Jump to content

Tupper

Member
  • Posts

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tupper

  1. Somehow, I think a book with one page per god, plus a few illustrations, would have been more useful at the table. There's already plenty of "fluff" about the gods between the guide to Glorantha, the Glorantha sourcebook, and the core rulebook. 

    I guess I'm in the minority, though, thinking 10 volumes is excessive. 🙂

  2. Over in the Glorantha forum, there's a post saying that GaGoG has now grown to being 10 volumes (presumably not counting red book of magic). Is this serious? I had hoped for *a* book that filled in the gaps on some of the religions not covered in the core book (eg the other lunar religions, which are notable by their absence). I don't want to sound mean, but 2 books seems okay if it's a lengthy topic, and 10 books seems to be well into overkill territory...

    Will there be some kind of option for someone who just needs the basics?

  3. I've been reading the enchantments section of RQG.  I think I get how they work in general.  You can enchant something with a spell matrix, give it to someone, and then they can use it to cast a spell they couldn't otherwise.  You can enchant something with a magic point enchantment, and use it like a battery to carry around extra magic points.  However, I get a bit confused when it comes to the section "Conditions on enchantments".

    I get that one might want to place limitations on who can use your enchantment so that either it's useless to thieves, or it can't be used against friendly targets (so you can give it to someone you don't fully trust).  I get that you could put an area condition on it so that you and your allies could simultaneously use the enchantment.  I even get the link spell condition, which would mean you could link spells and cast them all at once to achieve a lower strike rank.

    However the two that I don't get are attack condition and link magic point condition.

    For link magic point condition, I don't understand why this is useful.  If I enchant an item with spell matrix and magic point enchantment, doesn't that mean that someone who has the item can use the magic points stored in it, and cast the spell in the matrix?  Why would I want to force them to use the magic points in the item to power the spell?  That's something they can already do, isn't it?

    For the attack condition, I think I can see what it's supposed to be for.  It's so I could put a condition on an enchantment on (say) my treasury, and have the enchantment cast an offensive spell on people other than me who come in.  But now I'm confused as to how that works.  With a spell matrix, normally the person using the enchanted item casts the spell.  If a thief breaks into my treasury, who casts the offensive spell?  Would the attack condition only make sense if the enchantment was a binding enchantment (in which case the spirit bound in the item would be the one doing the attacking)?  

    • Like 1
  4. I think the issue can be summarised as follows.  Say you get +5% on an income roll from the land.  That means:

    • You're 0.25% less likely to roll a fumble (which entails losing 150% of regular income).
    • You're 4.75% less likely to roll a fail (which entails losing 50% of regular income).
    • You're 4% more likely to roll a success (which entails nothing special happening).
    • You're 0.75% more likely to roll a special success (which entails getting an extra 50% income).
    • You're 0.25% more likely to roll a critical success (which entails getting an extra 100% income).

    If you multiply these together and add them up (-0.0025*(-1.5)-0.0475*(-0.5)+0.0075*0.5+0.0025*1), you get 3.375% extra income per year on average.  Even if you're farming a hide yourself (regular income 80L), that's only 2.7L per year on average.  If your stables that gives you that bonus costs you 6L per year, you're on a hiding to nowhere with the investment.

    The above math "smooths" the skill table.  Even if you're lucky and the 5% increases the critical probability at the expense of the fumble percentage (e.g. going from 69% to 74%), then you'll get:

    • 1% less likely to fumble.
    • 4% less likely to fail.
    • 4% more likely to succeed.
    • No change in probability of special success.
    • 1% more likely to critically succeed.

    That makes you (-0.01*(-1.5)-0.04*(-0.5)+0.01*1) 4.5% extra income (on average), or 3.6L, which is still a long way shy of 6L.

  5. Page 64, Nets are described as having STR 4D6+18 per section.  This is contradicted on page 65, where both combat nets are given STR 15 per section.  

    The throwing net on page 70 has 4 HP, but should probably have 8 HP, since it has STR 8 (see page 74).

    I also second @Akhorahil's concern about improvements to land.  Paying 6L per year for a stable (for example) is too expensive for only a +5% to the manage household roll.  It'll lose money on average, and never recoup the up-front cost.  As a follow-on comment, some of the items in the table look like they might be too expensive.  For example, a shop is described in the prose as costing 18L, versus 180L in the table, a pit mine 50L vs 50W.  I gather there was a reduction in prices moving from RQ2 to RQG, which makes me wonder if the numbers in the table should be smaller (maybe by a factor of 10?).  In the example above, a stable would cost 3L to build, and then costs 0.6L=6C to maintain.  If this correction is made, then a stable could well be worth building.  

    • Like 1
  6. I ran the two pdfs ("recent first printing" and "second printing") through diffpdf and these are the differences (barring title page etc at the start).

