Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Member
  • Posts

    926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. 2 hours ago, styopa said:

    I'd say that most of what you're talking about is changing the original's more "campy, pulpy" tone to a rougher, more realistic feel.

    I agree with the point previously about it being more rock-colored in fact, but my $0.02 would be that we want to keep a gut-connection with Louise Perrin's original iconic cover art, where the lizard was green.  Color and gross shape composition are the very first-recognized elements to art, and (imo) changing the lizard to grey would disconnect that.

    IF realistic is what we're going for, then this is better.

    FWIW I'd go back to the campier version.  I think it ages better over time.  Also, I think it delivers a lighter tone which IMO might be more broadly appealing.

     Very much like the grey green colour of the lizard. I much prefer it on second and third looks to the first one. Not necessarily because it's more realistic, but that it captures the gravity and power of the creature better. It's that contrast with the lighter physique of the warrior that works so well. It's monstrous. 

    Perhaps it could have a an added crest to match the original, and make it feel a bit more fantasy, but I think the treatment of the creature overall is excellent 

  2. This change works well. Its interesting seeing the different versions. The first was much more 50's pulp monster movie as iskallor mentioned, clever & fun. Though now seeing this new version, it feels like perhaps a better way to go. 

    Theres a great weight to the rock lizard now, and well realised musculature that adds to the drama and feeling of power in the beast. Its brilliantly realised. 

    Being (perhaps overly)  critical:

    • I feel that there could be a change to the warriors expression, to show some hint of vulnerability.
    • Perhaps the warriors sword arm could be raised up a tad, and a little bit back from the viewer to express a greater feeling of movement in the composition through the flex of the arm. At the moment it feels a little static compared with the great sense of movement elsewhere in the composition. It needs a bit more urgency in that sword arm :) I think all it would take would be a very slight adjustment in the angle of the elbow, to break the strong horizontal it creates (just a little). It may help to create a greater feeling of movement with the follow through of the arm as it swings at the monster. 
    • The sense of cool reflected light ( presumably from the blue sky) on the monster is great. The cool reflected light  could also be emphasised more on the highlights in the armour & the warrior in general, as It works so well on the beast. The 2 subjects would match (unify) better in terms of their shared colour world, and the armour would have more "zing", with stronger contrasts of cool and warm colours.
    • Perhaps a greater sense of texture in the warriors clothes, and skin tones, to show a little grime and dirt. The wonderful contrasting red helmet plume could perhaps have a tiny bit more variety in its colour to texturise it and break it up just a little.

     

    Excellent work though, really glad you've found this artist. Its what Runequest deserves. 

  3. These image previews look very good. I really like the classic bronze age feel in the detailing. Another example of new Chaosium & new Runequest getting the vibe right. I do wonder whether it could be a bit more gritty, suggesting the realism of Runequest, a little grime and dirt? But I'm being picky, this looks very promising for a new statement on a classic game. Look forward to seeing the whole image and how the attacker is portrayed

  4. Thanks largely to the podcast I'm currently experiencing Gorgnard Nirvana, with games of yore becoming relevant again (classic Runequest) , and new versions in print or on the horizon. 

    In many ways the podcast has become the 21st century equivalent of  "WhiteDwarf" magazine for me ( in its earlier RPG aspect). It provides a great forum for discussion, ideas,  and reflection on RPG goodness. I mostly played Runequest when I was younger, but I've discovered much more through the podcast about games I knew of but never owned or played back in the day. I really like that fact that although a Grognard podcast, its also forward looking discussing new games ( obviously from the correct Grognard perspective) Keep up the good work!

    • Like 1
  5. Regarding parrying and attacking with a single handed weapon in a round, everyone I knew played one attack and one parry per round with RQ2. The examples of rurik demonstrated this consistently.

