tip:   Runequest is a dangerous game.  To avoid an unlucky dice roll prematurely ending a PCs career, it is best to quickly introduce into your campaign a means to resurrect characters. A magic item that can be recharged is best.  Constant death turns players off.  Death must always be an option, however.    Keep the tension great enough that they are always on the edge of their seats.  Characters who have survived by the skin of their teeth are more memorable.

32 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Please do not follow this advice, especially if you have had a warning over this kind of thing. Employers do not have a sense of humour where this kind of thing is concerned. Do you want to lose your job on a point of principle of reading a RPG book at work?

The job isnt worth keeping and the subsequent lawsuit for them firing you over art most definitely needs to happen.

Personally, I really hate the 10%/mp bonus.  I will probably change it to 1%.

And the concern trolling continues...

Defintion: 

Quote

Someone who posts to an internet forum or newsgroup, claiming to share its goals while deliberately working against those goals, typically, by claiming "concern" about group plans to engage in productive activity, urging members instead to attempt some activity that would damage the group's credibility, or alternatively to give up on group projects entirely.

4 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Agreed. But to put things in perspective, its really hard to push back unless you are independently wealthy.

These are employers that are following guidance from various governments and court rulings in an effort to not be hauled into court themselves on charges (that can happen here in the States) of creating/allowing a "hostile work environment". The only real way to protest with enough emphasis is to quit. Most simply do not have the resources to be able to do that.

SDLeary

 

The pushback needs to happen in court.  Suing the employer for harrassment over art and claiming it is creating its own "hostile work environment".

In RQ3 there was armor for the horse.  Not sure if there still is in RQG.  Can't find any reference to it or how much it would cost.

On 9/17/2018 at 1:35 PM, Grievous said:

I have a hard time believing this. I mean, what kind of Orwellian working place is this? And that any place would bother going through and listing the unsuitable pages is straight outta some totalitarian cartoon.

Yeah, makes me not believe a word from this poster.  As I said before, this guy is trolling all of you. 

On 9/17/2018 at 10:09 AM, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

 

I'd be tempted to take into work a book on classical art and read that instead...

 

Although, given what happened to you at work I can't quite square that with the OP. You were told off for reading something deemed unsuitable for YOU to read at work, and then posted here that the art needs to change? It sounds like you are doing the person attempting to censor you's work for them...

 

Exactly.

Another thread that smacks of concern trolling.

Thanks.  Maybe we can make this thread the place to post fan scenarios?

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Detect Enemies also says "or it detects and locates a specific individual on whom the caster concentrates". Maybe that is what Countermagic is referring to - if you use it as a "Detect Bob" spell, and Bob has Countermagic up, then it interacts as usual, potentially knocking down Bob's Countermagic. Or maybe when Countermagic says "any other incoming spell, including those such as Detection, Protection, and even Healing" it is meant to say, "sorry, if you have Countermagic up, you can't cast Detect, Protection, or even Healing on yourself".

The counter to either of these theories, of course, is historical - in the description of the Detection Blank spell. A tabula rasa reading of the current rules could lead to either of the theories posted above. A reading with RQ2 taken into consideration would not necessarily lead to the same.

No, Detect Bob example is not at all how CM  works.  CM does NOTHING to prevent a person who has detect YOU from detecting you.  The misunderstanding here is thinking of the detection spell as an "incoming spell".  It is not.

Yes.  What the rules description is saying and it really shouldn't have to be rewritten it seems perfectly clear, is that if you have CM up you can't cast Detect, protection or even healing on yourself.

Look up the difference between a fact and a factoid.  The latter was coined ladt century.

You know what this premise of this thread looks like to me?  Concern trolling.

1 hour ago, g33k said:

The evidence is actually that antisocial media DOES influence us toward antisocial behavior.  Violent media begets violence, misogynistic media begets misogyny.

I don't know that anyone has specifically studied written media (or oral storytelling, podcasts, etc... or RPG's?) in this regard.  But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would presume a similar effect to media that HAS been studied:  if the reader/viewer/listener/etc engages their imagination with the material (RPGs anyone?) & sympathizes/empathizes with the (antisocial) protagonist (Orlanth much?), they will be influenced that way.

