Psullie

4 minutes ago, styopa said:

RosenMcStern's comment points directly to the age-old problem that RQ players have faced in RQ2 and 3: that at high levels of proficiency on all sides, and in particular high levels of armor and defense, combatants become astonishingly brittle.

This is because at that point when their defenses fail to work - ie that crit that they didn't crit-dodge, etc - the damage taken isn't just a little bit, it's a blowout.

Thus the 'de-scaling' of attack levels of success by levels of dodge works well (we did it too) because it at least turns that huge step into a bit of a slope.

personally I like the high proficiency problem in that it reflects heroic combat - opposing sides nether gaining advantage until a single master stroke finishes everything. but that's just me 

hi ragnagand, welcome onboard

the parry and weapon damage topic was well thrashed out in the Cults of Chaos forum - hopefully the admin will open the discussion to the public now that the QS is available - and the consensus was that as this is a bronze age setting weapon damage was a big part of combat, repairing and maintaining your kit would be a ongoing activity,

also as the QS is heavily abridged from the actual rules, special results such as impale were omitted for simplicity. 

Critical = ignores armour, maximum damage (not doubled)

Special = double damage, less armour

Yes, it is possible to do more damage with a special than a critical. 

From the Optional Adventurer pdf:

Once a corporeal being is engaged in spirit combat, they may not attempt any skill or engage in physical melee combat with a separate physical melee target without first succeeding at with a roll of INT×5. Corporeal beings engaged in spirit combat may cast a spell if they succeed at a concentration check. Spirits may cast spells if they possess that ability and do so in the same manner as other combatants. 

Does this mean that an adventurer can melee attack their discorporate assailant and engage in Spirit Combat in the same round without the INT test?

Spell casting Spirits do not have to make an INT test to target other targets?

Do discorporate Shamans count as Spirits with regard to casting spells? And can a shaman travel in the spirit world to a middle world location, become visible (or forced to become visible via Visibility) and cast spells etc.

39 minutes ago, Psychman said:

Thanks for that. I began to piece it together as I wrote the post, but clarification is always good. The same with the same spell? So the first Disruption would be on SR2, for example, the next on 7?

Yep

18 minutes ago, Psychman said:

Reading through the Quickstart, I was puzzled by the Strike Rank modifiers for spells. Preparing a spell adds 5 and preparing a new spell also adds 5. How does this work? The text also says that while casting a spell just uses the Dex strike rank magic points in excess of 1 but subsequent spells need 5 SRs to be prepared, even if the same spell. 

I am unclear on what this means. Is a "subsequent spell" the next spell, however long since the previous spell, or just if that spellcasting is started in the same round? Also, with "spell preparation, how many can be "prepared" at one time? 

Generally you are assumed to have already prepared your first spell. So with a DEX SR of 2, you could cast Strength (2) on SR 3 (first MP cost is free of SR) then prepare a second spell taking you to SR 8 and cast Mobility (1) on an 8, 5 more SR will take you to 13 so you couldn't cast spell number 3

Rolling over SR's to the next round is typically avoided for simplicity, however some very complicated spells could take more than 12SR to finish, in this case the spell will trigger in the appropriate round. The games master could also suggest circumstances where the caster in not prepared, and their first spell would DEX +5 SR.

Usually only one spell at a time, but there are exceptions when one spell effects another like Extension.

Spirt Combat!

8 hours ago, styopa said:

FWIW in the QS rules Medium Shield and Broadsword have the same AP. :|

Yes but when a shield Parries it absorbs all damage, your broadsword only current APs with the balance gong to the arm

8 hours ago, styopa said:

Which would imply that the base skill disparity of 05% vs 20% is not nearly enough, and that skill GAIN rates also would vary by weapon.  It certainly doesn't take a lifetime to be an ass-kickingly awesome archer in RQ. (Or any system, which is why there is little to no real choice between bows and crossbows in most games. 

