Mechashef

My apologies if this has already been asked. Bazza has a Dex SR of 2, a Siz SR of 1 and a weapon with a SR of 3, for a total SR of 6. Gabby has a Dex SR of 1, a Siz SR of 1 and a weapon with a SR of 2, for a total of 4. Bazza wants to use 4 SRs of movement to close with Gabby and attack her. My understanding is that Bazza can attack on SR 10. But when can Gabby attack Bazza? If Bazza's Statement of Intent is that he will move then attack, and if both adventurers have their weapons prepared, is the formula: 4+2+1+3 i.e. the movement SR component is put at the start? This seems simplest and means Bazza arrives at Gabby at SR 4 and Gabby could attack Bazza on SR 4. Or 2+4+1+3 i.e. the Dex SR component is put first to simulate Bazza's reaction time, then the Movement SRs? This means Gabby would have to wait until SR 6 to attack Bazza Or some other combination? Thanks

Thank you. That is the nuance I'd missed. So, for example, an adventurer could use the jump skill to augment their attack skill in multiple combats per session, but a specific Rune or Passion could only be used to augment an ability once per session. But the jump skill will only augment one attack per use, while the Rune or Passion use to augment an attack would continue to provide its benefit until the end of the battle. I presume it is a GM's decision as to whether the jump skill could be used to augment an attack skill only once per combat, or once per opponent (I'd probably lean towards just once per combat).

Ok, perhaps I've missed something here, so someone please point out where I've gone wrong. P189 under the description for the Hide states: P144 states: My understanding that using a skill to augment another skill only works for one skill attempt (though I can't find the page reference atm). So the manual directs player who want their character to use both Hide and Move Quietly to use one of those skills to augment the other. The skill can only be used to augment another skill once per session, and the duration of a skill augmentation is just one attempt of the skill being augmented. What have I misunderstood? Thanks again people.

Thst still leaves us with the problem that a character can only “sneak” once (or twice) a session. Sure we can house rule around it, but we shouldn’t have to. This is not an unusual situation. Sneaking is quite common in many games. I shall raise it in the Core Rules questions thread when I get home tonight.

I would generally agree, except for Moving Quietly while hiding, the manual states this is the way to do it every time. That changes it from a special thing to a common thing that may be needed multiple times in a session, and the RAW do not allow this. I totally agree. It is very D&D like and in my opinion is a step backwards. Though I do really like the idea of Augments.

Why? On the surface, this appears to show an appalling lack of playtesting but I believe significant play testing was performed hence why I hope they have a solution ready to go The suggested rules are clearly broken. 1) They state that an Augment can only be used once per session. 2) They instruct that to sneak past someone then one (such as Move Quietly) should be used to Augment the other (such as Hide). This limits an adventurer to doing this action once (or arguably twice) a session. I would be really surprised If their playtesting did not have a session where this situation occurred.

Did anyone ever get any sort of official view on this? Presumably situations like this should have come up during playtesting so there may be a great solution that just didn't make it into the manual.

Three suggestions: 1) There are plenty of very weak spirits around to cut your teeth on. While the spirits that enemies are likely to bind and use against adventurers are usually dangerous, there are many other ones that are less potent. These could be a low POW farmer that was killed in a raid and whose ghost now haunts his old cottage or a vindictive spirit that throws rocks people trespassing on its turf but isn't really powerful. Your imagination is the limit here. 2) There are lots of fun but non-deadly things you can do to characters who lose against a spirit. Being possessed by a spirit that causes excessive flatulence, or gives the adventurers really bad breath, or makes them stutter (causing a penalty to spell casting and communication skills) can be great roleplaying opportunities. 3) There may be ways to escape a losing Spirit Combat encounter. If a spirit is tied to a location (such as the ghost from above), can the adventurer's companions drag their friend away from the location, and if so will that end the spirit combat? (I'm not sure what RQG has to say about that, but it makes sense to me). .

I use minis too

A modifier (or modification or change or variation or whatever) of 10% or -10% is easy to perceive. A bonus of 10% is easy to perceive. A penalty of 10% is easy to perceive. Adding 10% is easy to perceive Subtracting 10% is easy to perceive. Subtracting -10% is just stupid.

