Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. Heh heh yes! I think it was a combination of things that led us on a merry dance - the error with the baboon sr calculations, the dragon not having accompanying combat notes, and the interaction of those things with the rule under “weapons” on p8 of the bestiary. Baboons were in a fluster! 🤪
  2. Ok thanks to Scotty and persistence from myself ( I intend to make a baboon character) we have finally got to the bottom (excuse the pun) of the baboons attacks So to pull together the research and answer the OP, if you look at Scott’s reply above you will see that the SR’s have been calculated incorrectly in the RQG bestiary. If you follow Scott’s recalculation you get an average baboon that can attack twice in a melee round as per the baboon combat notes. The spear attack will be SR5, followed by the bite or claw attack on SR12. In RQG any number of parries /dodges are possible as they don’t require strike ranks like they used to in past editions. But each parry/dodge can only be directed at one attack. Further parries/dodges after the first are subject to a minus 20% cumulative penalty. Unless there is an exception noted in the creatures combat notes. Oh and apparently baboons are super dextrous, following the RQ3 write up. I think it’s safe to say as a general guidance that creatures have 1 or 2 attacks, unless specified otherwise in the their combat notes. This was the case with the Dream Dragon in RQ2 and RQ3, and I see no reason to change that presumption, unless you are going for all out dragon carnage 🙂
  3. Checking out the baboons statistic in RQG, it’s dex has shot up to 3d6+6! When did they get so dextrous!? Surely a mistake? Also the SR of 6 with the spear attack is in line with a baboon with a dex of 2d6+6, and not reflective of the stated 3d6+6 dex, which I’m pretty sure is how it should be if as I imagine baboons aren’t super dextrous. Interestingly if we say the baboons dex is supposed to be 2d6+6, then all the sr calculations including weapon are in line with how they are calculated in RQ2. Critically in RQ2 they have actually brought the overall spear attack SR down to 4 for the baboon so both attacks fit into the melee round. This doesn’t fit if you follow the standard way to calculate SR’s. Seems that it was purposefully manipulated contrary to the rules, so the baboon could get those two attacks in the melee round. Perhaps if generating a player baboon character this could be replicated ( along with correcting the baboons dex) by saying the baboon has some kind of cult or cultural affinity with the one-handed spear, letting the spear be a special case SR 0 weapon, instead of its listed SR 2? That would make sense of the RQ2 write up, and by extension also allow baboons in RQG get those 2 attacks in a melee round, as the combat notes allude to. Either that or break with convention and make the baboons second attack 3 strike ranks later (borrowed from RQ3, this same exception is made for the snow troll in the RQG bestiary).
  4. Yes I actually agree with you. That’s how I would have interpreted it too. But the answer given by Scotty is more open ended. This has got me thinking, I’ve delved back into RQ2 and RQ3 for answers. Heres the issues with RQG attack entires as I see them: • The rule on p8 under “weapons” is clumsily written. If you compare it to the Dream Dragon entry which has many attacks listed on the same SR, taken literally the rule would mean the Dragon has 3 different attacks that can happen simultaneously (Same SR). There is no exception noted in the dragon description as required by the rule on p8, so all those attacks can happen simultaneously. Obviously that number of attacks would be overkill, so the rule on p8 must be incorrect, or they forgot to add the exception to the dragon description. • The dragons 4 attack forms are taken directly from the RQ3 version. In RQ2 there were only two attack methods, and both could potentially be made in melee round. Further In RQ3 there is clear direction on how to use the 4 dragons attack methods, this helpful advice is omitted from RQG: “ A Dragon has two attacks each round: it may either bite or breath flame for one attack, and either use claw or tail for the other. The bite will come 3 strike ranks after any other attacks being performed. When flying, a dragon only has a breath attack.” - RQ3. The only mechanical difference here with RQ3 is that a second attack occurs 3 SR’s later. In contrast in RQG you add on the second attack’s SR to the first, or attack simultaneously if sharing the same SR. RQ3 also only allowed a maximum of 2 attacks, but you would have to sacrifice parry/dodge to make a second attack. Regardless of the mechanical differences between editions, you can still have those two dragon attacks, and maybe even 3 in RQG. Though I suspect as with RQ2 and RQ3, two attacks are supposed to be the default. The confusion with the dragon in RQG is that it has 3 attacks that can happen “simultaneously” if you are following the rules to the letter (see p8). I feel we’re definitely missing a little guidance in the dragons notes on how to use the attacks, particularly if you’re new to the game and unfamiliar with the rules. This all goes back to the baboons in RQG as well. In RQ3 they had (like humans) a maximum of two attacks: “A common technique is to stab with the javelin, then bite 3 SR’s later. As with humans, if a baboon attacks twice, it waives any parry or dodge” - RQ3, Gloranthan Bestiary. In RQG you do have this two attack limit (but missing the defensive penalty) for humanoids, so it feels fitting to apply that limit to baboons, which can also be player characters. In RQ2 (with which RQG shares the same combat notes) “A common technique is to stab with a spear and close to use claw or bite” This translates in RQ2 to two attacks in a melee round ( like RQ3). Spear on SR 4, then claw or bite on SR12. In RQG which shares the same tactical notes for baboons, the SR of the spear attack is changed to 6 (it was 4 in RQ2) So any follow up claw/bite has to occur the following round, which I’m not sure was intentional? Those notes specifically called out two attacks in a melee round in RQ2, in RQG there isn’t much point to them, its arbitrary, as you can obviously choose any attack you wish at the start of the melee round. I suspect that’s an oversight@Scotty? The original design intention of allowing two attacks in a melee round has been lost.