I think this raises the whole issue of cultural weapons etc. By Tudor England all Yeomen were required to attend regular archery from the age of 12 or so. In the tower of London Henry V's (IIRC) armour is on display, he was very very broad shouldered due to many years, since childhood, swinging broadswords, axes etc. 

If your character comes from a culture of archers, then sure. But if not then buying NEW skills should be very costly. I think think this would also reinforce cultural bias towards certain equipment and why even when better technology comes along they are slow to adapt (Samurai during the shogunate, French Gendarmes during the Wars of Religion etc.)

5 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

I can't access that page, but I have a great deal of trouble buying the former claim.  If you're talking about single-fire five times in 2-1/2 seconds, there's no way in hell anyone could pull it off.  Maybe a one-shot in some kind of 'V' formation.

Hi Yelm's Light - For your reference this quote is from: Genghis Khan and the Mongol War Machine By Chris Peers

good points

Just a note: To some extent bows were replaced due to heavier armour worn by knights. But the main reasons bows were replaced was because unskilled people are cheaper. It took a lifetime to train a bowman, 30 minutes to train a musketeer, or crossbowman. Even with slower reload etc. a general could simply put more on the battle field.

RQ has always taken the approach that Shields were just weapons that were better at parrying. And so the 1x parry & 1x attack = shield & sword, or 2x attacks (you could hit someone with the shield) or 2x parries. RQ3 was much more restrictive. 

I think the simplification with RQG is that while you don't need a shield it's pretty useful: higher damage resistance and protection. With the damage breaking rules using your rapid to parry the attacks may not be a wise approach in the long run. Also a main gauche (a renaissance anachronism in Glorantha) wouldn't be much use against a Great Troll's war club...

40 minutes ago, theotherrhialto said:

However, in the 1980 RQ Chaosium Rulebook by Steve Perrin and Ray Turney (I guess it is considered as RQ1)

The 1980 edition is RQ2. RQ1 is 1978 and credited to Steve Perrin & Friends. We don't mention the 'goose much in these parts (much like Ducks really :-) )

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

For example - Working on the assumption that a single weapon user can't both parry and attack on the same SR - if my character wishes to tactically delay his/her attack to occur later in the melee round, so that it occurs on the exact same SR as his/her opponent is to attack, with the intention of forcing the opponent to either loose their parry, or loose the attack. 

You could declare holding off an attack to coincide with another's. RQ2 has that higher DEX goes first, if equal then both attack are rolled. Risky gambit

2 hours ago, DSC1978 said:

Greetings all,

I registered to this forum just because of this thread.

 

Welcome on board, more voices the better

Like you I'm a long time player, still have my RQ1 laying about, and keen to see a nice tidy new game

I'd be happy with either view as long as it does what it sets out to do. Games design is a two step job - decide on the point of view, then build the mechanic that reflects that view. With that in mind I did some googling and discovered some interesting facts...

Modern sports bows have a draw weight of 40 - 50 pounds. The English longbow at Agincourt had a 100lb draw weight, some later Chinese bows has draws of 125lb+ Native American bows has a draw of 45lb, the Ancient Egyptian bows also around 40lb. This is impotent as it relates to effort and effectiveness. Given RQ's ancient setting lets zone in on the 40lb, comparable to todays bows. Some interesting info here

Bernard Cornwell in the back of Agincourt suggest 15 aimed shots per minute, other sources range from 6 - 12 (8 was expected by Tudor times) - these remember are 100lb+ bows! 

At the time of Genghis Khan Mamaluk Archers (40lb recurve bow) were able to 'discharge five arrows in two and half seconds' if stationary and at the ready, mounted archers could manage 2 per ten seconds. source

The key difference is purpose, the longbow is a long range support weapon, the recurve bow a close range skirmish weapon. 

As far as I can see RQ models itself after the lighter bows from the ancient world. Short range, fast ROF and low penetration. Hence the 2 shots per round. If RQ was medieval I'd imagine Longbows and their ilk would be limited to 1 per round

I'm only throwing this out there to help frame the 'bow rate of fire' thread. If I'm wrong with my assumptions happy to hear otherwise.

