karask

On 5/24/2017 at 1:55 PM, Prime Evil said:

I might be tempted to do a custom version with a few of my house rules...

I would love an editable beautified version of the SRD rules!!!  I am struggling to find time to do so myself (primarily to share with my players!)... so I would appreciate it if you can share!

Cheers!

I recently bought print copies of OQ Deluxe, Crucible of Dragons and Savage North. I am preparing a CoD campaign. The content of CoD is exactly the kind of content I need to run a campaign; it gives me all the tools and some story ideas and I can weave the plot as I wish... (one criticism of CoD is that there are a lot of typos!)

OQ is simple yet powerful and I want to convince my team (via demonstration) that it is the rulebook they need for their campaigns ;-)

Hi all,

We created a character sheet in excel for our gaming purposes. It is perfectly printed in 2 A4 pages and could be used as is, as an empty sheet (although, admittedly, not very fancy).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mxuRkrRG7Bhj2l6yY26d5kbwcZrpxJ8t_h_QETQlusY/edit?usp=sharing

But if you fill in the characteristics (and e.g. race) you get all the attributes and skills auto-filled in. I have also added weapons and armor and might do ENC when I have some time.

I intended to make it a web page but did it in excel to save time at the end but as our game progresses I might work on that too.

Let me know what you think.

Cheers!

Thank you for your time Sunwolfe!

Ah.. my mistake. It makes sense to look at the actual page... not the pdf page :-)

Regarding Ready Weapon (60) (I re-read the text) I think it means the full round. It is actually more explicit a bit later where it says:

"Sheathing one weapon and drawing another takes two Combat Rounds,, as does readying two weapons"

I will actually rule it to take a single action (like divine) and if you have 100+% you can split and even attack at the same round. If you can do it with divine spells I feel it is fair. Again at least half of % has to go to unsheathe the weapon.

I will see how it works in practice (not much experience with OQ) and decide.

By the way, why does the attack split if >100% does not apply for ranged weapons?  For balancing reasons? 

Let me know what you think.

Cheers

Multi-posted by mistake and deleted.

Multi-posted by mistake and deleted.

Thank you for the reply Sunwolfe!

4 hours ago, Sunwolfe said:

Greetings Karask:

As I rule it in my games...

I don't believe provision has been made in the RAW for splitting magical attacks--for a Divine magic user this would be problematic anyway considering they are "...automatically successful" when they cast as it's really the gods doing it for them. I believe the ruling was making the point that it only takes a short moment to "cast" (call down) a divine spell, emphasizing the point (130). 

I believe the case might be made for a 100%+ Religion (Own) priest or a 100%+ Mage to split their skill for the casting of multiple attack spells similarly to Close Combat masters who can split their skill and attack twice (63). That would fall into the realm of house-ruling.

That is what I assumed as well. I will probably use this but with at least half of the skill to be used as part of the divine casting. i.e. if 120% ..at least 60% will be lost for the spell casting (to be refined in practice).

4 hours ago, Sunwolfe said:

As far a the B.M. ranged thing goes, notice that the description says, "...allows the target..." (109). Presumably this means that a caster can cast Vomit or Extra Defense on someone up to "...POWx3 in meteres..." away (100).

But the distance for B.M. is always POWx3 in meters if applicable. You can cast Avoidance up to POWx3 meters as well, right? That is why I assume it is a typo.

Another question. When starting Sorcerers or Priests the rules say +40 to the appropriate skill but it doesn't say what to remove to "pay" for that extra 40 (which other PCs won't benefit from). How to you balance that?   (Just asking... probably I won't allow sorcery/divine spells at the beginning)

Another clarification.

Say Alice and Bob are fighting. Alice has 15 Int and Bob 10 Dex.

Alice goes first and casts a spell (any kind) first. If I understand correctly the rules she finishes the spell before Bob can act. 

At 10 Bob acts and try to hit (Alice can attempt a dodge).

Since Alice plays before Bob.. will she always cast the spell uncontested (other than the battle magic skill) ?

Thanks

Some more clarifications on the magic systems.

Divine magic: Only a single combat action (so movement and reaction are available)
Text: "Divine Magic spells always take only a single combat Action to cast and takes place on the INT order of the character casting the spell."

Why does divine magic say "single combat action" ?   When can you have two combat actions ? Does it mean when a skill is >100% and you split it to 2+ attacks ?

Also some Battle magic spells have the "ranged" trait. The description does not say anything that helps on range so the default range of battle magic takes precedence. Why do spells like "Extra defense" and "Vomit" have that trait? Typo?

Cheers

Ah... I read it the first time but I replied the day after and I forgot about it !

The way I understood the rules the only difference (other than providing clearer description!) is that you have a penalty depending on the grapple action attempted. Very interesting... I think I will see how it goes in practice with the default rule and consider it later.

Thanks again for you time!

Hi Sunwolfe!

Thank you for the feedback! I like OQ for its simplicity as well. Are the numbers in parenthesis pages? If yes, I cannot find them either in OQ Deluxe or the OQ Basic. 

1) I don't have hit locations either but in general we keep wounds separately. But I prefer what you suggested as well (the i. option). Just once and automatic.

2) Losing only combat action is fair.

3) I am considering the natural weapon to be one size smaller than the creature... but it would depend on the creature and the table helps!

4) Agreed!

Cheers!

How do you rule the following scenarios:

1) Healing skill off-combat.
a. Should healing a minor wound (1d6) be automatic (the rules say you shouldn't really roll of combat but it seems quite powerful)
b. If the wounded has 2 minor wounds can the healer heal both separately ?

