Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Regulars
  • Posts

    825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. By the way really nice to see a fully clarified description of One-Use Rune spells in the new book. It removes the ambiguities in the RQG text. Nice to see these things acted on.
  2. I thought I had the same issue. You just click on the title in the orders page, and it should take you to a downloadable link. edit: though I still haven’t received the email with the links that are is usually sent out.
  3. So @Scottydoes this read ok? You can only have one spirit combat exchange between two competing entities in a melee round (unless able to make multiple attacks with a magical weapon, or some other special ability that grants extra attacks). If an engaged corporeal entity decides to attack with a magically enhanced weapon on their SR, this will likely preempt, and will replace the spirits attack on SR12 for that round. A spirit can only initiate 1 spirit combat attack, but can oppose any number of attacks on itself regardless of source (unless a special power says otherwise). All forms of attack in spirit combat follow the opposed roll procedure, regardless of what form the attack takes (ranged,melee etc), with chances of spirit damage/failure/fumble for both participants.
  4. So it seems there can potentially be multiple combat exchanges in spirit combat if there are multiple participants, but the key thing is that you can only initiate 1 exchange, unless you have a special ability/multiple attacks etc. All spirit combats follow the same procedure, with chances of causing damage, defending, fumbling, etc. @scotty Do ranged attacks with magical properties, and magical attacks on spirits cause potential sprint damage on opposed failure to the user? edit: just read through your answers in the Q&A II and it looks like even ranged attacks can backfire so to speak, if you loose the opposed contest
  5. @tnli saw your question about weapon attacks and fumbles in spirit combat , good question. So it all follows the spirit combat procedure, with fumbles being handled by the spirit fumble table. Interesting I like the weirdness of spirit combat. Also there’s loads for a GM to play on with visibility, partial visibility, invisibility of the spirit. Or gaps in the adventurers understanding of what they are witnessing. I quite like the idea that there are spirits that may only be visible to the engaged target. Lots of room for customisable experiences with spirit encounters.
  6. So it’s just that the spirit can’t initiate a combat after the first one, but that they can effectively have extra attacks/defence as a reaction to being attacked by other sources beyond the first?
  7. So there’s an exception to the standard rules of opposed sprit combat? The spirit or other combatant defending an extra attack would not be able to cause damage if they win their opposed roll?
  8. Unless I’m understanding opposed spirit combat incorrectly doesn’t that effectively mean that the spirit would be having extra attacks against the extra corporeal opponents attacking it? It’s effectively the same as a standard spirit combat, ie not just defensive?
  9. Ah ok thanks - so extra attacks from other characters not already engaged with the spirit will be unopposed?
  10. If an engaged corporeal combatant choses to attack the spirit physically with a magical weapon/ and or magic on their SR, is this intended to replace the spiritual combat that normally happens on SR 12, or is this in addition? When a spirit attacks its required to make... The way that is worded it sounds like the spirit is visible to everyone regardless of who it is engaging. Is that the case? If so, does the spirit continue to remain visible to everyone in the Middle World during the entire encounter, or does it become invisible again during the next melee round to all but the target it is engaging with? Or is it intended that the spirit only becomes visible to the target it is engaging with in the first place? The section Attacking with Weapons And Spells seems to suggest that a spirit engaged with spirit combat with a corporeal being is visible to others not already engaged, and can be attacked by them using magic weapons and/or spells. Once non-engaged people attack in this way are they all subject to an additional spiritual attack by the spirit on SR12, or is it limited to the initial physical/magical attack? Can a spirit choose to engage more then one corporeal opponent at a time? Or are they only allowed to engage with additional targets if they are Physically/magically attacked by them? Will additional attacks beyond the initial spirit combat, by other corporeal beings be unopposed?
  11. Quite like the idea of the magic aspect of a weapon reaching through to other other plains of existence to hold the spirits at bay. To my mind it’s just a vehicle to wield the magic in this case
  12. Yeah I wasn’t really advocating that, just that it maybe better at representing the general abstraction of defence in a fight. Not overly keen on the extra calculation before each attack that defence in RQ 2 requires though. I prefer the separate action of dodge, but my point was that there is some positioning and manoeuvring in fights already which is part of the abstraction of the weapon skill %. The big dodge attempts are in addition to that...well at least in my head anyway:)
  13. Interesting thread. Never really got my head around sorcery in RQ3, so hearing about the comparative differences is helpful. I was relieved to read the new RQG sorcery rules as it feels doable. There’s a really strong sense of Gloranthan sorcery coming through with rules that won’t tax the user too much in play. It sounds very cool and unique in Glorantha and like something I’d like to explore in the future. Hats off to those who got RQ3 sorcery working well at the table, maybe I should have persisted, but probably not helped at the time by not having a strong enough sense of how it fitted thematically into Glorantha. Medieval knights in the Gloranthan boxed set didn’t help with my persistence to understand sorcery, the juxtapositions of the medieval west were too jarring for me. Glad I can say that I’m much more interested in exploring sorcery and the west now that it feels like it’s found it’s thematic place in Glorantha. I guess you either accept those changes, house rule them, or continue with the different game that is RQ3,if you wish to continue with the same characters. It’s clear the designers have thought long and hard about the new implementation of sorcery and what it should do in the game world.