Also I know that this raises the issue then why can't hand-to-hand get multiple attacks as long as they have the SR, I guess that boils down to the point of view of Jeff and Co. and all we can do is offer reasoned suggestions...

cheers

you are correct, the initial Enthrall is a straight POW v POW resistance roll. Poor Varanik didn't stand a chance against her POW 25.

But it was his subsequent roll at POWx3 to break the charm that snapped his mind, rolling 98+  

There is also writers fiat that accounts for anything that makes a good story...

For me I see SR as the earliest that you can act. If you declare during your statement of intent that you wish delay an  attack to SR 7, 9 or whatever then fine. However when players wish to hold off an attack pending another SR based action, like if waiting for a spell to trigger then this is applied to their DEX & SIZ SR. They must add their Weapon SR to the triggered event. So if my fighter with a base SR of 5 with +2 for the weapon could declare an attack anywhere from 7 - 12. If he says after X happens and X happens on 7 then the soonest he can act is 9

but this is just my interpretation 

I think this will really help firm up the importance of abiding by cult practices - all to often players pay lip service to their gods just to get the 'really cool spells'. 

It also underlines, in a tangible way, why cults establish temples in key locations or establishing a mission in a remote locale to act as a 'spiritual refuelling point' for deeper exploration 

31 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Having thought about this, even as a bit of a Grognard, I question whether we still need the resistance table along with the new opposed rolls? I'm guessing there must be a good reason to be using both? 

For passive resistance tests. Lifting a SIZ 20 rock for example, with a STR of 15 you'd have a 25% of success, same with POW v POW for spell effects where it is only the caster who rolls the dice.

52 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Nicely fitted in  

So having an arm wrestle ( like you do) would be two active opposing forces requiring an opposed roll instead of resistance table? 

Yep, however opposed rolls are just for skills, passions and runes (basically anything that is measured as a percentile except combat) while the Resistance Table is just for Characteristics, STR, POW, SIZ etc. So if you had an Arm Wrestle Skill it would be an Opposed Roll, if was just STR v STR based it would be roll on the Resistance Table. 

Just now, styopa said:

IMO arm wrestling could be STR vs STR on the resist table.  If it's a player vs NPC, probably how I'd do it.

If it was two PCs, I'd go for MGF because everyone rolling dice competitively is more fun, which would be the opposed roll (probably using STRx5).

Me too, but I always wondered if you should go STRx5 v STRx5 or each rolling on the Resistance Table: e.g.: 10 v 13 = 50% v 65% or 35% v 65% 

the strait x5 seems fairer though the later seem more win keeping wth the rules.... ???

On the topic of Rune Magic, does anyone else see Lock as user powered? Lock at STR equal to Magic Points spent. 

As most humans have a STR of 11 - 12 you need a STR 2-3 lock just to get on the Resistance table, with at least 10 MP cost before to reach a 50/50 chance. That seem like a costly spell that on average only works half the time unless you are willing to drop ~12+ MP 

2 STR per MP spent or starting off with STR 10 would be fairer considering the Rune Point cost.

13 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Two questions:

Extension: it notes "Affects the duration of another spell" - in RQ2, this was specifically a battle/spirit magic spell.  Here it does not say, so does that imply that it can also extend rune spells?

Earth Elementals:  one of my players noted that the earth elemental can create a pit the size of its volume (e.g. small = 3x3x3, so at 27 cu.m. a fairly good-sized pit).  Yet it also says that in combat it can only create a depression to grab a foe roughly 1 meter deep.  These appear inconsistent.

Extension was also a Rune Spell, effecting Battle Magic and Rune Magic differently. I read the QS as referring to Spirt Magic (consistent with RQ2's Extension 1, 2 & 3.  

