icebrand

19 minutes ago, Kloster said:

 My personal experience as a fencer was that I was quite a good attacker (probably above 90%), but not a good defender (around 60%). I lost during a french national championship finals with ... 0 points because my opponent parried all my attacks, and I could parry only some of his.

So, doesn't he guy had 120% and lowered your skill work then? 

My experience is in judo so i know nothing about swords, but i literally never found anyone that was easy to throw but good at throwing.

12 minutes ago, Kloster said:

If you feel a rule to be bad, do as I do: Change it. I personally reverted to RQ3 combat.

I honestly think RQ3 aged badly, unlike CE wich, lets be honest, always had better gameplay.

In my campaign we use CE rules with rune points and 1 skill for weapons (more realistic anyway, who learns to attack and not defend? And if you keep the %s closer, is it really needed?)

We also ditched the SR system for DEX ranks from BRP, because they are just faster. We only use SR the first round of melee combat, and then we use DEX ranks.

Whats appealing to you about RQ3 system that made you go back to it?

37 minutes ago, Kloster said:

In fact, it is not difficult to parry with a sword ... if you don't attack with it. What is difficult is parrying with your attack weapon (or, if you want, attack with the weapon you just parried with). Having never fought with a sword in each hand, I can't say anything about real world 2 sword fighting.

In fact, the one time i fenced i found it extremely hard to parry, or even dodge, but maybe that was because my opponent was a panam-class fencer maybe 🤣

After "dying" 15+ times i finally managed to parry an easily telegraphed, side sweep than I'm pretty sure wasn't even a fencing move and just for fun. 

3 minutes ago, Kloster said:

No. Even with a shield, you pay attention to everybody in range. What changes is the quantity and speed of movement you have to perform to stay protected.

What I understand with 'Unshielded side' is the right or left side where there is no shield. Of course, when you have no shield, both are unshielded, but front and back are not side, so are not unshielded side.

As a GM, i don't consider the back side shielded, and do consider the front and shield side shielded.

And you can bet every single person without a shield gets their opponent a +10% attack bonus.

And when my hypothetical players say "hey dude that rule sucks" i say NO, IS THIS GAME THAT SUCKS!!! and i throw the books out the window (and they land over someone you dislike) and pick up RQG books from the shelf and then there's some 80s hair metal riff and and grandma (who was bringing cookies to the table) starts clapping.

28 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

No. When you use a shield, you give less attention to those on the shield side, and focus more on those on the weapon side.

When you don't have a shield, you spread your focus/attention around more.

 

That would work if the shielded side gave a -10% attack chance, but what you propose gives an mechanical advantage to melee weapons at parrying, a thing shields are renowned to be better at.

Plus, the rule is quite clear it says "unshielded side". A fighter with a one/two 1h weapons or a 2h weapon doesn't have a shielded side, making all their sides unshielded.

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

 

I don't think that that is a reasonable conclusion.

And a sword being better at parrying than a shield (no "attacker on the other side" thing somehow is????

28 minutes ago, Ludo Bagman said:

In RQ3 (transformed to a shaman) she charged just 10 lunars for a potent magic healing ritual.

Good old RQ3 devaluation 😂

8 minutes ago, g33k said:

Realize that RQ combat was originally designed (back in the 1970's) by one of the founding members of the SCA -- Society for Creative Anachronism -- who liked to armor-up and bash each other with medieval-themed safety weapons.  "weird from an rpg but pretty realistic" is ENTIRELY within the RQ play-style.  🙂

 

We know!!! It's amazing. I always overlooked the shield thing, and i think that small 10% really makes wonders for shield use!!!.

Right now we playing CE and i rather give shields a small (+5 medium +10 large) defense bonus instead?

3 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Everybody that is not just in front of the defender, yes

Welcome to GM from hell, hosted by yours truly, Icebrand; today's topic:

"Every side is an unshielded side if you don't carry a shield"

My players should be so happy we don't play RQ3 lol 🤣🤣🤣 

We use 1 skill too (houseruled into CE) because it's faster, easier and cooler (though less realistic)

1 minute ago, Kloster said:

RQ3 was +10% if attacking from rear or unshielded side.