YGMV.  But the available facts suggest you are mistaken.

We humans are MUCH less rational creatures then we think; we bright ones are particularly unwilling to admit how much of our "thought" processes are outside our control.

 

Soooo we are all killer hobos?

Youre spouting factoids now.

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

What age of giving birth to the parents did your math assume

 

I didnt "assume" anything.RQG starts family history at 1582.  Go back 12 years from 1625 to 1613 then the starting history becomes 1570.

Dealing with anything more complex than that is too minutia for 99.99% of all players.  

On 9/15/2018 at 1:58 PM, Bohemond said:

That's great if we're all Bronze Age people just living our lives. But we're not. We're 21st century people playing a game. The kind of stories we choose to tell when we game have impacts on us and how we think about our lives and our world. Telling misogynistic stories encourages misogyny. 

No, telling misogynistic stories teaches us about misogyny.

I just was doing the math.  If the PC is 21 in 1613, then the campaign starts 12 years earlier.  That means the first event that can affect the grandparents after giving birth to the parents is in 1570.

None of the stuff that happened before that matters, unless you're rolling up Great Grandparents.

The date is also perfect for the Borderlands campaign.  Can you guys do the Praxian events and events that would affect Lunars who came with Duke Raus?

3 hours ago, womble said:

Except it specifically says in the CM description that CM protects you from (amongst other things) Detect spells. You can choose to discount that, obviously, but it's no more 'correct' than discounting the other copypasta inconsistencies in the spell rules relating to Detect. There are a limited number of spells which don't have a target, just have effects in an area. The subset of those where the effect is 'magical' (as opposed to the consequence of the physical presence of something, like fire) is smaller, and the subset of that subset where the effects affect 'beings' (rather than the environment) is smaller yet. There are no Spirit Magic spells I could see other than the Detects where there's an area effect affecting beings with magic, and I can't see any at all in Sorcery. In Rune Magic, you have:

• Command Worshippers
• Create [Great] Market
• Group Laughter
• Harmony. This one is especially interesting because it explicitly says it " can be boosted with magic points...to blast through Countermagic and other defensive spells." From the reading of the general rules, I'd've said it would be the case for all spells that are trying to cause an effect on beings. The existence of one explicit allowance of this doesn't, to my mind, constitute evidence that other spells cannot be defended against with Countermagic; there are spells which do exclude defensive spells of one kind or another, and the existence of those demonstrates that, in general, protective magic, well, y'know, protects.
  It stands, instead, as a testament to inconsistent editing.
• Peace
• Path Watch (a long duration, large AE "Detect Enemies")
• Summons of Evil
• Warding

Warding and the Market spells are examples of where having CM protect you from Det Enemies while still having the protection registered by the caster would be useful (and provide a further case where Detection Blank would be superior to CM). The Warding doesn't detect you as an enemy (that's an inference made by the caster), so the damaging and alarm effects do not trigger (and a strong enough Detection Blank would mean even the caster doesn't know an enemy has slipped within their defenses).

Command Worshippers, Group Laughter, Harmony, Peace and Summons of Evil are all 'offensive mind affecting spells' that the target may not wish to have affect them. As such, sufficient Countermagic, for long enough, should block these spells' effects. In practice, this probably means Extended Shield spells for most of those.

I'd say sufficient Countermagic effect would protect against any of these spells area effects, even though none of them even mention "Target".

I'm not discounting it, you're misreading it.  CM will block YOU from having a detection spell cast on YOU.  YOUR CM won't block ME from casting a detection spell on ME.  Nor will YOUR CM prevent ME from detecting your intent.  Because MY detection spell never targets YOU and CM doesn't affect it.

That's all the text is saying under CM.  It will prevent spells from being CAST on YOU such as Healing, Detect, etc.  Even if you cast them on yourself.

It says NOTHING about someone else with CM blocking your ability to detect enemies because CM doesn't do that anymore than it blocks your Bladesharp 3.

Or assume the rules are correct and gravity is less on Glorantha.  Well, not gravity, but some magical property of Glorantha allows people to jump vertically higher than on Earth.