That would seem reasonable. On the other hand, RQ often has a granularity of 5%. As examples see the Skill category modifiers as well as the effects of darkness and wind on combats skills. So it would seem to be more consistent to have 5% steps. That would make it a 5% penalty for each point of size below 6.

The description of the Nilmerg in the Bestiary states: In RQ3 there is a rule where small creatures (including some characters) are harder to hit. It looks as though this has made it into RQG at least in some form. I couldn't find it in the rule book. Is it there? Presumably a size 2 shadowcat also forces foes to subtract 20% from their attacks? If a size 2 nilmerg forces all foes to subtract 20% (not subtract -20%. RQ authors, please learn maths and logic) then does a size 3 nilmerg force a 10% or 15% or 0% penalty?

P230 is an error (this was confirmed in the Core Rules Questions thread). RQG is a blend of several members of the RQ family and sometimes the hand wielding the scalpel wasn't quite accurate enough. I also suspect that some rules were borrowed from other members but then removed and though they didn't make it into the final version, there are still traces of them. My version of the pdf has the Ability Results Table on P143. P144 states this: The wording is different than in yours. I'm guessing you have a slightly older version than me as that part has been clarified a bit. Reroll and pretend the precious roll didn't happen. I'm presuming you mean that even a temporary tie is not a narrative option.

For those who missed it, Jason answered this question in the Core Rules Questions thread. Report post The spell suppresses normal movement sounds, unless they are deliberately (or disastrously) made. The sounds generated while walking around in your armor (bronze chain rustling against bronze plates, sword scabbard rubbing against your hip, leather squeaking, sandals slapping on the ground, breathing, etc.) will be suppressed, as will the clop-clop of your horse's hooves. So no, you don't have to make a Move Quietly roll, but if you want to do anything specific that isn't naturalistic movement, you should take that precaution. It doesn't shift a success... it's a binary thing. It covers some things, but not others. If you engage in combat while under the spell's effect, the onlookers would see you, hear your combat sounds, but would not hear your normal movement sounds (except in the case of a fumble). So the Silence spell can be used to sneak up one someone without the need for a Move Quietly (MQ) roll. I'm not sure if Jason's answer is an explanation of the spell description, or is changing it to correct it. I interpret Jason's answer to mean that if the character was to open a door or window that may creak then a MQ roll would be required. That is based on: And me assuming that opening a potentially noisy door is an intentional action that could be expected to make an unusual noise. Presumably a failed MQ roll in this case would result in noise that Silence would not suppress because it isn't a naturalistic movement? Based on Jason's reply what natural type movements can people suggest that would: Require a MQ roll Have any resulting sound supressed on a fail Not have any resulting sound supressed on a fumble I was thinking of a character trying to jump up and reach a ledge. I can imagine a success or a fail resulting in minor natural movement type sounds that would be supressed by this spell but a fumbled jump resulting in the adventurer failing badly, falling and making a noise that is not suppressed. But that doesn't require use of the MQ skill.

The problems I have trying to find a good solution is that ideally it should: Be acceptable to all players and the GM. Be easy to understand and use Not damage the narrative It is this last one that many otherwise good solutions fail. Obviously there is a wide range of how good at "roleplaying" many players are, but in my experience many (especially newer) players have trouble keeping player knowledge separate from character knowledge. Having a system such as the official one can give the player more information than they should have. For example a listen attempt by the adventurer where there is a success by both participants, resulting in no real resolution is actually a resolution for the player as it tells them that the roll was opposed and thus there someone trying to move quietly. Even if it is redone and the character fails, the player still knows there is an opponent. Of course there are ways around it such as occasionally getting the player to reroll even if there is not an opponent, but that feels a bit like cheating. This is an issue in many other games, and is part of a broader issue wherein any time the player rolls for a perception skill, the ability for the player to see the roll can give a big hint as to whether there is something there. As I'm sure many other people have, I've experimented with various solutions, even going as far as making perception rolls for the players so they can't see them. That is however, unsatisfying to many players. A partial solution is (as many people use) the idea of Passive and Active perception rolls, where the GM makes the Passive ones (such as noticing something when you are not actively looking/listening for it). Active rolls are still an issue, but at least some of the solutions are better than the official one at providing doubt to the player if a success is rolled.

