Jump to content

Tupper

Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About Tupper

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Long time gamer.
  • Current games
    D&D (sadly)
  • Blurb
    Getting back into gaming.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Tupper

    Critical damage example.

    I think the Critical Hit vs Critical Parry is fairly unambiguous. Page 198 says "The exception to this [critical parry effects] is if a critical parry is rolled against a critical hit: the parry is treated as a normal parry and the critical hit is treated as a normal hit." That seems consistent with the table: there's no maximum damage, no armour bypass, and no special damage to parrying weapons. The case that does seem ambiguous between the table and the text is what happens on a critical hit versus a normal parry with regard to weapon damage (and this would seem to be a common case if someone scores a critical hit). The table says: "Defender's parrying weapon HP reduced by the damage rolled. All excess damage goes to adjacent hit location with no armour protection". However p200, "Parrying a Critical Hit" is much more elaborate: "However, a weapon that parries a critical hit takes twice the damage it would take normally. If the attacking weapon is a long hafted weapon or an impaling weapon, the parrying weapon takes no damage. A shield that parries a critical hit receives twice as much damage as normal, and any unabsorbed damage strikes the parrying adventurer." Here the question is: which is right? The simple process (all weapons damage parrying weapons/shields on a 1:1 basis) or the complex process (only weapons that are neither impaling nor long hafted do double damage to parrying weapons/shields). I suppose to make it more complicated one could quibble about the damage a parrying weapon/shield takes "normally", which is really just 1HP if the damage exceeds its HP. But doubling that (2HP assuming the attack goes through) seems miserly compared to a special attack vs normal parry weapon damage. This seems important because parrying a critical hit is going to be the only way of surviving it.
  2. Tupper

    Critical damage example.

    The rules for impaling damage (page 203) say that "if the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells". However, on page 206, in the example of a fumble, Joshfar gets critically hit by a broo with a short spear. The example says: "The damage is normally 1D6+1+1D4. The damage is maximum damage plus rolled damage for an impaling attack, with the rolled damage modifier added. In this case, the roll is an exceptionally good one, with a result of 7 (max of 1D6+1), 4 (1D6+1), and 4 (1D4)." By my read of the earlier passage (page 203), the damage should have been 18 (14 (max of 2D6+2), and 4 (a lucky roll on 1D4))? Which passage is right?
  3. Tupper

    Strike rank conundrum.

    Thanks for the further clarifications everyone. I did wonder after reading James' explanation about whether it should be SR8 or SR10 that B's attack would come through at. Also good to know that I'm not all-at-sea with the preparing of a weapon. Certainly a flat cost of 5 Strike Ranks seems to make the arithmetic a bit simpler (which seems trivial when there are 2 combatants, but if you were a GM trying to keep track of 15 or so combatants, could be a big deal). I'm not sure if breaking the round into an unengaged/engaged actions phase is a good idea. If (say) character C was making a missile attack on character B at SR10, this attack would happen after B's attack, but before A's (melee) attack. In the reasoning above, it would happen before both, because it's an "unengaged" action. I think (from a previous question on this forum) that the intention of the sequencing of the round in the core rulebook page 192 is simply to recommend letting characters who are not "interacting" with others get all their movement out of the way before focusing attention on the interactions between the remaining characters.
  4. Tupper

    Strike rank conundrum.

    More examples of combat would be awesome. I think that's something the core book is missing, so it's great if the community can furnish some to clear up tricky issues like this (or at least they seem tricky to me as someone who hasn't played RuneQuest before...). Regarding the "when can you parry" issue: p197 (The Parry) says "Using a prepared weapon or shield, an adventurer can attempt to parry an attack on any strike rank of the melee round during which the parrying weapon is prepared (in hand and ready for use)." I would have thought that (in the example), character A would have her sword in hand and ready for use at Strike Rank 8 (it's "prepared" then). My read of the earlier passage (p 193-194) is that's referring to strike rank for *attacks* (DEX + casting time for spells, DEX for missile weapons, DEX + SIZ + Reach for melee weapons). Do correct me if I'm wrong ... I'm still muddling my way through this!
  5. Tupper

    Strike rank conundrum.

    Sorry ... now I'm confused again. I follow your example, except for the "she doesn't ready her weapon until SR 3 + 5 + DEX SR". Wouldn't her weapon be ready at SR 8 (3 + 5)? Combatant A couldn't *attack* until SR 12 (3 + 5 + 4), but she could at least parry at SR8 (still too late if B is attacking at SR7). Why does DEX SR affect A's readying of her weapon?
  6. Tupper

    Strike rank conundrum.

    Thanks for the fast answers! So character B "begins" to act once his action is "triggered" by A engaging him. Hence he starts counting from when melee is joined (action 8), and attacks at 10. Nice: that all makes sense.
  7. Tupper

    Strike rank conundrum.

