SDLeary

How about a short lexicon? Something similar to whats found at the beginning of a lot of historical novels; Old town name -> Modern Name, Thing -> Translation. This type of device is often accompanied by a short section on pronunciation. Alternately, you could use the Chinese with the translation in parenthesis. SDLeary

What does the print schedule look like? Any idea of when we can see dead tree versions here in the States? SDLeary

If you didn't already do so, head over to the Endgame forums and put up a post. They are in the Oakland area, and the best FLGS in the area. SDLeary

EXCELLENT Alas, no. Left Coast of the States. A buddy is part owner of an FLGS, so I will alert him. SDLeary

Woo! Along with the previous titles? Rome? VVV? SDLeary

I think that its supposed to be per year based on an age of 17+. In RQ 3, for example, it was 30pts/year for each year over 17. Edit: Nope, nix that. Just went back and re-read it. It appears that something is missing. Either you get no points at normal level, or 50 at supers. SDLeary

This is a Monograph, and as such is only available from Chaosium. So far the only supplement to come out from Chaosium is Trollslayer. SDLeary

OK, that sounds cool. Are their any requirements embedded in this for the use of Divine Magic, or is it just enough to have been "accepted" by the god? Percentage thresholds or actual rolls to be "accepted"? SDLeary

Silly question. How are you going to use Alignment here? It would seem to me that you could keep Allegiance, and have them devoted to a particular deity, their alignment determining that of the character. If you kept it as Allegiance, little twists could be introduced that test the characters Allegiance to the deity, which it seems to me that Alignment would preclude or make harder. SDLeary

Reusable, yes, but only after a trip back to a holy site to pray. Priests and Runelords simply did not have to sacrifice again. This is one of the reasons that "Cult Magic" (spirit/battle magic) was also used by cults. SDLeary

I would have an Allegiance minimum to learn the inner workings of the religion to the point where you could learn the spells, but I would not use it as the casting skill. Well... strike that. See below. The thing with RQ Divine Magic is that it worked... there were no skill requirements for it, like Sorcery does in BRP. What kept it in check was the fact that it cost cold hard POW. So... Divine Magic Divine Abilities bestowed on faithful followers. The exact type and nature of Abilities vary from deity to deity. The follower must have an Allegiance (Deity) of at least 60 to be allowed to learn the spells. This is also the starting ability to cast the spell. Spell castings are restricted by the Ability (Day, Week, Month, etc.), and are paid for by POW (not PP). A vary devout follower, one with an Allegiance (Deity) of 90 or greater gains the ability to automatically cast the spell, and may cast the spell outside the normal calendrical restrictions. Spells are paid for by POW (not PP). Just a brainstorm... or braindrizzle depending on your pov. SDLeary

I'm not familiar with that, but if using Personality Traits, then perhaps something based on Religious Bonus from Pendragon. Though instead of a single bonus if all Virtues above 16, perhaps a different bonus for each Virtue above the threshold. This is also assuming something along the lines of meeting an Allegiance requirement. SDLeary

I'm not sure I would scrap it, but I'd adjust it; say an Allegiance (Deity) of 75 or 80, or perhaps a combination of POW and Allegiance. SDLeary

The way Sorcery works is certainly closer to the way Divine Magic works than Magic is, so it would be a more natural fit. As to cost, you might want to use POW as opposed to PP to restrict the use somewhat. You would also probably want to restrict spells to a certain deity. Hmmm.... I read something about Invocation somewhere recently that struck me as a good substitute.... let me see if I can find it. SDLeary EDIT: Somewhat irritating. I can't find the link now. IIRC, it was basically similar to Divine Intervention from the old days. Gods have aspects, you ask for something within that aspect, roll, loose that many POW.