  5. So to return to the op question, following scotty answer in the Q&A thread - the only limitations on use of listed attacks are circumstantial, and Strike ranks. If the creature notes don’t say other wise, attacks on the same SR happen simultaneously (see p8 bestiary) The Baboon could make a spear attack on SR 6, but there aren’t enough SR’s to also employ bite and claw attacks in the same melee round. However next round the baboon could drop the spear and choose to attack simultaneously with two claw attacks, and a bite (as there’s no rule to say otherwise. See p8 bestiary) - provided of course it meets with the narrative and makes sense. Of course that maybe a tall order, requiring a downed opponent etc. Getting up personal, biting and clawing simultaneously, probably wouldn’t be possible in most combat circumstances, many gms would rule either one bite or one claw attack in a standard encounter, but there is potential for 2 claw attacks, and a bite in one melee round but it’s circumstantial. Its a funny beast RuneQuest. Lots of crunchy rules, but also lots of rulings not rules circumstances. I had expected there to be a cap of two attacks as per standard pc’s, as it’s so specific in the rules, but that is apparently not the case. Have to admit to feeling that it’s an odd juxtaposition compared to how tight the rules are on standard PC attacks.
  6. Hey if you need any manic fans to give it the once over before going to print you know where to find us. Happily buy now, if it’s of help. That’s looks AMAZING!
  7. Yes agree with playing what’s in front of you, but surely there’s a hard and fast limit to any combination? Guidance within which you improvise as you said? Seems likely to me that unless stated otherwise, that limit is two attacks (sr permitting) following the two-weapon ruling?
  8. How does that play out? • Melee Round 1 - spear attack, • Melee round 2 - knockback attack • Melee Round 3 - bite Or following two weapon attack rule: • melee round 1 - spear attack, and knockback attack • melee round 2 - bite, and claw attack. @Scotty Presumably unless we’re splitting attacks, or the creature description says otherwise, there’s a hard limit of two attacks per round (if two or more forms of attacks listed) following the two-weapon rule? So baboons would be able to use any 2 combinations of those attacks listed in a melee round? Would this be sensible general guidance? - Of course circumstantial practicalities, and Gm fiat always a consideration.
  9. Ah ok so regarding the OP’s original question, and with Scotty’s direction above, the answer is just one attack, unless it’s specifically called out in the creature description. Of course if you have a super skilful baboon that meets all the requirements then they can split their attacks, but they would have to designate which form of attack they’re using. But if you’re following the Two weapon attacks rule ( seems harsh to penalise baboons for having claws and teeth) then perhaps we should be allowing them one of those attacks as well providing there’s enough SR’s at their full %? After all a human warrior can make a weapon attack and a shield attack at full shield % ( though they loose the shield parry). What say you @Scotty?
  10. Yeah - RQG core book gives the proviso for splitting attacks that: • You can have any split of the % so long as none of the attacks are brought below 50% - As a ruling I guess for simplicity sake you can just rule 50/50 split. Either way is workable depending on how much granularity you want I guess. Regarding Two weapon attacks I seem to recall two approaches: • Off hand weapon starts at 5% plus modifiers (in the core). • Off hand weapon is 50% of your standard attack ( think I may have read that as an answer from Jason?) Edit: just checked WoD - off hand weapon only starts at 5% if you don’t have any preexisting skill in it. Other wise it’s 50% of your standard attack.
  11. Iirc this question came up with the dream dragon attacks. I can’t find the topic, but I believe it was answered in the core questions thread which is now locked, and unavailable for searching. My recollection was that unless stated other wise, you choose one of the attacks. With the Dream dragon this changed from RQ2’s two attacks, to just one in RQG after the clarification. Could be worth seeing how RQ2 handled number of baboon attacks?
  12. Think it’s one attack unless stated otherwise. Only limit on parry and dodge is the -20% cumulative penalty.
  13. Maybe too much to ask, but love to have a sneak peak at the cover. Happy to wait though for the full launch, of course 🚀
  14. Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! Apologies inappropriate flash back. Can’t wait to see what you’ve done with the new Starter. Very excited
  15. @JeffSlight tangent, but will we see more of Andrey Fetisov work in future RQ publications like the Sartar boxed set? His control of colour temperature created some lovely atmospheric compositions in the core RQG book. Love to see more of his work exploring Sartar and other regions.
