Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Member
  • Posts

    926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. As written the Spell Trading spell does point to One-use spells being a cast and forget. If there was a big error in the way Spell Trading is worded I would of expected him to point it out in his reply, but he didn't. It seems more likely to me that he has missed the distinction in the original question between the trader and the receiver of the new spell...if he didn't its a very wishy washy way to explain such a major change to the text particularly in a Q&A.
  2. Odd that Jason didn't point out in his answer that the text for spell trading was in error. If that was a cut and paste error surely he would have mentioned something? As it stands I don't know what to think of his answer?
  3. Thanks everyone for the input. Its a tricky bit of text for sure, and could easily be clarified with a short sentence. RAW - I agree that if we are to read the explanation of One-Use Spells at face value, it reads that we only loose Rune pts permanently, it doesn't mention knowledge of the spell. Which implies you can still cast the One-use spell using any remaining Rune pts. In this reading the limitation is that the Rune pts used for casting are lost permanently each time the spell is cast, not that the spell is forgotten/lost. The concept of Rune points as a generic pool of pts usable on any of your gods Rune Spells reinforces this reading. RAI - However as has been mentioned we do have to work off the title as much as the body of text that follows it. "One-Use Rune Spell" implies one casting, and significantly Its not titled "One-Use Rune Points". So on balance I feel that David Scott has the right of it, once cast you loose the spell and the Rune points. An interpretation that keeps it aligned to the equivalent "non-reusable" spells in RQ2.
  4. Ah! It’s not just me then. The wording is not clear on one-use spells. I suspect David Scott is right, but maybe this should be added to the core rules question thread?
  5. Remind me - With One-use Rune Magic, after casting do you loose the spell as well as the associated Rune points, or is it just the Rune points? So in other words will characters be needing to sacrifice Power again to regain the spell after casting?
  6. RAW The rules do model this through the greater damage bigger monsters do. Damage modifiers tend to be much greater. It’s quite likely that if a giant hits a successfully parrying PC, that the excess damage will still kill them. An average giant might be doing average damage of 29 hitpoints per hit. edit: And that’s before specials or criticals
  7. Agreed you have to be fair in bringing in house rules. If I was going down the house rule road, with the duck and the giant situation , and I was to house rule out the 100%+ opposed rule for parry as an exception to the rule, it would be across the board. It would have to apply to all small/medium/and maybe large sized pc’s too. not just penalising ducks. They’ve had it hard enough. As a GM I’d also give some thought before hand to the encounter, and make sure that the PC’s had a decent chance to dodge or some other advantage like magic before disallowing opposed parries. But personally I’d keep it rules as written. If the concept of parry includes shifting your body out of the force of the blow, and deflecting the remaining momentum away with your parry weapon then why not? It’s not impossible to visualise a PC parrying and side stepping at the same time, whilst helping to guide the giants glancing blow away from themselves with their weapon/shield.
  8. Yes I do see your point. I argued both ways. I can see how RAW the 100%+ opposed parry could be interpreted as lowering the effectiveness of a giants attack, if the meaning of “parry” is not only getting your weapon in the way of the opponents weapon, but also shifting your body out of the way too. But also I think if a GM wants to make a house rule which is consistent, not too outlandish, and applies to all, then that’s fair game too. For some story wise it may feel more appropriate to the type of game you want to run - you may have exceptions to rulings in extreme circumstances. Some people might like to house rule in the knockback rule from RQ3. Not everyone is going to play RQG by the book, but equally it’s cool if you do. Personally I like the idea of a super agile parrying duck so would be inclined to play it RAW, as that’s a cool story that I’d like to play through, and the rules model that well. But If I was inclined to have exceptions in extreme circumstances, I wouldn’t let rules bog me down.
  9. I’d probably allow it, though I might question In the case of a huge cave troll. Basically I’d go with what makes the story cool. If it’s fun to have a super effective duck parrier running circles around a giant troll then I’d go with it. If it’s more fun to express the power of the opponent swinging huge hits at a tiny target, then I might disallow the 100%+ opposed rules. One of the things I like about RQG/BRP games is it’s easy to make these kind of calls as a GM, and it still retains a logic. I guess if you’re clear on what a “parry” is actually doing in game, it becomes an easier decision to make as a gm. So alternatively If parry involves an element of changing body position from out of the direct blow, as well as a bit of weapon deflection, then maybe if it suites the game allow the 100% + opposed rule to stand in all circumstances.