While I'm all for streamlining the architecture by removing redundant mechanics I'm inclined to agree with the differing approach. I think comparing hand-to-hand combat with missilery is akin to comparing apples to oranges 

I feel that in combat, regardless of your fighting style, a significant part of you is planning on how to stay alive. Archery, once you've made the call not to dodge incoming fire, is significantly more attack focused.

I would add the caveat though that archery within an enemies melee reach be treated as melee for the purpose of multiple attacks, and likewise any situation where a combatant can act with impunity gain the benefit of missile style multiple attacks.

2 hours ago, AlbertG said:

I have a question about Movement. Ok, it's not as much a question as a statement that I did not understand a word of the rules for movement in page 8.

For starters, how does the Move of the character play into this? I see no reference at all.

Why does a character get to move 8 movement units in a melee round, each one adding 1 to the SR, if he may have more spare SR? If an unengaged character starts moving at SR 2, does he stop at SR 9 after spending the 8 SR for the 8 movement units? Why not keep moving the rest of his SR?

 

First off there is a typo in the QS, it should read 'considered to be 3 meters in combat' not 1 meter. 

Move is the basis for how far one can travel and how many move action they get. Humans have a Move of 8, which is 24 meters per round. the Rock Lizards have a Move of 4, which would limit their movement to 12 meters per round If an adventurer moves more than half their Move it takes up the entire round. So a human could run 12 meters, adding 4SR and still act in the round. Moving any further occupies the whole round. The rock lizard can only move 6 meters, 2SR and still engage, 

All movement is 3 meters per 1 Move, just that faster creatures get more move allowance per round. 

4 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I think it's perfectly fair to ask questions and make comments about the way a game is being developed. This is a public forum isn't it? I thought that was the purpose.

That's why I asked my initial question -- to gather some more information about the new system. But everything I've heard makes it sound like it's exactly the same as RQ2 battle magic, and I think that any distinct changes would be shown in the Quickstart. If they're not being tested now, I doubt they're going to be in a book released by this Christmas.

The flavor comes from the way you apply the mechanic (e.g., d100 or d20 rolls) to the game world. I won't repeat my arguments that I gave in my previous post, since this debate doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

I had hoped that Runequest will represent Gloranthan magic with a structured approach rather than leaving it simply to the GM to narrate as you suggest.

I'll be interested to read the Quickstart pdf on July 1st.

Hi kaydet, I wasn't questioning your questions, just stating the limits of my knowledge on the matter. You are right to ask, which is why I started this thread in the first place. I think we share the same concerns about how the different systems will be handled. 

My understanding of Sprit Magic is drawn from RQ2 and what little is revealed in the QS. I think it unfair to judge the new system based on that. 

As for HQG, everything uses the same mechanic - the flavour comes with the cult descriptions etc which from what we hear from Jeff in this forum are also included in the the new edition. I imagine that the Shaman's +9 benefit from using a charm once per session will have similar flavour element in the new edition considering the other elements already borrowed from HQG - but this is just a guess. 

All I was suggesting was, like HQG, the simplicity of the system enables adaptation for flavour - much like what Cults of Prax did for RQ2.

1 hour ago, kaydet said:

And that would be great for a game like Heroquest, where the whole point is to be vague and narrative-minded.

But this is Runequest, which to my mind should be mechanically simulating the workings of Glorantha as accurately and precisely as it can.

When Heroquest has more detailed and complex rules covering the handling and interaction of spirits, I think there's something wrong.

One of the appealing facets of Glorantha is that there is no single modality for the way any magic works, therefore they cannot be a all encompassing mechanic unless you are Mostly). Spirit Magic has always been the simplest form so as to encompass many interpretations. 

Unless you actually want dead chickens on your table, most role-playing games boil down to dice or cards. How you as games master interpret the dice rolling is your call. When your shaman reaches into the under world to summon a lost ancestor so as to study the auras of this around him could be a complicated ritual involving rattles, dancing and sacrifice or just a momentary focus on an inscribed fibula. Either ways he's just cast Second Sight and the player rolls some dice