  14. Yes this is a gap in my BRP knowledge, never played that but have heard that thats where RQ3 got inspiration to change strike ranks from ?
  15. There’s a good argument in there for bringing back RQ2’s defence skill in place of dodge Yeah I see what you mean, you don’t want to devalue someone else’s dodge skill. I guess dodge is an overt attempt at getting out of harms way, where as using your weapon skill is more reading the opponent and positioning yourself in an advantageous way to make yourself a harder target to hit, and at the same time finding openings to strike. It’s fine line but I think I could justify that in combat if you accept that there’s movement inherent in every clash.
  16. I think RQG strike ranks are a mess, probably because they can't make up their minds about whether they're an initiative system or an action point economy (they look like an initiative system at first, but then you can get multiple attacks and spells cast, the ability to squeeze preparations into the round, and so on). I can't make up my mind in what direction to rewrite it (a strict action-point economy is interesting but fiddly, while a pure initiative system offers a lot less tactical interest), but I'm going to go in one of these directions. Otherwise you get a lot of incoherence. If you don’t look too hard I find RQG/RQ2 strike ranks fine to use. There are some ambiguities but it works for me. As I pointed out above RQ3 pushes strike ranks more in the direction of the action point economy you mentioned. If that’s you’re thing, then worth having a look at RQ3. It becomes a more precise measurement of time and movement.
  17. I guess the argument for allowing the knife user to reduce the effectiveness of the dinosaurs tail attack with their over 100% skill would be that wielding a knife involves positioning and reading the opponent just as much as striking out. So you could say the effectiveness of the knife user in reducing the dinosaurs chance of attack is due to reading the situation and positioning themselves advantageously, keeping out of the thrust of the tail etc, until an opening shows it’s self.
  18. The only significant difference is that RQ3 measures movement in strike ranks within the actual melee round. With RQG and RQ2 movement is only calculated if you are approaching an on going melee, in order to determine where you fit into the pecking order. So RQG/RQ2 remains an initiative system, while RQ3 falls slightly more into the action point allowance side of things because of the measurement of movement within the melee round. In RQ3 there are rules for closing in on an opponent with a longer weapon, and attacking on the run/running attack.
  19. While RQ3 does have more rules for movement within the strike rank round, I’m sure the equivalent could be done in RQG as well. If you accept the abstraction of the combat round as including some form of movement inherent in the fight anyway, and add in rolls for significant actions like jump, knockback attempts, and assign modifiers for the terrain to give tactical elements it soon becomes more colourful. People will have a reason to use movement & other options. RQG and RQ2 strike ranks are nothing more than a fancy initiative system. For me it’s not necessary to go to the RQ3 rules to achieve more granularity, as it feels possible to improvise that with the RQG rules as is. Though I appreciate many do like measuring out the distances and tracking movement throughout the combat more rigidly, which RQ3 attempted to do. Each to there own but I’d either rule that out entirely, or use a visualisation of the knife parry as the pivot on which the defender moves themselves out of the way (on a crit), as a sort of parry/dodge. My vision of combat is full of sidesteps, ducks ( yes humakti ones as well) combined with parries and attacks, rather then just a static parry, attack, parry, attack etc.
  20. ...And the classic dodging out the way so the hit hits your other opponent behind you.
  21. Dodge really comes into its own when likely damage is going to be devastating regardless of weapons hps. Off the top of my head dodge is good for : The massive crushing attack from a giant where parry would be almost pointless (Short of a fluke crit parry somehow directing the worst of the blow away, or more likely in the case of a giant hit, giving yourself purchase to push yourself physically away from the force of the blow. Projectile weapons Attacks that could cause knockback if you’re weaponless, or weapon is close to breaking falling debris, traps etc.
  22. Yes you’re right I misremembered the second printing correction.
  23. Should have known better, think I may actually have written that paragraph after reading the second printing corrections 😅 ...regardless that for me sums up how best to put the ruling following Jason’s clarifications.
  24. This is another area which needed to be clarified on the Q&A. Originally the wording was just a copy and paste from RQ2 and made no sense in the context of the new RQG rules on parrying . The second printing clarification wasn’t clear enough either IMO - “two parries ” suggests a limit that isn’t there under the RQG multiple parry rules. ...But anyway In terms of parry, using two weapons is much the same as using 1 weapon (check out the Q&A) You can parry multiple times with either weapon, but each parry after the first( no matter which weapon) will be subject to the cumulative -20 penalty. The added advantage is that by using two weapons to parry you can potentially spread any weapon damage across both by alternating the weapon you’re parrying with, lessening the likelihood that one of your weapons will break.
×
×
  • Create New...