Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. One-Use spell p 12. Yes this is an important thing to mention ( if the explanation in the well is correct). Otherwise people may presume that they can use the associated rune point on other spells in their knowledge and vice-versa, as with standard Rune magic and the Rune pool of points. Also ( after reading the Well clarification) the wording whether you lose knowledge of a spell or not after casting, should perhaps be taken out of the bullet points completely and added into the general description to save repetition. Currently the way it’s mentioned in the bullet points makes you question whether it may in fact be possible in some circumstances to lose knowledge of the spell. Which is counter to the clarification in the Well. It’s not 100% clear.
  2. Yes, but I was talking just in terms of the one-use spell. You can’t regain the one-use spell associated rune point through standard worship or sacrifice, and have to instead re-sacrifice POW, as you would if you were learning a new spell. Mechanically it’s the same process as learning the whole spell again, but thematically you’re sacrificing for that special unique one-use power from the god in the form of the rune point. I guess it’s the divine power that is important and is emphasised in the rules with Rune Points, not so much the mundane gestures, and sounds that are learnt to channel it, which won’t be forgotten once learnt.
  3. I agree that they really need to get this down coherently and without ambiguity. The text as it stands hasn’t achieved this yet. This is the opportunity to clear up the matter, shouldn’t have to rely on the Q&A when there’s an opportunity to clear it up in print.
  4. Jason Durall was pretty clear in the Q&A that the rune point gained when you learn a one-use spell is tied to the spell. Otherwise you could just use your other remaining runepoints to recast it multiple times. That’s how you make a one-use spell in RQG. I guess whether it’s the spell, rune point, or both that disappears after using isn’t really important as the process to regain it is the same either way. But he did say it’s the Rune Point thematically that’s what’s needed to be re-sacrificed for, and not the spell.
  5. Thanks I was just trying to articulate that. Maybe copy and paste this in the corrections thread?
  6. Actually you’re right I skim read and saw the bullet point on fumbles and thought it had been sorted. The bullet point on critical suggests that you could potentially lose the spell as well as the rune points. The ambiguity remains.
  7. Yes I think it may have changed. It looked the same for me, but I think I clicked on the order number and it took me to another page where I could download it.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. @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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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?
  15. 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?
  16. Ah ok thanks - so extra attacks from other characters not already engaged with the spirit will be unopposed?
  17. 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?
  18. 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
  19. 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:)
  20. 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.
  21. 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 ?
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  • Create New...