    There are still advantages to 2 weapon fighting. For instance if an attack is made on the same SR as the opponents attack SR, then the opponent must chose to give up either his/her attack or parry, as you can't both parry and attack on the same SR with the same weapon. 2 weapon fighting gets around this problem (whether 2 weapons, or 1 weapon and 1 shield). 2 weapon fighting also gives the flexibility to do either 2 attacks, or 2 parries, in place of the standard 1 attack and 1 parry.

    However when I bought the RQ3 rules, it confusingly contradicted the RQ2 rule, and made me question my understanding of RQ2. I later bought an updated version of RQ3 with an errata, which deleted the offending paragraph and brought the ruling back to, 1 attack and 1 parry per round with a single handed weapon.  Although different editions, the later correction to RQ3 rules, in my mind allays any lingering confusion about the intention in the RQ2 rules. It is as per the Rurik examples - 1 attack and 1 parry per round with a 1 handed weapon.

    Interestingly the contradictoray rules in the "original 16-page BRP" mentioned by Zit , and the RQ3 ruling (before the official errata correction), suggests this was an area where the game designers were in two minds as to which ruling to use. I'd love to hear an official Chaosium response on this, as ive seen this same question many times on this forum. Perhaps even a sticky could be used for Runequest Classic FAQ's? After all its a living published game, once again :) 

  6. 3 hours ago, styopa said:

    1) I'd prefer a flat -%, because then you're logically consistent with the "hitting a small target" rule in RQ3, where it was a flat % IIRC per point smaller than SIZ5(?)  Take that flat %, double it for the innate difficulty of hitting it moving, etc and maybe not getting an opening, and that's the flat %.  Plus, should it really be harder to 'called shot head' on a massive creature whose head is SIZ6+ (assuming you can reach it)?

    2) We count through SR, and when the character has a chance to hit, they can say "ok called shot X", then their strike happens d6+3 SR later...if it goes past the end of the round, they never got an opening. NOTE: we also allow PCs and significant NPCs to sacrifice quanta of 25% of to-hit for a 1SR bonus to strike.  146%+ to hit?  Generally (if you don't mind losing the spec/crit advantage) you'll go 2SR faster, without hurting your chance to hit.  Sort of the equivalent of 'hip shooting'.

    3) we used to do SoI at the start of each round (stated in ascending-INT order), and then if someone changed their action midround, there was a change-of-action penalty of d6 SR.  Lately, we've just been using "go when your SR says, and do what you want to at that moment" because it seemed to so greatly speed up combat.

    Yes - points well made.

    Now I'm inclined to agree with the flat% penalty for called shots.

    I quite like your thinking on SR tactics - gaining speed at a penalty. It opens up SR in a more dynamic way. Quite tacticle, but then again strike ranks were already. Perhaps this opens up more dynamic options within the framework of the strike rank? 

  7. 47 minutes ago, styopa said:

    (Likewise the half-skill penalty similarly overpenalizes better-skilled toons, but that's another story)

    Doesn't the fact that half skill is relative, makes it a penalty in proportion to a characters ability? in contrast a flat minus 30% penalty regardless of ability would be unfair proportionally?

     

    47 minutes ago, styopa said:

    i) it made no sense to me that a Quincy Quicksword (normal melee SR 3) would be so much more penalized than Chloe Clodhopper (SR9).  (Likewise the half-skill penalty similarly overpenalizes better-skilled toons, but that's another story)

    Yes, I'm inclined to agree -  Perhaps a superfast character would have a chance of an aimed blow before the end of the round (last SR). Maybe a flat SR penalty, with the exception that slower characters who would full outside of the SR round due to the penalty, would still have the chance for an aimed shot at the last SR?  That way fast characters would still have the edge ( say plus 5 SR to strike aimed blow), but slow characters would still have a last chance at an aimed blow after everyone else has had a go? 

     

    47 minutes ago, styopa said:

    ii) knowing that she will ALWAYS strike second, there's a much lower disincentive for the slower toon to always do called shots.  Called shots aside, if a SR4 is slugging it out with an SR3, that counterintuitively *completely* frees the SR4 to do all sorts of SR-wasting things in a round...they KNOW that the 3 will (generally) go first, so no reason not to burn another SR screwing around swinging from chandeliers.  The slower toon gets more tactical freedom of action?  Huh?