And while I’m on that sort of topic, am I the only one who internally screams when I read things in the manual like “... reduces the accuracy of missiles by -5%” or “a -5% penalty”

In defence of Sureshot, I suspect that most people are arguably making missile fire more effective than it should be by ignoring a rule (to be fair the rule is perhaps too “crunchy” for most people). Each point of wind STR greater than 10 reduces the accuracy of missiles by 5%. A wind strength of 7 to 12 is a breeze and easily blows out candles. A STR of 13 to 18 is a light wind and the minimum amount for good sailing. A STR of 19 to 24 is a moderate wind (though I’d argue it really is getting into strong wind based on the description). etc So even a light wind, presumably very common, will be reducing the adventurer’s missile skills by 15% to 40%. A “moderate” wind will reduce missile skills by 45% to 70%. And of course the manual states that Dragon Pass is one of the windiest areas (blame all those pesky Orlanth worshippers). Start deducting 50% of 60% from the adventurer’s missile skills on a regular basis and Sureshot will start to look atttactive.

I have used this and quite like it. The reason that it isn’t popular in my group is that it breaks the “philosophy” that when rolling D100, lower is better. It is a nice, elegant way of resolving the issue.

No it is not. Assume thd PC has Hide of 75% and the NPC has Search of 75%. If the NPC rolls a 50, that is a success and thus reduces the PC’s skill by 20%. If the PC rolls a 55 or less, the PC wins so in that case, yes, the PC has won when they both had the same level of success. If however the PC rolls a 56 or more, the NPC wins. Note that a PC roll of 56-75 is a case where the NPC has won with the same level of success. That roll would have been a success, but the success by the NPC has reduced the PC’s skill to a level where that success has been converted to a fail.

I have most frequently encountered this conundrum with the Scan/Search vs Hide and Listen vs Move Quietly and have never found a solution I really like. i have been trialing an approach (that I’m not entirely happy with) which is essentially a variation of the Augment system. The GM rolls for the NPC and that result provides a modifier for the player’s roll (like Augmenting with a skill but working in the opposite direction). So an NPC critical roll for a Seach causes a 50% penalty for the player’s adventurer’s Hide. An NPC special roll for Hide causes a 30% penalty for the player’s adventurer’s Search. This keeps the focus on the adventurer snd lets the player make the important roll Unlike a normal skill Augment, a fail does not incur a penalty and I’m in two minds as to the result of a fumble.

I'm not sure what the material is as he sent the design sway to a commercial 3D printing company to get it printed. Yes it can be painted.

Well technically an man like creature with an octopus like head. My son spent quite some time modelling it then get it 3D printed.

I was wrong in that I didn't consider the other non-Rune/Passion things that can be augmented such as Spell Casting, Resistance Rolls, Honour etc. However, the relevant section is on P145 in to sentences. Does this mean: That you can't use a Passion or Rune affinity to augment another adventurer or That you can't use an Ability to augment another adventurer who is attempting to use a Passion or Rune affinity? The sentence before it may shed some light (or further confuse things). It is still unclear whether the Passion is being used by you to augment the other (i.e. you are using your Passion to improve their ability) whether you are attempting to augment their Passion "skill". However it does seem that: You need to be able to effectively communicate with the recipient in order to augment that involves Passions. You cannot use an augment to raise someone's Rune from 0. i.e. they need to already have a "skill": in that Rune before you can increase it via an augment. This implies you can augment the Ability of someone who is using an Ability that is a Rune. Does that then mean (based on the quote at the top of this post) you can't use a Rune or Passion to augment another adventurer? So that has probably made the whole thing murkier instead of clearer.

It is possible to use an Ability to augment an Ability of another adventurer. The rules seem to be saying that this is only possible if the other adventurer is using a skill or reputation. i.e. you cannot use any ability to augment the other adventurer if their ability that you are tying to augment is a Rune or Passion. Is that correct?

That appears to be a great suggestion. I really like it.