Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. I’ve found the combat notes from RQ3, which shares the same 2 attacks as the Minotaur in RQG: ”A Minotaur can use either a head butt or a hand-held weapon in a given round. It could use both only as per normal two-weapon use, thereby depriving itself of the ability to parry that round” - RQ3 The note about the parry is really only relevant to how RQ3 worked. If you made two attacks you lost the ability to parry in that game, that’s not applicable in RQG. But what’s described there is not simultaneous attacks, yet we have that general rule on p8. It’s too problematic IMO and doesn’t make sense. I couldn’t imagine a Minotaur simultaneously attacking with a hand held weapon and head butt on the same SR. Perhaps my first hunch was right, and it’s meant to refer to attacks that are listed as already sharing the same SR?
  2. That ones comes straight out of RQ3. RQ3. It’s mentioned in case you presume you can use both of its listed attacks in a melee round. I believe the general rule in RQG (RQ2, & RQ3) is that you can make two attacks, if you have two weapons or forms of attacks, and enough SR’s available. Hmm...that’s really odd. I completely miss interpreted that - I was looking for a solution to explain how to adjudicate attacks that share the same SR. To my mind, whilst searching for a solution, it was specifying attacks which are listed sharing the same SR, as those are the ones that to me need some guidance. For example some will occur simultaneously, whilst some will be a choice to choose between. But you’re right too point it out, it doesn’t say that at all - Very odd - note to self, stay away from RuneQuest rule books late at night!🤪 Regardless of my misinterpretation, there seem to be some creatures like the Maidstone Archer that have 2 forms of attack available, and no combat note guidance, so are we to presume that they attack simultaneously with their two swords? If so which SR do they use? Right hand sr 1, or left hand sr 6? Maybe this is another case of missing combat notes and their two attacks are supposed to happen on the respective SR’s? There was nothing in RQ3 (their first appearance I think) about simultaneous attacks. look at the Minotaur, it has 2 attacks, and no mention of exceptions, so are we to presume they happen simultaneously? I still feel that as general rule it doesn’t sit well at all. Why is it there? That’s interesting - they’ve carried over the 3sr interval from RQ3, where by that was when you could make a second attack with a second weapon if you had one. In RQ2/RQG the method is to add the sr of the second attack to the first. I wonder whether that was deliberate or simply copied over and slipped through the editing process?
  3. Have started a new thread on this topic here:
  4. Yes agree. That’s a very good way to rationalise things like claw attacks in RQ. 100% with you there - Unless the special combat notes say other wise that will be my guidance in future. The more I’ve thought about it the more problematic the ruling on p8 of the Gloranthan Bestiary is under “weapons”. Even with guidance of the individual creature combat notes (some of which are problematically missing), it still plays funny with the baboon. I’m pretty sure the baboon was never intended to have simultaneous bite and claw attacks as a “standard” mode of attack? At least in past editions that was not the case, and i see no reason in RQG to adjust that assumption. Certainly a Gm can rule other wise in accordance with the narrative, but as standard mode I would think not. The base line needs to be clear and the rule on p8 of the bestiary muddies the water. @Scotty @Jason D I would advise removing that rule completely, and instead rely on the individual combat notes to explain simultaneous attacks. Take the Hydra for example, lots of heads, but a total blank with guidance on how to use them. Not everyone is coming to this game with the knowledge and experience of the game writers. Some people may not have even heard of a hydra before. It would make more sense to have included the original Hydra combat notes rather then relying on a general rule that doesn’t fit with all of the creatures in the bestiary.
  5. Sorry missed the “?” there. Yes, that’s it. Your average Baboon wielding a 1-handed short spear should be calculated from the following: Dex SR 1 Size SR 2 1-handed short spear SR2 Claw/Bite SR4 (see unarmed attacks) So short-handed spear attacks on SR 5. Claw/bite on SR 7. That means in practice, short-handed Spear attack on SR7, followed by Claw/bite on SR12.
  6. Yes as mentioned SR’s in RQG are just a way to sort the order of actions, not a literal measurement of time. It may help to consider the different system in RQ3: In contrast RQ3 turned them into a more specific measurement of time, mostly because they introduced movement into and throughout the melee round engagement. RQG like RQ2 doesn’t do that. Movement is only calculated in RQG as a means to find out at what point you arrive at the fight, after which the melee round is a more abstract engagement, and there’s no further need to calculate movement by SR. RQ3 continued to measure movement by SR throughout the melee engagement, therefore SR’s became a continual measure of time and distance. This is not what RQG does, SR’s are just to sort the order of the abstracted combat round, no need to measure time and distance. It’s simply sorting the initiative order.
  7. Yes. This confused me as well. That’s definitely out of the RQ3 rules, not RQG. Scotty made a comment elsewhere about giving the baboon a 2-handed spear so as to allow them a parry as well. Was scratching my head a bit & wondering what I was missing, but you’re right that’s 100% RQ3 rules. Grateful for him pointing out the SR mistake of the baboon, hadn’t thought to check out the claw SR as well, now they play how they were supposed to. But yes, I wouldn’t allow 2 claw attacks. Spear followed by claw/bite, yes definitely as per the combat notes. Claw and bite probably not, unless “victim” is surprised.
  8. Yes I can see now flicking through the RQG bestiary, the main design issue with the RQG Bestiary is that it’s missing quite a few of the combat notes for creatures, that were originally included with creatures in previous editions (mostly the RQ3 ones) For example the Lesser Hydra is missing it’s combat notes, as is the Dream Dragon. I haven’t checked the whole book but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a few more missing. I feel that’s a shame as those kind of notes are really helpful for new comers to RuneQuest. We shouldn’t presume that new gamers know how a lesser hydra attacks with its many heads. Not everyone knows the story of the hydra, or has the previous knowledge of past RuneQuest editions. Sometimes a prompt like the combat notes is the spur newcomers need to grasp the concept of the creature, particularly with a crunchy game like RuneQuest. Be good if Chaosium could print future editions with all the combat notes included, particularly with the spirit of opening up the game to new comers (think starter set). Feel the absence of some combat notes in the bestiary are a presumption which isn’t helpful to newcomers. I may have to start a separate thread to note which creatures are missing combat notes, which could serve the basis of an errata.
  9. 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! 🤪
  10. 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 🙂
  11. 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).
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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!
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. Think it’s one attack unless stated otherwise. Only limit on parry and dodge is the -20% cumulative penalty.
  21. 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 🚀
  22. Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! Apologies inappropriate flash back. Can’t wait to see what you’ve done with the new Starter. Very excited
  23. @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.
  24. 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.
  25. Yes but let’s see the cover!!
  • Create New...