    Hmm...yes I see what you're saying. That does read like it may be problematic. I haven't played RQ in a while. Is that a recognised consensus? Are there ways around this issue? Does not statement of intent address this issue through penalty to SR, because of change to statement of intent? 

  8. Just continuing a discussion started on G+ (check it out here). 

    How do you find that the original RQ2 strike rank rules hold up compared to that of RuneQuest 3? I'm curious not just conceptually, but how easy are they to apply in game? Do players have difficulty understanding them? Are there elements of them that don't make sense to you?

     

    Jeff - Its my feeling that rereading both RQ2 & RQ3 with (somewhat) fresh eyes, I've found that there is a surprising amount of ambiguity in what actions are allowed in a melee round. Specifically the rule regarding number of attacks & parries with 1 handed weapons. RQ 2 Rurik examples are clear that there is the option of 1 attack & 1 parry  per melee round with any weapon, however the written rules (not the Rurik examples) in RQ2 are more ambiguous about what number of actions are allowed with a 1 handed weapon. In relation to this I've read on these forums a couple of instances where people have cited the RQ2 rules for 2 weapon use, as a reason to suppose there is only one action ( attack or parry) allowed with a 1 handed weapon, despite the Rurik examples.

    RQ3 has more clarity on this issue, stating clearly that a character can perform two of the 3 actions ( attack, parry, Dodge) per melee round. However it goes on to confuse the reader about this ruling with a section on 2 weapon use( which was later corrected in an errata to bring it back inline with the RQ 2 ruling 1 attack, and 1 parry per melee round)

    I mention this as it has a bearing on Strike ranks & actions. For me Strike ranks work well, but the RQ2 rules ( as they stand without the Rurik examples ) could be much clearer about what combat actions & number of actions characters are allowed. I think that is my one criticism about how the RQ2 rules were written. 

     

  9. On 8 February 2016 at 7:30 PM, styopa said:

    MAINLY I didn't like the predictability of the original SR system; where the players could reliably tell what order events would happen in any given round

    Yes this "predictability" is perhaps the one area of SR that feels a tad too restrictive. Though I do like the simulationist aspect of SR's taking into account speed/dex, weapon reach, and size/reach. Occasionally a bit of random luck could be worked into the games SR to shake things up. Granted there are penalties for surprise, but just occasionally a lesser determined fighter might get the jump on an experienced fighter in the normal run of combat. I'm not sure if the "predictability" of the RQ2/3 SR's models this well?  I guess that is where fumbles come in to modify the predictability of the combat SR melee round?

     

  10. 14 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

    However, nowhere is there any mention of the amount of damage done by a bash

    Good point about attacks with a shield. Though the 2 parry option remains a good defensive option for weapon & shield users. 

     

    14 hours ago, styopa said:

    captain_america_shield_sled__by_imforema

    Ha ha - inspired. This has to be used in a game... Dex x 2? :) 

  11. On 27 September 2016 at 5:25 AM, Moes1980 said:

    This seems to make shields sound like a bad idea, so I think I must be missing something here. Can anyone help me out with this? Thanks!

    So revisiting the RQ2 rules. ( this is helping me too) Advantages of shield use are:

    • Shield doesn't take damage & won't break like a valued weapon can when used for parrying.
    • Possible GM ruling that shield provides passive protection to at least 1 hit location (depending of size of shield)
    • Effectively a second weapon, which follows the 2 weapon use, and therefore gives the possibility either of 2 parries , 2 attacks, or standard 1 attack & 1 parry. In contrast a single weapon user can only make 1 attack and 1 parry in a melee round.
    • An impaling attack will impale a shield - bad for the use of shield whose effective use is diminished if weapon is above a certain encumbrance. But good for taking out opponents weapon as it becomes stuck in the shield.
    • Parrying an attack with a shield which takes place on the same Strike rank as your own attack, has the advantage of still allowing you to make an attack with your weapon in the other hand. If you had parried the attack with with the weapon instead of the shield you would lose your weapon attack. This is because of the ruling that you can't both attack and parry with the same weapon on the same Strike Rank.