Which implies literally everyone gets the flanking bonus if you don't use a shield.

Which is weird from an rpg but pretty realistic if you ask me, since supposedly shields are several times better than parrying with a weapon!

21 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Flanking isn't a thing in RQ, apart from the multiple defence rolls penalty.

RQCE gives a +20% bonus for flanking and RQ3 gave... I think 10?

You are invisible and attack an enemy, what are the bonuses for this?

Success in move silently and unengaged opponent:

1- Melee attack from the front?

2- flanking melee attack?

3- 1&2 with ranged attacks?

What happens if you fail the move silently? 

And then the same questions all over, but the opponent is engaged with a 3rd party.

5 hours ago, soltakss said:

Muriah is written up somewhere. I am sure I have seen stats, maybe in Heroes or another supplement.

Heroes? I don't have that one, wasn't actually aware of it's existence... I guess I'm using the mummy from gateway

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

Revenants are basically the same as Mummies.

The RQ2 Gateway Bestiary had stats for Mummies. They are similar to RQG Revenants but have slightly less natural armour and move a bit slower, of and they have 1D6+12 POW.

HAH!!! I GOT GATEWAY BESTIARY!!! you rock dude, ty so much!

Just now, Bill the barbarian said:

 

4th icon

I don't have that on my phone i guess when i get home. Also someone help me edit the spoiler thing in the message body, can we do that here?

2 minutes ago, Dragon said:

1- Have you reviewed Revenant on page 123 of Bestiary? That seems the likely fit. No mummies per se in RQG. Zorak Zoran in previous editions was somewhat famous for empowering mummies from their Death Lords and now 'The Zorak Zoran cult is notorious for “preserving” Death Lords as revenants.' Mummies usually evoke wrapping in burial clothes, where revenants can be preserved in other ways.

2- Perhaps use a revenant and grant it some of the Spirit Powers on page 165-167 or maybe sorcery spells. Note some Spirit Powers will not make sense as it will not have POW and is embodied.

3- See #2 above.

Yeah i didn't want to use RQ3 mummies, I'll check the revenant! As for power it doesn't really matter you don't really need POW to cast battle magic in CE, you only need temporal POW pts, which undead usually can have. I'll check out the revenant when I get home from work!!!

So, i got scenario 4, Revenge of ~~Muriah~~ Mumm-Ra (how do I use striketrough text?).

[Spoiler]For the un-initiated Muriah was a little girl in the town of Weiss, her parents were thieves and then they got sick, and the town didn't help them and they died.

Muriah cursed the townspeople and ran into the wilderness, where she died. 20 years later her broo minions (jackalman, slithe and monkian) are attacking the town, and the adventurers will (hopefully) foil them.[/spoiler]

This got me thinking muriah doesn't appear at all in the book, and I'm totally fixing this. She actually died and became MUMM-RA under the patronage of the four ancient spirits of evil (unholy trio + the devil).

Now, the "normal" version on her is just gonna be a mummy child champion of these gods (runelord+priest on all appropriate cults), which should give her access to a ton of chaos magic to challenge those pesky adventurers.

Now, questions! 

1- is there a mummy monster for CE? Do we have mummies in RQG?

2- How would you do evil spirit empowerment? I was thinking on STR+CON+DEX+SIZ (hey it's a chaos spell) multispell, but I'm open to ideas.

3- should i stick with appropriate spells or should I go wild and give her her true abilities (worried with telekinesis & lightning which are orlanthi spells...)

Heres the image I'm showing my players, enjoy!: https://ar.pinterest.com/pin/428193877074622975/

7 minutes ago, Psullie said:

'cause "three is a magic number, yes it is" 🎶

+1 on Runes and bolting them into the game

Passions (but I'm a Pendragon fan)

 

If i do add runes/passions I'm going d20 like in Pendragon, but it's a lot of work, doesn't fit the chartsheet, and  I'm not sure how to implement mid game tbh

2 minutes ago, Martin Dick said:

