SDLeary

I've basically come to the conclusion that Opposed Rolls and Degrees of Success are not compatible with one another if you have more that 4 degrees (Critical, Normal, Failure, Fumble), and handle the potential for damage concurrently, as in Pendragon, or unless you simply go with the rolled results and kill off all the degree shifting. SDLeary

I read the passage on p.173 and it does seem changed from when we were playing with this way back. IIRC, we played it that the shifts could occur if your degree of success was above Success rather than above Failure. It really changes things if its above failure, because you could really never crit against someone who succeeds, which seems odd. In normal skill vs. skill, this heavily reduces the chances of someone pulling something brilliant out of their ass in an argument and really trumping their opponent. In combat this really comes to the fore, but in the RQ days we were dealing with AP on the defensive side rather than normal parries blocking the entire hit. I can certainly see where the OP is coming from with this argument. SDLeary

the Berserk (and Berserkergang) spells include a doubling of skill, which could lead to a second attack chance, at the expense of not being able to cast spells, dodge, or parry. Also, all CON rolls are automatically made and poisons do miniml damage. They are subject to all issues with regards to damaged hit locations, but will only die from general HP loss. When the spell ends, they are at -100 fatigue points. SDLeary

Two ways. The first, for "normal" Berserks, was simply the spell Fanaticism. This allowed control over whom to attack. The other way was with a divine spell, Berserkergang, which has all the normal effects of the Berserk divine spell, in addition to making the subject impervious to edged and pointed weapons. It is described as "spirit possession by Odin". SDLeary

This could be a superpower. Enhanced Dex, with the Power Modifier being that it only enhances Manipulation based skills. This is the way it worked in RQ. Combined skills work at the lower % of the two skills. Certain cultures had a skill like you describe, that allowed a single skill for the combined action. Grazelanders and Pentans come to mind. You can also use the superpowers to craft some edges, and use the powers buying method listed, remembering to add appropriate limitations. SDLeary

Many of these are character types and not really abilities. Gadgeteer? Beast Master? Character types with various skills. Mighty Blow? This could be a temporary high strength, invoked via a LoN Ki-like ability or spell/superpower mechanic, though not called a spell or power. Now, in order to achieve what you might see for these types of "abilities", you might have to be running in a Heroic or Epic type setting with lots of skill points and power levels, but it is certainly do-able within the framework of the rules. SDLeary

Sorry. Not with the image, but with the actual act of printing. It finally came out but it took forever, and that on a fairly beefy postscript3 printer. I was using Acrobat Pro 8 on OS X 10.5, and I was duplexing also (in printer). SDLeary

Has anyone printed this out and run into a problem at page 15? SDLeary

Very true. This seems to be the most common number based on experience. I've also seen Spell/5 and Spell/6, just nowhere near as often. The games around here all seem to be of the low level, gritty type. Spell modifications are always needed. Even with RAW. ;-) SDLeary

Thats been my take on it. Makes a lot of sense when making something permanent; essentially an enchantment. Spell /10? SDLeary

I understand the effect, but how are you working with it mechanically. Is Persistance a skill/art? While Free INT is reduced by X for the duration of the spell, are there any penalties for trying to cast a Scene spell as a Persistant one? Difficult roll perhaps? In your example above, the impression is that the mage simply states that he's going to do it, player rolls for normal success vs the spell skill. I love the concept of this. For something like this though, the cost should probably be more than a single point of POW. Imagine a Damage Boost 10, Timeless, and it only costs 1 POW. Something along the lines of a Warding would be handled how? Instant (actually cast when tripped)? Persistent (mage keeps active)? A mage being able to keep a spell active is great, but I'm not sure it would actually be a replacement for Duration in all instances. SDLeary

How would one make a Scene spell Persistent? Or would there be different spells in this case? Timeless spells should also require some sort of Ritual, and thus time, to invoke. SDLeary

Damage Boosting was generally the spell of choice, but applied to one of the weapons of a fighter type. Palsy was the spell of choice for the Wizards own defense as his weapons skills were sub par; in the first long campaign at least. SDLeary

I'm not sure this is really the case, though YMMV. I've been in a couple of campaigns where the Wizards were very effective adventurers, and were not bad in combat, though were certainly not the mobile artillery from that other game. I think it has more to spells chosen and creativity on the part of the player than anything else. Palsy or Venom in combat can do wonders. Also, in one campaign we ignored the restrictions weapons training by magic types, so in that game the Wizard could defend themselves if nessesary. This was always our groups biggest issue. While Free-INT should be used to limit what a Wizard has available at hand, its somewhat odd as a limiter to manipulation. The usual fix seems to be Spell Skill /10 for manipulation ability, though I have also heard of Spell Skill /5. The 85% Palsy Nick mentioned above could be manipulated by 9 points. I would also suggest that in BRP we might suggest this could be manipulated further, but at a Difficult chance. SDLeary