    and for fun

    • A well polished bronze shield can be used as a mirror, good for looking at Basilisk/medusa indirectly 
    • Throw it like frisbee for a surprise attack 

    The cost of training up the use of a shield is well worth it, and maybe something to aim for.  You could quickly raise up your shield parry to a decent level. Good objective for your starting character.

     

  12. 22 hours ago, soltakss said:

    RQ3 had a rule that there was a 3SR delay between weapon attacks, but RQ2 definitely doesn't.

    Yes, I prefer the RQ2 (classic) ruling here - adding the previous weapon SR to the new attacks's SR. Its a bit more colourful then RQ3 approach of adding a standard 3SR to subsequent attacks. The RQ 2 approach has the potential for more attacks in a round, which I think can lead to more exciting & extraordinary characters like Mr Shergar Sunhoof, and those tanked up Trolls. Its nice to have a game which scales well in both directions with contrasting character abilities, some ordinary & some extraordinary - A more colourful game :)

  13. 18 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

    Hmm, something in the book doesn't make sense to me. In the example posted it says that someone who weapons were at SR 6 could only attack at SR 6 and SR 12. So with two weapon you add the SR's together? So a Giant (SIZ SR0), with some Coordination (for DEX SR1) wielding two trees (weapon SR0)  at 100%, could have a SR 0 with each weapon So if he was splitting both weapon attacks he could get two attack out each weapon on SR 0? 

    That seems off. Shouldn't there be a 5 SR delay for the off hand weapon? Yeah I know a DEX boosted giant wielding trees is an extreme example, but I though there was a delay in the off hand weapon, or was that just in RQ3?

    I see your point, 0 + 0 = 0. I think in this scenario i'd be running away from the nimble 2 tree wielding giant, before waiting to see which SR he attacks on (then again not much chance of that on SR 0) :) 

    I imagine that the sheer long reach of the 2 tree attacks is what would justify the SR 0 attacks. Perhaps a good time to "close in" on the giant to negate long reach advantage?  Having said that a GM call could easily introduce the RQ 3 ruling for 2 weapon attacks, and add 3 SR ( I checked the rule book) delay for the second weapon attack, if 2 attacks on SR 0 seem unreasonable. 

  14. 10 hours ago, styopa said:

    We're playing this evening - stop by!  OK, maybe you're not conveniently close to Minneapolis.  But you'd still be welcome.  We're doing the WFRP Shadows over Bogenhafen adventure, morphed into a town in Western Loskalm and with a few Gloranthan twists.

    Heh heh, thanks - Great combo shadows over Bogenhafen and Glorantha, enjoy!

  15. 2 hours ago, soltakss said:

     

    Don't forget that this is two-weapon use for skills over 100%.

    The normal rule is that a skill over 100% can be used to split against two foes, splitting each to half the attack chance.

    This just says the second weapon can be used to attack at full chance, in addition to splitting the first weapon, thus giving the PC three attacks.

    So, the options are:

    Attack one foe with each weapon at full chance

    Attack two foes twice, splitting both attacks against each foe

    Attack two foes with one weapon, splitting the attack, then attack one foe with the second weapon at full chance

     

    Basically you have 2 Combat Actions per round, split between Attack/Parry/Spell Casting. If you have two weapons, you can attack or parry with any combination of those two weapons. If you choose 2 Attacks, you can attack two foes once or one foe twice. If you have over 100% in the weapons, you can further split those weapons against the same, or different foes.