     

    p85  Added "Love (family) 60%"

    p89 Javelin 1 handed corrected to be damage 1D6+1D4

    p96 Spirit magic now has "Strength (2pts)" (was 1pt)

    p210  "relative finesse of the kopis" (was "of the broadsword")

    p374 "through which it is possible to pass" (was "possible to past"), and "the shaman must roll their" rather than "the shaman must roll his"

    p393 Entry 6 in the table of sounds is now "Splashing waves"

    p400 Tap Body now says "overcome the POW of the victim" (not "the magic points of the victim")

    p412 Parchment has been replaced by "Papyrus, Large" and "Parchment, Hide (sheet)" is clarified to be 40cm long.

    p418 Harmast's example ends with "after two seasons of training" instead of "after a season of training".  A typo of "wth" has been corrected to "with" (in the "Increased POW through spell use or spirit combat" section).

    p421 % signs have been removed from bonuses and penalties.  The harvest results table first column now starts with "10 or less" and ends with "96 or more"

    p422 Noble entry now has "Ransom is set at 1000L" where this was missing before.

    p425 "After an adventurer reaches the age of 40" (used to read "has reached the age of 40")

    p445 For some reason "Zorak Zoran" has an entry of 271-271 instead of just 271.

     

    So I'd say there's not much changed there. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 7
  7. When I had a look at the Red Book of Magic today, I expected to see Open Seas as a rune spell (presumably to be granted by Dormal).  I didn’t find it there. So... is Sorcery the only way to open the seas?  

  8. Thanks heaps for the pictures. That really clarifies the scale for me. Looks like it wouldn’t solve my readability problem. 

    What I’d really love would be vector images of the maps... that way you could zoom in on some of the “busy” bits of the maps.  

  9. I have a copy of the Argan Argar Atlas.  It's a lovely book, but I find some of the smaller details (especially lakes and hills around Dragon Pass) quite hard to read.  Are the poster maps (24 map set of Glorantha or 6 map set of Genertela) any larger/easier to read? 

  10. 18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

    Not at all. Once the spell has been cast, the boosting MP are gone. They have no further effect.

    @PhilHibbs Thanks for clearing that one up for me.  I guess I'd read how boosting spells worked and just assumed it affected dismissing/dispelling/neutralising as well as getting through countermagic and shields.  However now, rereading the core book, there's no mention of boosting helping make spells harder to dismiss.

    So dismissing is still a valid way to get rid of sword trances.

  11. There’s been some mention of Dismiss Magic tune spell as being a fix for Sword Trance. Certainly that was my first thought. If someone dismisses your sweet trance, you’re both down 1 rune point, but the would be sword trancer is down a round casting the spell (strike rank would be 1+ number of magic points -1) and a tonne of magic points.

    However in the rules clarifications is this:

    [\quote]

    Heal Wound (page 330)

    Do the extra MPs added to Heal Wound count towards boosting the spell? Eg, if I cast heal wound and spent 5mp on it , would it count as a 2 point spell or a 7 point spell for the purposes of countermagic?

    I would say yes, just like other spells where magic points are spent. 

    [\quote]

    So my read of this is that a “big” sword trance is going to take a *lot* of rune point to dismiss (e.g. 6 rune points to dismiss a 10 magic point casting).

  12. This looks like a fun adventure. One thing is niggling me, though: why is the action on Clayday, rather than Wildday? Shouldn’t it be nights of the (normal) full moon rather than nights of the full black moon? My impression was that Lunars were more powerful on night of the full moon, and weaker when it was a full black moon. Page 8 refers to areas “lit only by the moon”, which suggests a full moon rather than a dark one.

    • Like 3
  13. I posted the original topic that lordabdul references, but never got round to mentioning my solution to the problem.  Since RHW asks ... I went on a laminating binge.  I laminated the softcover booklets that come in the games master pack (calendar, GM's tables, adventure booklet), and then laminated the wrap around screen.

    I'm quite a fan of laminating softcover RPG books, so I've got it down to a fairly fine art, and I think it came out rather well.  I've attached three pictures, one of my slipcase (showing the GM screen in pride of place; the slight discolouration is flash catching the glossy surface of the lamination).  The second one shows the cover around all the books, and the third shows the detail of how I laminated it, focusing on the top of the "spine".  It's important to have those nicks in the lamination, otherwise it would be quite stiff and wouldn't bend "naturally" on its spine.  

    Even having done all that laminating, everything still fits happily in the little cup.  The trick to getting things in and out is to put the sleeve in first, and then slide the other items into the sleeve.

    Most well-balanced folks probably aren't reading this, and if they are, will just roll their eyes and carry on, but if you want to have a bash at laminating this, I would suggest doing the books in the following order:

    1.  The adventure book.  This will get your hand back in to laminating, if you're a bit rusty.  The cover is reasonably firm, which makes laminating relatively easy.