I would say that it would normally be the "player whos turn it is"; who I would assume would be the active participant in most cases. At least thats the way we did it in a long ago, very long, RQ2/3 campaign. SDLeary

The info you request would really depend on where you are running. The Gloranthan Spirit Plane is much different that a "real world" description would be. Following is for the "real world". Ars Magicas Shamans supplement (written for 3ed), and the Faeries (revised) supplement. Both available as PDFs. Shamans has good descriptions of the Otherworld and a proposed structure, with both Near Lands and Far Lands and the types of beings to be encountered and where. Also, a much better description of what a shaman is. The fact that they aren't really spell casters and that almost all they do is spirit based. This is good to give to players, because I have often noticed that Shaman in RQ are often played like Wizards from DnD... a mobile artillery piece. It also gives good ideas for spirit interactions and spirit quests. A word of warning though... This IS a WW product, and the oWoD influence is readily apparent in description of various "Traditions". Faeries takes the tac of following various Magi in their encounters with the Fae. These can easily be interpreted as Spirit Quests of one form or another depending on how you are forming your Otherworld. Another interesting resource is Chaosium's/Green Knight's "Beyond the Wall" for Pendragon. Specifically the sections on Heathenism and Spirits. As for non-game related materials the Mabinogi and the Tain are really really good sources of the Otherworld and Spirit Quests. If playing in Glorantha, I have to punt. I've never really been satisfied by their separate interpretations of Spirit, Divine, and Wizardly planes. SDLeary

I eagerly await your report of a mutiny! SDLeary

OOPS! Sorry for the confusion! SDLeary

Don't feel bad. I felt the same way when I heard from Newts podcasts that Jeff Richard had handed out a "Glorantha Pendragon" last year I felt the same. ROME though will at least make it to this side of the pond. SDLeary

Not surprising... I live in California. The only ice we have is thin! ;-) As stated above if it is a PC vs PC contest, then the player whose turn it is, is the attacker. SDLeary

Are you using Preview on a Mac? If so, try Adobe Reader... seems to render ok there. SDLeary

Yes, but advantage should always be given to the PC. If said ravening monster is a PC, then he would be the "attacker". If an NPC, then the advantage should go to the PC, and their defensive skill should be the "attacking" skill, causing the monsters sneak to be diminished, if the players roll is successful. Now, this SHOULD be modified. A penalty imposed if someone is not actively pursuing the task. If the PC is not actively listening or spotting, impose a penalty and allow them to roll first. If they succeed, then it makes the NPCs task more difficult. It certainly could be, but then so could hiding or sneaking away with the treasure be considered defensive. Said ravening monster doesn't want to be discovered. If the PC is on guard duty in camp or on the ramparts, then the assumption is that they are active in their attempts to spot and listen. Now, middle of the night, fatigued, end of duty... that might call for the imposition of a penalty on the PCs SDLeary

I have to disagree with this. "Attacking" is the player character who's turn it is, regardless of the action. "Defending" is the player character who is the object of the "attack". If its an NPCs turn, unless it is a major NPC, then I would still consider them defending, whether it is the GMs "turn" or not. How would this work for the hide/sneak scenario (npc being sneaky)? The PC would roll their perception first and then allow the level of success to dictate the difficulty for the NPC. SDLeary

If you have access to it, InDesign is very very nice; especially if you also have photoshop and illustrator. If not, then you might want to try Scribus. I've never used it, but heard good things about it. You CAN use something like Word, but I've always had trouble with the way it handles frames. SDLeary P.S. The Character sheets I posted in the downloads section were all done in InDesign

[brainstorming] If I'm reading the book right, STR and Skill in missile weapons are already linked (along with DEX). Not having the requisite STR for a bow (or weapons in general) reduces your chance to hit; presumably because you can not hold it back as long, etc. The trick is determining if we should apply additional damage based on stronger draw weight bows. Its minimal, but how about a +1 per die of Damage Bonus, if the bow was crafted for the individual and not an Arsenal Bow (see below). Thus, most (within human/pc norms) would have a +1 or +2 to the weapon damage, or in rare cases where they can hit, a -1 or 0 for those of lower STR. Now... conversely, I would say that the "damage bonus" would go away at medium range and beyond. Thrown missile weapons would retain the 1/2 Damage Bonus. Of course these minimal increases are much more effective if you are using hit locations. Arsenal Bow = mass produced bow for large battles. In order to produce large quantities of weapons for their masters, bowyers pay little attention to the quality of the weapon beyond the basics. Thus, they are generally inferior to those made specifically for an archer. Arsenal Bows only have a damage based on the core die of the weapon. Thus the Arsenal version of a self bow would only do 1d6 rather than 1d6+1; the same being true for other types of bow. The bow would break on a fumble. If the player says he wants to get the "normal" damage out of the weapon, he can do it, but the fumble chance doubles. [/brainstorming] Agreed, you just have to decide how much variation. I can go see if I can find my copy of the old Palladium book on missile weapons if you want a crack at conversion! ;-) SDLeary