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around how strike ranks work. I have a simple situation that's confusing me, and seems to be one that could easily come up in a game (I don't think it's perverse at all). Suppose two characters, A and B, are facing off against each other. They are 15 metres apart. Character A has a strike rank in melee of 4, character B, on the other hand has a strike rank of 2 in melee. He's bigger, faster, and/or has a longer weapon. Character A declares her action as: cast a spell (3SR), draw her sword and close the distance (5SR), and then attack (4SR). Character B, on the other hand, declares that he'll wait and then attack A when she comes to him (2SR). My understanding is that in order to resolve the attacks, we'd figure that: * Character A has two attacks: a spell at Strike Rank 3, and a melee attack at Strike Rank 12 (3+5+4). * Character B has one attack: a melee attack at strike rank 2. So, this suggests that the order of the attacks is: Character B rolls his melee attack. Character A rolls her spell attack. Character A rolls her melee attack. What's bugging me is that at the time that Character A casts her spell, she's 15 metres away from Character B, so how can he attack her before her spell goes off? What am I doing wrong? My gut says that the answer is that B should be forced to delay his action until Strike Rank 8 (when A engages him), but I'd like to hear what wiser heads than mine have to say about the matter.
  8. Tupper

    Fetch questions

    Great answers! That clears up fetches a lot for me. One last question, though: what happens if one Shaman captures another Shaman's fetch?
  9. Tupper

    Fetch questions

    I've been reading the shaman rules again, and have a couple of points of confusion regarding the fetch: 1. How does a fetch die or get destroyed? The book tells me that this happens if its POW goes to zero (page 358). How would that happen? In spirit combat it loses magic points. What happens to the fetch if its magic points go to zero (either by spell casting and/or spirit combat)? 2. If a shaman does badly on awakening his/her fetch, a fairly weak fetch can be created. What can the shaman do to "beef it up" subsequently? I see that he/she can grow its POW by sacrificing his/her own. How would one raise the fetch's CHA? "Expanded presence" (page 360) will raise its "temporary" CHA, so the shaman can store more spells in it, but that wouldn't let the Shaman have a larger menagerie of spirits under his/her control, which is the other use for the fetch's CHA.
  10. Tupper

    Hard spirits

    Thanks for the answers. Makes sense to think of those spirits as elemental. Here's a follow up question: could you bind them? Could you bind a vogue or Sprul Pa?
  11. Tupper

    Hard spirits

    When I read the core rule book, I came away with the impression that spirits were incorporeal, and mostly interacted with people either by being bound by shamans and spell users, or making mischief by possessing people after spirit combat. However, when I read the section on spirits in the bestiary, I became a bit confused. Some of the spirits there fit the bill of incorporeal creatures, but some of them seem all too solid. The Nymph has hit points and regular stats, but is described as "bodiless", so she can presumably discorporate at will. The Snake Daughter isn't described as "bodiless", but the prose accompanying her says she can occupy her stone statue, so presumably she's incorporeal the rest of the time. The Vough and the Sprul Pa don't seem to have any such caveat. The Vough can turn into water, and Sprul Pa can merge with the ground, but neither of these are really discorporating. Could someone please tell me what it means to be a spirit? I guess my definition of "being incorporeal and living in the spirit realm" seems a bit off when considering the Vough and Sprul Pa.
  12. Tupper

    History 1621-1625

    Awesome. Thanks for that! I'm working through Fronela now, and the bit that has me worried is the Kingdom of War. It seems to be pretty active, and could have expanded since 1621. Does anyone know where I'd read about what happened there?
  13. Tupper

    History 1621-1625

    Thanks for the comments. Looks like Appendix J could be the business. I definitely noted the events in the character generation timeline, and trying to understand what they all meant was part of my motivation in reading the Guide to Glorantha. I'm guessing the other region (besides Dragon Pass) where things could get a bit funky is Fronela, where the Syndic's Ban is slowly lifting (and more could have lifted by 1625). I figure I'll cross that bridge when I get to that chapter of the Guide.
  14. Tupper

    History 1621-1625

    I read through Runequest Glorantha, and while I found it very cool, there were a lot of comments that left me fairly confused. What was a God Learner? Who (or what) was Belintar? To rectify my confusion, I bought the Guide to Glorantha, and have been reading through it from start to finish. Things are starting to come into focus, but I often find myself searching through the pdf to figure where places are who people are who are referred to earlier in the book before they're "defined" later. It's been a very fun read ... up until yesterday. Yesterday, I hit the Dragon Pass section, and read that Dragon Pass was governed by Fazzur Wideread. "That doesn't sound right", says I, and looked in RQG. Then I realised that RQG is set in 1625, whereas the Guide to Glorantha is based on a present date of 1621. This seems a bit of a snafu, since it would be pretty natural for someone to want to use Guide to Glorantha as a reference for a campaign using RQG. My question then is: what happened between 1621 and 1625? Where would one find this information? I see two potential sources: the Glorantha Sourcebook or The King of Sartar. Which one am I supposed to read to understand what's happened "post Guide"? Or do neither of these help with this campaign date mismatch?
  15. Tupper

    Tie in opposed roll

    Looking at the newest version (there's a newer one since I downloaded last), it seems to be getting bigger. According to its properties, it also hasn't been optimised. I find quite a few pdfs (from various companies) can be a bit slow on the iPad. I've got into the habit of feeding them through adobe acrobat pro and optimising them for online publishing. On my tablet I've noticed no decline in visual quality, but I've sure noticed some big speed improvements in rendering!
×