Use both. Allegiance is, or can be, roughly equivalent to Passions: Loyalty (Lord) etc. Personality traits would be what would outline a particular personality, and using underlined traits would be those that they aspire to, ala Pendragon. I would suggest you explain to them what the setting is and allow them to choose appropriate values for the traits. I would then have them underline those that are valued by the Knightly Order and allow them to adjust a certain number of points. This way they can outline their characters personality and then modify towards the ideal. I would also suggest that you nick the trait pairs directly from Pendragon as they are already optimized for a chivalric setting. The pairings in the BRP book are from back in the RQ II days; a method to define the personality of NPCs. SDLeary

That sounds right, with one exception. I think that it goes way too far in the other direction. If your version is going to require a Marital Art skill, then it should be a feature of the art. That is, a successful parry that rolls both below the sword skill and the martial art should then allow the riposte. Requiring both a main skill, a martial art, and the martial art at master level is a bit much. The natural mechanism of having to make both skills with a single roll will keep the occurrence of success down until both skills are of sufficient level anyway. Riposte should be listed as an optional rule, with the requirement that it requires a marital arts skill of some type to pull off... Kung-fu, Sojitsu (spear fighting), Kenjitsu, Fencing, 2-h sword fencing, etc. SDLeary

Having gone back and read Stormbringer 4e and 5e versions of the rules, I have to say that I like both a bit more than the current proposed rule. Both are easy to follow, and NEITHER require the riposte to be conducted by the parrying weapon. In fact, 5e states: Not more than once a round... a critical parry allows the parrying character to make a riposte with the weapon (or shield) that didn't parry. So how about this. We adapt the 5e rules for general, perhaps (but not necessarily) reducing the threshold to a special rather than a critical. We then adapt the 4e version, very similar to what Jason has proposed but simpler from a bookkeeping aspect, for those at Master skill level. That is, at that level we allow riposte by the parrying weapon with the cumulative penalties for combined defense and riposte. SDLeary

Your Disthpicable! SDLeary

Trif, You might want to see if you can snag the final cover and update the front page blurb! SDLeary

I would certainly not have any issue with that. Nice and simple... and nicked! I think the issue for me at least, more than anything else, was that the proposed rule would only allow the counterattack with the weapon that had done the parrying, which is not the way most fighting OTHER than fencing of one type or another is done. SDLeary

OK, I see that my posts have been somewhat muddled (sorry, strange work things going on and I'm tired). I propose the Clarifications read: Clarifications The weapon riposting must be the characters primary weapon or a Brawl attack. When penalties for multiple parries or ripostes reduce a chance to 0%, no further actions of that type may be attempted in that combat round. Multiple parries and ripostes accumulate penalties separately. Keep attack/riposte penalties separate from parry penalties - they don't stack together. Each riposte attempt costs 1 DEX rank. If the character has not gone already in the round, his or her DEX rank is reduced by the number of riposte attempts. At 0 DEX ranks, no further actions can be attempted in that combat round. A riposte can be parried and riposted in turn, and that riposte can be parried and riposted. Keep track of penalties and DEX rank costs. SDLeary

Honestly, I can see a bandit leader who can "use a sword" and have a 91% or better chance to hit with it. That still doesn't mean he knows how to fence, just basic attack and parry. SDLeary

I think that normally they should only be made with the primary weapon, again because the off hand item, wether shield or secondary weapon, is holding the opponent open. Because this doesn't really happen with each series of strokes, I would say that it should only be allowed on a special or better, or perhaps at an initial -30% (extra action penalty?). A penalty like this would still make it possible, but only really useful to the more skilled. Now being able to riposte with your primary weapon, if you parried with it, should be an advanced technique or martial art. I can train with a rapier or arming sword, and get really really good at hitting things and damaging them, but it certainly does not mean that I know how to fence (a martial art). This is the kind of difference that you see between a farmer who might know how to use a spear well, and a warrior who has had extensive training in its use. Agreed, just need a bit more work. SDLeary

The basic outline for riposts does seem sound, with the penalties for multiple attacks to limit the scope, but... A problem that I see with this is that most weapon and shield tactics were based on responding with the primary weapon. Parry... holding attacking weapon aside, striking with primary. Much of what you see in individual combats, wether from main or off hand, are responses to what the other combatant just did. This is why combatants do disengage and circle periodically to re asses attack strategy and look for new avenues of attack (taking us to a new combat round). The only other way I see to handle this is to limit ripostes to a single attempt, regardless of skill, on a special or better parry, moving all advanced techniques from eastern and western fencing into Martial Arts type skills. SDLeary

Perhaps as advanced fighting styles via a "Martial Arts" type skill? Off weapon ripostes being one of the advantages of rolling under both skills on a parry? SDLeary