  16. I used to think warhammer fantasy Roleplay would be very well serviced using BRP as a base, but i think it’s has a well established pedigree now with newer editions. Still I’ve no doubt it would work very well. Big yes to Conan, and a new StormBringer. A decent sword and sorcery game would be excellent.
  17. Yes but let’s see the cover!!
  18. Very exited for RuneQuest. I’ll take it all! Curious who the artists will be in the starter? Who’s got the cover!!???
  19. I can’t use foundry as the power requirements are too much. Roll20 works fine though. Granted eventually I will have to upgrade my computer, but for now I imagine roll20 has the bigger compatibility.
  20. Yeah like I said before. It still plays fine as a quickstart, despite a few minor inconsistencies with the main rules, it’s by no means game breaking. Though for the purpose of learning the game and internalising it, it helps if those inconsistencies are ironed out, rather then having two similar, but different rulings. For example having alternative attack and parry results. iirc the quickstart was put out when they were still finalising some the minor things in the rules, so it’s not surprising there are a few differences. It’s still a great little product and introduction to RQG as is. But if you want to start playing it with the core rules straight, those points pointed out in the errata thread should help. Edit: The Easiest fix for rules alignment is to use the attack and parry results table in the core also available with the Gms screen.
  21. Oh what was the problem? I have the print on demand as I ordered early. Not had a chance to look over it yet. Is there anything I should watch out for as an early buyer?
  22. Well I’ve picked through the QuIckStart with knowledge of what we now know to be the correct core rulings. A few more inconsistencies around the attack and parry results which I’ve added to the quickstart errata thread as I don’t think they were mentioned previously. Hopefully as others have said in future there can be a consistent experience across the quickstart, starterset, and core rules:
  23. Silly question but as the name suggests this is exactly what’s presented in the 2ed printing now?
  24. Yes I agree that future printings should aim to incorporate all the clarifications for a consistent experience, it’s only going to help the game. Making sure rules are consistent across products like quickstart, starter set, and core is desirable and helpful in removing barriers to comprehension.
  25. If ever the quickstart gets updated, I reviewed some of the rules in light of what we now have in the core RQG book 2ed printing and clarifications here on the forum. Here’s a few rule inconsistencies I picked up in the Quickstart. I believe only the two-weapon fighting point has already been mentioned: • p16 Two weapon fighting spot rule is incorrect and makes the same mistake the core rules did in 1st printing regarding number of parries. •p6 Opposed Resolution - “if both participants succeed, the winner is whoever rolled higher”. Suggest change to “if both participants succeed, the winner is whoever rolled the better result.” •p6 Opposed Resolution - “A tie (where both participants succeed but roll the same number)...”. Suggest change to “A tie (where both participants succeed but roll the same type of success) • Dodging p14. Dodge is described as usable against all attacks from one source. In the core it’s applicable against attacks from any source. • Attack, Critical Success p14. There is no mention of what special damage is until the following bullet point on special success. Some mention of twice or double rollable damage is needed here. Suggestion - “An Attack that is not parried or dodged does the weapons full doubled rollable damage...” or alternatively “An Attack that is not parried or dodged does twice the weapons full rollable damage...” or better still introduce the core book wording and meaning of “maximum special damage” to the text. • Attack, Critical Success p14. Suggestion in bold to align with core rules “...takes the critical’s damage (maximum possible) directly to its hps, with any remaining damage going to the defender”. • Parry normal success vs successful attack, p14 - “Parry weapon takes 1 hit-point”. In the Core rules parry weapon only takes hit point if dam exceeds weapon hit points. Suggestion - change to “Parry weapon takes 1 hit-point if damage exceeds weapon hit points.” • Parry normal success vs unsuccessful attack, p14 - “if attack failure, parry weapon does normal rolled damage breaking it if it exceeds the weapons hit points.” In the core rules, this is toned down to only inflicting 1 hit-point on the attacking weapon. Suggestion change to “if attack failure, parry weapon does 1 hit-point of damage breaking it if it exceeds the weapons hit points.” •Shields, p14. I question the need to have separate shield parry results, as they should be the same whether weapon or shield, therefore unnecessary duplication? Having said that below are the shield points that need addressing. • Shield parry p14 “When a shield successfully parries a successful attack, the shield loses 1 hit point...” Suggestion - “loses 1 hit point, if damage more than its current hit points...” to bring it in line with the core rules. • Shield Parry p14. “If the attack is a special success and the parry successful, the shield takes the damage of the special success (rolled twice and added together)”. Suggestion change to ” If the attack is a special success and the parry successful, the shield takes the damage of the special success over its HP (rolled twice and added together).” • Some of the attack and parry results from the core are completely missing. I understand that the quickstart is abbreviated, but these results can come up in play. • As with the core, missing an explanation that clearly states that parry and dodge are interchangeable in defence within a melee round, and that the cumulative minus 20% penalty applies to both regardless of what combination of the two is being used. Though only one defence attempt per attack.
  • Create New...