Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Regulars
  • Posts

    824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. 1 hour ago, Urhizen said:

    Sorry about the offtopic but, Where are the links? I have entered my account and there are no links anywhere from my PDFs purchases¬†ūüėē

    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.

  2. 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.
    • Like 3
  3. 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

    • Like 1
  4. 9 minutes ago, Scotty said:

    I've yet to have in a game any situation where more than one person tries to engage the same spirit.

    I've had multiple spirits engage the same adventurer. So for me, the former is a borderline case.

    No one who can't deal a large amount of mp damage is going to get involved. What it does do is accelerate the spirit combat if the spirit is outnumbered, as it can potentially loose 3-4 times in one melee round.

    In my current game none of my players have any magic that would let them attack a spirit with a weapon anyhow. 

    Ghostbusters of Glorantha anyone? :) 

  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. 

    • Like 1
  6. 7 minutes ago, tnli said:

    It's just that the spirit can't try to hit twice in a round

    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. 9 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

    I guess the spirit can only harm one target with Spirit Combat, but it can still defend from attacks. So probably, after rolling Spirit Combat against the target it wants to harm, the other rolls are just to avoid harm, it can harm only one target per round.

    I guess that also applies to everyone engaged with more than one opponent in Spirit Combat.

    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. 29 minutes ago, Scotty said:

    No, the spirit defends with its Spirit combat.

    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? 

    • Like 1
  9. 21 minutes ago, Scotty said:

    Spirit combat does not allow spirits to attack multiple targets, unless the spirit has a specific ability to do so (multiple heads, two weapons, etc. ). See Spirit Powers in the Bestiary, page 165 for examples.

    Ah ok thanks - so extra attacks from other characters not already engaged with the spirit will be unopposed? 

    • Like 3
  10. On 11/22/2020 at 5:43 PM, Scotty said:

    Are there any edge cases where it might not be clear?

    • 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...
      Quote

      "...itself visible in the Middle World the melee round prior to its first attack." RQG, p366

      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. 3 hours ago, Stephen L said:

    Probably the thing I *hated* most about RQii was the defence, especially how you improved in it.  That sounds like I hate RQii - I loved it, it's why I here now.

    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:) 

  12. 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. 


     

     

    • Like 3
  13. 1 hour ago, g33k said:

    Actually, I think this is how the BRP Ringworld impulse system worked, isn't it?

    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 ?

  14. 22 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    But if your "general approach" is "dodging", you should roll Dodge. Dodge with Knife could be pictured as you said (that's how I initially pictured it), but IMHO that can undermine another player who actually spent points in Dodge. As a GM I'm trying to be careful to not devaluate a character as an unfortunate side-effect of handwaving things for another character. Even if nobody spent points in Dodge, that still makes them wonder what Dodge is for, and further cement their belief it's not worth training up. This gets you closer to the point where you might as well remove Dodge altogether.

    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. 

    • Like 1
  15. 21 hours ago, Akh√īrahil said:
    22 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

     

    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. 

    • Like 2
  16. 21 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    You might be able to parry with a weapon for which you have a really good score (either naturally or with magic buffs). So for instance, a SIZ 50 dinosaur tries to trample you, lash at you with its tail, or other such attack. That's typically a 60% attack skill. Per RAW you can lower that to, say, 30% if you have 130% in your weapon. By being allowed to parry, you can lower the dinosaur's chances. That's something you wouldn't be able to do if the GM rules that your puny knife or shortsword wouldn't help you and that you have to Dodge

    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. 

  17. 20 hours ago, Akh√īrahil said:

    Should I look up RQ3 to see how it handles SRs?

    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.

    • Like 1
  18. 48 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    One of my pet peeves with RQ combat is that it's boringly stationary: two melee combatants just stay in the same spot for several rounds until one of them retreats or falls down... who every fights like that? Especially in a heroic setting? I want combat to be more dynamic, to make use of the terrain features, and to have a tactical aspect where you can corner someone in

    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. 
     

    48 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

    We're diverging from the topic but RAW let you in theory parry a SIZ 80 dinosaur with your knife

    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. 

    • Like 1
  19. 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‚Äôre weaponless, or weapon is close to breaking¬†
    • falling debris, traps etc.
    • Like 2
  20. 7 hours ago, lordabdul said:

    The 2nd printing removed the mention of "two parries", actually, I think. But I agree the new phrasing is still confusing in the sense that it implies (unintentionally) that there are combinations of attacks and parries that are not allowed.

    Yes you’re right I misremembered the second printing correction.

  21. 8 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

    With two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry.

    Should have known better, think I may actually have written that paragraph after reading the¬†second printing corrections ūüėÖ ...regardless¬†that for me sums¬†up how best to put the ruling following Jason‚Äôs clarifications.¬†

  22. 17 minutes ago, Beoferret said:

    ) Two weapon use. RAW says that "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry (RQG, pg. 224)." I would assume that the second option means two parries at full skill rating. But the third option seems...well, how is it any different than attacking and parrying when you only have one weapon? I have my own ideas about how to "fix" this, but don't want to muddy the waters quite yet. 

    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‚Äôt clear enough either IMO - ¬†‚Äútwo parries¬†‚ÄĚ suggests a limit that isn‚Äôt 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. 
     

    • Like 1
  23. Also don’t forget breaking weapons. If you’re playing by the rules there’s a chance a parrying weapon might break in combat. Shields extend the life of a good weapon. You get unlucky with a parry and you could be weaponless. Not forgetting can be ruled to give half protection if slung over your back, and can  also defend against missile fire. 
     

    Edit: Personally I quite like these unified defensive actions. If they all share the same cumulative penalty then there’s less bookkeeping, and for me It also has a cool narrative with diminishing parry/dodge chance after the first attempt, showing the capabilities of the warrior gradually being stretched by overwhelming numbers. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...