     

    It was fun playing Shergar Sunhoof, Centaur Extraordinaire, as he had a free Kick attack, being a Centaur. He also gained Jake's Amulet (Based on Jake the Peg, with an extra leg) which gave him an extra leg that could be used as a free attack om the same SR as his normal kick, so he had 2 extra attacks. He also gained the Spider Mask, which allowed him to use Transform Head once per week, transforming his head into that of a Giant Spider, giving him another extra attack at DEXx5. He had DEX 25 and could push it to DEX 29 by using a Heroic Ability and was SIZ 40, so he had a base SR of 1. One of our party's tactics was to use him against a crowd of minions, freeing up the other PCs to fight important opponents. He used to go Berserk and hit with Spear/Spear (SR 2/4, Kick/Kick SR 8/12, Kick/Kick SR 8/12, Bite/Bite/Bite SR 4/8/12, so 9 attacks per round, each at over 100%, he was pretty much guaranteed to take down 4 opponents (attacking each twice) and could take down up to 9 opponents per round. Even if the bite didn't kill the opponent, it injected POT 21 Poison, so would take them down in 3 rounds. Happy days.

    Thanks thats a very clear summary - great. It should be made a sticky at the top of the forums somewhere :)

    Heh heh - I wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of Shergar Sunhoof, Centaur Extraordinaire. A truly awesome opponent,sent a shiver down my spine just reading that description :) 

     

     

  16. On 29 September 2016 at 5:27 PM, RosenMcStern said:

    The BIG advantage, which is decently modeled in the RQ3 rules, is that the dual wielder can engage the single wielder's weapon with his parrying weapon, and counterattack when the latter cannot parry because his weapon is engaged. This is handled with the rule "A weapon cannot attack and parry in the same SR". Thus, the dual wielder need only state "I counterattack on the SR he attacks" and the single wielder cannot parry. In RQ, this is deadly.

    Other rulesets give extra actions for the secondary weapon, but this requires a different combat model based on action points, which is absolutely not in use in classic RQs.

    Wow long discussion - helpful in refreshing my memory of the rules, and sorting RQ2 from RQ3.

    RosenMcStern - Just trying to figure out what you're implying here, as it sounds like it has potential. Apologies my RQ rules memory is a bit rusty, and I may have missed a bit of the context.

    Are you saying that a two weapon user in RQ3 can elect to counter attack with his/her second weapon on the same SR with which he/she parries with the first weapon? Which has the effect of making the single weapon user unable to parry, as his weapon is engaged on that SR?  I thought that a weapons attack was only possible on its particular Strike Rank. I haven't found an instance in the rules which suggests a counter attack possibility on a chosen SR as in your statement "I counterattack on the SR he attacks"? 

    Edit: Therefore am I correct in thinking 

    • You can delay an attack to a Strike rank later in the melee round ( enabling your "counterattack" suggestion)
    • With 2 weapons it is possible to Parry with one weapon, whilst simultaneously attacking with the other on the same Strike Rank

    Which by extension is reliant on the 2 weapon user having a SR of the same value or lower then his/her opponent, in order to counter attack on the same strike rank?

  17. Hi all,

    Thought this would be the relevant place to get clarity on a ruling of 2 weapon use in Runequest classic.

    I've been revisiting the rule book, and finding that I'm not entirely clear on a ruling. On p29 of the classic Runequest,  the rules for Two Weapon Use continue, and point 6 has a bit of ambiguity for me:

    In particular the last sentence of  point 6 which states

    Quote

    "Or he may attack one at 1/2attack ability with one weapon and the other at 1/2 attack ability with that weapon and with full ability with the other weapon"

    Am I right in thinking that this is saying that one of the weapons can be used to as a split attack( page 26 classic Runequest), to attack 2 separate opponents, following which the second weapon can  attack normally at full percentage on one of these multiple opponents? Is this suggesting that providing there is sufficient strike ranks, a two weapon users can potentially have 3 attacks,but not 4? So in other words splitting the second weapon attack is not allowed in the RQ2 rules?

     

    FullSizeRender.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...