I am considering:
i. Allow a) but only once
ii. Allow all wounds to be treated separately without a skill roll but heal 1hp per wound (or something like that).

2) I see that in the rules, Ready Weapon is a full CR !!  This seems to much. Unsheathing a sword seems much easier/faster and one might even do it as part of his movement... no?

I am considering:
i. Unsheathing requires losing movement
ii. Unsheathing requiress movement and action (so you are only left with a reaction)

3) Let's say a troll (size 26) attacks a human (size 11) with its claw. What size is the claw considered? What if it was a dragon attacking?
i. I am considering some kind of simple table for specifying natural weapon sizes based on creature size...

4) If one successfully parries a claw attack with a shield will the troll take the shield's bash damage (as it would if the defender was using a weapon) ?
i. I am considering no...

What do you guys think?

Thank you

On 2/12/2017 at 7:13 PM, Sunwolfe said:

Greetings Newt and sundry:

I'd like to ask for some clarification concerning the process of Unarmed Combat and Grappling. The issue concerns the proscribed "...one Combat Action...and one Combat Reaction...per combat round." I offer four scenarios, and while I'm not necessarily seeking comment on all four, I do hope some one can explain step-by-step how a grappling round proceeds. Is it an exception to normal combat procedure?

Thanks in advance,

Hi Sunwolfe,

I see you point in general but I think the rules kind of work rather well without messing with the combat rationale (that much!).

On 2/12/2017 at 7:13 PM, Sunwolfe said:

Scenario one: Wherein Bob the Samurai gets two chances "...to dish out the damage!"

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob too succeeds and with his parry inflicts 1d8 worth of damage because Bob's katana is a "...crafted weapon..." Bummer, Gary.

To add insult to injury Bob now takes his ACTION and swipes at Gary with his katana.

Ninja Gary, however, fast guy that he is, takes his REACTION in the form of a successful dodge.

End of scenario one: all parties got one A & R each and Gary is wondering why he chose to grapple with an unsympathetic samurai in the first place.

Agreed and quite expected to happen like this. The ninja should be sneakier  

On 2/12/2017 at 7:13 PM, Sunwolfe said:

Scenario two: Wherein Bob the Samurai objects to the "...injustice of it all!"

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS.

Gary does not do any damage at this point: "Instead [Gary the Ninja] opposes his UCS to [Bob the Samurai's] UCS, in a roll similar to an opposed skill test" (58). Gary succeeds, "...and immediately follows up on this success by Throwing, Inflicting pain or immobilis[ing] the target"(58).

Gary scratches his head, "So I have to roll my Unarmed skill again? Didn't I win?"

"Yeah! It's like he gets another ACTION...where's my ACTION?" demands Bob.

"Right. Sorry" mumbles the GM once again and turning back to his reference sees that Bob may "...attempt to break free or may attempt to turn the tables on..." Gary. "Go ahead and try to Break Free with a UCS. If you succeed and Gary fails then you will have "...succeeded in breaking free--"

"Wait a bloody minute," Gary interjects. "Didn't I win earlier and he fail? Didn't I grapple him?!"

Gary and Bob rise from the table and, on the living room floor, begin acting out the now stalled round while the GM mumbling curses frantically re-reads the grappling rules.

End of scenario two...and the game. All parties didn't seem to get an A & R each.

It is quite risky to initiate a grapple so I think it is fair to consider a grapple action as part of the initial attack (even though it is another action). Bob may protest freely though...  

On 2/12/2017 at 7:13 PM, Sunwolfe said:

Scenario three: Wherein Bob the Samurai accepts the situation but thinks "...it were crap."

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS.

Bob and Gary now oppose each other with UCAs; Gary succeeds and Bob again fails.

Gary applies the Inflict Pain option, and Bob takes damage.

Bob asks when he can take his ACTION, and the GM explains he already did in his opposed roll.

With a raised eye-brow, Bob nods and asks politely what he can do to break Gary's hold?

The GM explains politely in return that he may attempt to Break Free once per round, which he already did just after he failed to counter Gary's attack.

"Hmmm..." says Bob as he checks off hit-points. He then turns to his smart-phone and begins checking his messages.

End of scenario three...and Bob's interest. Gary of course, can't wait until next round. Did all parties get an A & R each?

I don't think that the grapple counts as an action for Bob. In every CR the two 'grapplers' have one action (which is always opposed). Both will get their turn to break free or inflict pain or immobilize.

On 2/12/2017 at 7:13 PM, Sunwolfe said:

Scenario Four: Wherein Bob the Samurai accepts but makes an observation

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS.

Bob and Gary now oppose each other with UCAs; Gary succeeds and Bob again fails.

Gary applies the Inflict Pain option, and Bob takes damage.

As Bob checks off the damage, the GM offers that, "...you'll be able to attempt to Break Free next round..."

Rather at his combat order if Bob hasn't played yet.

On 2/12/2017 at 7:13 PM, Sunwolfe said:

Bob nods, "This grapple thing...it sure isn't like Close Combat: he acts; I react; I act; he reacts..."

End of scenario four. All parties did not get an A & R each nor will they get them next round...Gary still has control, he will inflict damage (an action); Bob will try to Break Free (a reaction) and the round will end free or not.

The above illustrates how I understood grapple works when I read the rules and it makes sense (in a kind of abstract way which is what OQ offers in several rules).

Even if I misunderstood the rules, this is how I would play it in my campaigns.

What do you think?

Cheers