  10. Good use of magic. Good way to make parrying effective against powerful opponents.
  11. @Scotty I wrote this question as part of the core rules questions thread, but it appears to have been deleted. I'd understand if someone else had duplicated the question, but this doesn't appear to be the case. What's the reason for deleting, am I missing something? Thanks
  12. Though I'm very fond of RQ and BRP game mechanics, personally I would make a GM call in these situations. For me the best starting point would be asking what would be the most satisfying outcome for the story. If its a hulking 10m giant with arms the size of trees, then for dramatic purposes I'd be inclined to house rule for story purposes that: This isn't a standard combat situation whereby a 100% + parry skill can negate the effectiveness of the Giants attack. Blows from the Giant that hit their target will hit at their normal chance, and will do large amounts of damage, probably killing you if you attempt to parry - so dodging is your only realistic defence option. No matter how skilled the swordsman, s/he isn't going to do too much by successfully putting the weapon in front of the giant maul. The Giants at a different scale and doesn't need to play by the same rules. Dodge is the only sensible option. I would however allow dodge at 100%+ to work as written in the rules. Then again If there is some kind of divine intervention, or power gained from a Heroquest, then I might allow 100% + parries against Giant opposition using the rules as written. Some sort of god given gift. Basically I'd follow rules as written until it seems at odds with the story, then make a GM call.
  13. Also worth considering the advantage of having a secondary parrying weapon such as shield in prolonging the life of your primary attack weapon - It’s going to be taking a lot of hits that would otherwise be going to damage your primary attacking weapon. If the shield does break at least you can still attack and parry with the remaining weapon. Could be the difference in a close fight.
  14. As a GM I’d be ruling that parry is impossible in this circumstance ( much like you can’t parry arrows with a melee weapon). Dodge would be the only realistic option.
  15. This is great thanks. Wonder if anyone has done a conversions of Strangers in Prax to RQG? Feel like I’ve got unfinished business there.
  16. @Dragon @trystero Starting a new post as I know the mods want to avoid discussions in the core rules question thread...so RQ3 - Damage is only 1pt to weapon/shield if it exceeds the AP of the weapon. Although a failed attack vs successful parry does do damage directly to the attacking weapon. Then there’s the targeted attack on weapons mentioned above. RQ2 is deadlier for weapons which always take damage directly when parrying. Although shields get off lightly in RQ2 and don't take damage at all. RQG I prefer RQG here as it models more dramatic weapon breaking (and shield breaking) moments on critical attacks, not just parries. It strikes a good balance between RQ2 and RQ3 IMO, with less damage to parrying weapons from standard attacks, balanced by considerably more for critical attacks. Looking forward to future shield and weapon shattering gaming moments ( but not too regularly)!
  17. No. This is just specific to critical attack vs normal attack. The table is fairly clear on the different results
  18. Ok - this is what I interpret as happening based on the table of results on p200. A Critical Attack vs Normal Parry The parrying weapon takes full critical damage directly to its AP This is based on the alternative wording. Other examples below in the table use the wording “over it’s AP”. So the usual rule of only damage over its AP is ignored, the weapon takes the critical damage directly, with a good chance of breaking the weapon. This also ties in with Jason’s comment about the weapon taking critical damage, in the sense critical damage ignores armor. Any excess damage damage (beyond the original AP of the weapon before the attack) goes to the defender, ignoring any armor on the hit location. This all seems to be confirmed in the Q&A by Jason that I posted further up the thread.
  19. Yes the tables seem to be your point to reference here. I have the 2nd printing, not sure If there were any changes between 1st and 2nd printing to the tables? Gm screen and RQG core 2nd printing seem consistent in their results. And Jason has confirmed the tables are correct. Edit: In fairness its just the section on "parrying a critical hit" p200 that is poorly worded. The rest all seems to tally with the Attack & parry results table on p199
  20. Jason wrote this in reply on the Q&A. Does it help? : edit: heres the link to the Q&A: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-players-book-print/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-qa-by-chapter/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-chapter-08-combat/
  21. @PhilHibbs Heres the link to the RQ3 errata. Its basically clarified that you can attack & parry with the same weapon, but not on the same SR.
  22. Yeah that’s what I used. But the GW editions didn’t have the errata in. I got the errata in the later Avalon Hill combined softback ( early 90’s)it was at the back, and gave me an ah! moment.
  23. Regarding missile fire: For each missile you fire you factor in the DEX SR. So if you fire twice in a melee round (presuming you are ready and loaded): 1st attack on Dex SR... Then reload +5sr ....Then 2nd Attack + Dex SR
  24. Yes RQ 3 felt a bit stricter mechanically with how SR’s played out and what you could do in each SR. It gave the impression that each SR represented a single moment in time. RQG/RQ2 emphasis is a bit different, emphasising SR more as a looser way to sort out the order of actions, not so much an account of the time in a melee round. have to say I prefer the freeer approach of RQG/RQ2. Though suppose they both played out similarly
×
×
  • Create New...