• Runes - It really adds to the integration with the world of Glorantha and adds a lot of flexibility. I also really like the opposed runes, no one can be good at everything and getting stronger in one, leaves you weaker in the other
• Rune Points - the default is to get 3 points, not sure why you think that is a mistake, as a player, it's been a blast being able to use Rune Spells. If I compare it to my RQ3 Issaries initiate who I played for years and who never used any of his one-use Divine Magic, it's way better
• Passions - great roleplaying tools and a great grab from Pendragon
• Shaman rules - fills a big hole in the magic system
• Seasonal XP rolls/Worship - again, it embeds you in the world much more strongly than in earlier editions
• Character family history - again, gives you a built-in backstory that is often shared with the other party members, more integration with Glorantha

Oh yeah, i also use the seasonal skill checks and worship (i even give them a free pow check since i really don't like how the game greatly encourages players to just cast (random spell) for checks.

As for 3 RP, where are those supposed to come from? Why does everyone have 3?

The meta game of CE strongly encourages to get 18POW (and priest rank) ASAP, that means literally everyone will get (near) 0 runespells until they are priest rank. While rune points greatly mitigate this, giving them 3 to start means they will have 3 until RP (or at least RL) unless it's one of those cults with #of spells required; if i gave them 0 they would have the choice to buy spells or aim for higher rank, now it's a no brainer.

Hi all, and happy friday!!!

Today i want to talk about what you think are the best rules of RQG, you know, stuff that sets it apart from vanilla BRP, stuff that makes you say "this is why RQG is my favorite edition!

(Then of course I'm gonna add them to my CE campaign because I'm as dense as a hungry uz 🦛 LOL)

My favorite are:

* A single skill for attack and parry (but thats kinda from BRP)

* Rune Points (i gave my players 3 points to start but i feel it was a monumental mistake haha)

Well, that's it! 

47 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

This is why we have Players roll 4d6, ignore the lowest and reroll 1s. SIZ and INT are 3d6, lowest roll becomes a 6. We wanna play budding heroes most of the time. Not wee babies spending seasons and thousands of lunars on getting solid stats where you need them. A potential Rune-Lord that rolls 8 CHA has a helluva slog to get +10 CHA. 

Completely agree!!! I had my players roll 2d6+6 for all (and they could swap 1 stat for another with my permission), but my other option was exactly like yours, but INT and SIZ were 3d6+6 drop lowest (to be honest your method seems better, i just used BGB options)

I also gave them INTx10 personal skill points (on top of the previous XP) because borderlands recommended 4 characters with 60-80% weapon skills (borderline impossible to generate with the rules) and i started with 3 players, and also gave them CHA/2 battle magic points instead of the 0-6 points you get in CE depending on previous experience.

To top it off i use 1 skill for both attack and parry, as per BRP default for a couple decades now, but again, from BGB.

Also using RQG-like rune points, but i gave everyone 3 points to start and im regretting it HARD.

1 minute ago, FungusColombicus said:

maybe... and it is a big maybe... some players like the idea of characters with family and sparing the NPC wife of the loss of a children... a complicated pregnancy... the possibility of death during labor... etc...

I realize is not the most common cup of tea for players but I am guessing (again) this was thought on putting some level of realism and community to the spells.

Bottom line... don't like it... don't use it or make it so easy/cheap to use that become irrelevant... YGWV

 

And all that stuff is fine and amazing, i meant the +60 stats part

On 9/6/2021 at 4:34 PM, Richard S. said:

RQG gives 20L per point, or 200L per if it's one-use. If magic points are spent to cast the spell as well, each is worth an additional 1L. For RQCE it's probably safe to use those multiplied by 10, like the rest of the economy seems to be, so 200L per reusable point, 2000L per one-use, 10L per MP.

Kareena in apple lane charges *AT LEAST* 10 gold wheels (TEN???) for casting healing 6. Seriously? If some adventurers murder her i wouldnt even question them, she had it coming...

2 hours ago, Nick Underwood said:

What's an illegit player?  

it means i dont like the spell really...

Like, what benefit does this bring to your game? It seems... out of place? I dont know, im strongly oppinionated and headstrong (but easily swayed)

29 minutes ago, Nick Underwood said:

I know. I was hinting at my cheatass tactics, not yours. 😉

Well, now that I think about it, if every npc i roll can be potentially used as a PC... I'm a cheatass too, FML 😞