    2.  The two paper books.  These are a bit more tricky.  Laminating paper is harder, because it tends to flop around.  It's made a bit easier if you lay the book on top of another book (so it's elevated above the table) and then use a ruler to guide the contact paper onto the cover.  If you try to do this straight on the table, there's a danger that the edges will flop down onto your table, and picking up dust/dirt.  By the time you're done this, you'll be fairly used to laminating paper rather than card.

    3.  Finally do the cover.  I'd suggest laminating to the spine, then dealing with the edges, and finally doing the second half of the job.  That way you can again rest it on a book as you're doing each half.  

    I'm vaguely tempted to laminate the little cardboard "cup" at the bottom, so it's equally glossy, but I've never done something so unbookshaped before, so it'll take a bit more thought before I start.

    IMG_3108.JPG.57909d5e1993d1bbc935cbae74469e98.JPGIMG_3109.JPG.c9cbfa16d404e794f5deb759a78b7770.JPG

    IMG_3112.JPG.df86184d210e33dfcbd6eb79faf80a2b.JPG

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  14. Finally got hold of my slipcase, bestiary, and GM screen.  They're rather splendid looking things.  One thing that is bugging me at the moment, though, is how to deal with the GM screen.  It looks cool to have the illusion rule on the spine to go with the other books.  However, that sheet of paper is very light, and seems to be tricky to get in and out of the little half-box that holds everything together.  I wondered if I should laminate it, or glue it to some thick card so it's a bit more robust.  What do other people do to make their GM screen look nice in the slipcase, but still easy to get at its contents?

    • Like 1
  15. 23 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

    Reading the book my feeling is still that “limbs” are x2 limited (not just from a single blow) So no need to track wounds to a limb after x2 limit. A massive x3 from a single blow will sever the limb. It seems to model as I touched on before, the limbs being not “as” vital as the core hit locations, allowing the slim possibility of being able to fight another day.

    Whereas head, chest, abdomen have a cap of x3 wounds that can be reached culmaltively or through a single hit. So you will track wounds to those locations upto x3 leading to *checks notes*...death. This is inline with what Jason is saying.

    So death by a thousand cuts if it’s one of the core hit locations, but not necessarily so for limbs.

     

     

    I'm not sure that's what he said...

    On 4/2/2019 at 4:29 AM, Jason Durall said:

    The effects of damage per location are based on total hit points delivered to the hit location.

    For example, with a 6-pt limb, it doesn't matter if it's one blow doing 18 points or 18 1-point injuries, it is destroyed. 

    That reads to me like you can mangle a limb with cumulative damage (and to do that, they need to get above 2x HP).

    Often in discussions of rules, people talk about RAW: Rules As Written, meaning "we're doing this without house rules", and RAI: Rules As Intended, meaning "I think that's a lawyerly interpretation of that rule, and not really in the spirit of it" (often applied by GMs when players get weaselly and say things like "but it doesn't say I *can't* do X...").

    This section RAW clearly has some ambiguous parts (which I feel we've all debated in full here):

    • Do the effects of 2x damage to a limb (going into shock) take effect after cumulative damage or just a single big blow?
    • Does subsequent damage (after 2x damage) go to the limb or to general HP?

    But some parts, don't to me (or to other readers) seem ambiguous at all, RAW:

    • A limb only gets severed/maimed if it takes 3x damage from a *single blow*.

    In this situation, the tricky thing with RAI is that 90% of this section was written by Steve Perrin and friends, and they're not here to enlighten us what they meant.  Jason has made two clarifications (one on this thread and the other in the general rulings):

    • Damage after 2x damage to a limb goes to you but not the limb.
    • Limbs can be mangled after 3x cumulative damage.

    These two rulings seem mutually inconsistent (and the latter ruling seems to run contrary to RAW).  My gut feeling tells me that most folks who'd read the book, never played RQ3, and never read a thread on this forum would have trouble reaching the second ruling's conclusion!

    As a GM, this could be troubling.  You could read a section of the book, think it's pretty clear RAW, and then find a player brandishing some discussion from a forum that invalidates what you read in the book.  

    My feeling is that this is best handled by judgement on the part of the GM.  Personally, I favour using RAW.  If a rule proves ambiguous, I try to use RAI by my own judgement.  If I read something on a forum that convinces me one way or the other on something ambiguous, I'll use it.  If I read something (or have something brought to me by a player) that I don't agree with, I don't use it, regardless of who said it.  If an author writes an errata, I take it pretty seriously (these are not undertaken lightly, and are often well thought out), but comments on forums or twitter, I don't necessarily take as gospel.  I mean this in the nicest possible way.  I really appreciate that game designers take the time to answer questions about games (by myself and others).  They have (like most people) plenty of things to do with their time, and this doesn't pay the bills.  But I also realise that they're human.  Plenty of times (personally) when I get asked a professional opinion, and have to give an opinion in a hurry, it may not be entirely water-tight, and the same is true of game designers.

    I also really appreciate (as the OP) everyone who's contributed to this thread: it's really helped my understand what's going on in this section.😇

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...