Jump to content

Tupper

Member
  • Posts

    95
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tupper

  1. Do you know where I'd find that rule? Is it in the book somewhere? I scoured the official rulings thread, and couldn't find it there.
  2. Thanks again for all the answers. There’s one bit that’s still niggling at me: the damage from limbs going to total hit points after the limb takes double its capacity in damage. My read of that passage of the core book is that it’s double limb hp damage *from a single blow* that triggers this (subsequent) behaviour. The reason I think this is the case (besides the fact that this clause seems to be following on from the discussion of taking a single big hit on a limb) is that otherwise the system generates “messy” wounds, where some of the damage is associated with a limb, and some with total hp. For example: I have 5hp in my arm. I’m hit for 7 damage, and then 5. The second wound becomes 3hp to the arm and 2 to total hp (if we say that the arm can only go to -5). The reason this is messy is that healing is done per limb, so the total hp damage heals in parallel with the arm. Hence when healing with first aid, one might well ask *which* hp from that wound get healed? The total hp damage or the limb damage? This isn’t mentioned at all in the first aid section. With the interpretation that damage *after a single blow does double the limb’s hp* goes onto total hp, this all makes more sense. Wounds to limbs will always either be all limb hp damage (prior to taking a really big hit) or all total hp damage (after taking a really big hit) and there’ll be no “mixed location” damage.
  3. Tupper

    Group tasks

    I also think that The One Ring's way of handling stealth is very elegant. I'd note that it takes a symmetric approach to parties who are in danger of being ambushed, in which case each member needs to succeed at their awareness check to avoid being penalised when the ambush happens. People who succeed better can warn other party members (just like with stealth). On the topic of other games, D&D 5e's approach is, in some ways similar (for the stealth side): A group making a stealth check succeeding if more than half of the party make the roll successfully. A group making a perception check would consist of one person rolling, with advantage because they have help (akin to using an augment). So again (for stealth) some people can fail individually, but the party collectively pulls through. Perhaps a way to RuneQuest-ise this school of thought would be: Everyone rolls their hide roll. If someone gets a Special success, he/she may treat it as a regular success, but raise another group member's success by one level (from fumble to fail, or fail to success). If someone gets a Critical success, he/she may lower it one level to raise another group member's success by one level. The party's minimum success level is the one that is compared to the guards. One could apply the same method to the guards who are searching, but the use of a minimum here feels less intuitive (but needs to be there, or we're back to the original problem of it being too easy for the searchers). The appeals of this approach would be two fold: Everyone in the party gets to roll, which is fun. Because there's no use of augments, that leaves them free to be used for other things, such as Move Quietly augmenting Hiding.
  4. Tupper

    Group tasks

    I guess if one doesn't like chained augmentation, then one has a choice between making the task depend on one skill (but with group contributions) Have the best hider make a Hide augment roll. Use this augment for the worst hider who makes the final Hide roll. Now have the second best scanner/searcher make a Scan/Search augment roll. Use this augment for the best scanner/searcher to make the final Scan/Search roll. or have the task depend on both skills (but with less group contributions) Have the worst Move Quietly adventurer make a Move Quietly augment roll. Use this augment for the worst Hider who makes the actual roll. Now have the best listener amongst the guards make a Listen augment roll. Use this augment for the best scanner/searcher to make the final Scan/Search roll. or (as Psullie suggests) make it simpler again (and ignore both linked skills and group dynamics) Have the worst hider make a hide roll. Have the best scanner/searcher make a scan/search roll. The appeal here (besides speed at the table) would be that this leaves both the adventurer and the guard able to use their passions/runes to augment the task roll. As a comment in terms of simplicity versus complexity, I'm generally in favour of simple solutions. However, in this case, given that a fight between 8 (or more) people could easily take over an hour to resolve, spending a couple of minutes resolving a stealth situation that replaces it is probably "good value" from the point of view of having lots happen in a gaming session. More players getting to roll dice keeps everyone engaged in what's going on. Lastly, if you're the player whose character is good at hiding, it seems a shame that you don't get to contribute anything when the group decides to be stealthy. 😀
  5. Tupper

    Group tasks

    I ran up a quick graph of what the average effect is of an augment on a skill. Reading off a couple of pertinent numbers: With skill level 25, you have an average augment of -9.6 (you fail a lot, and fumble quite a bit). With skill level 75, you have an average augment of 12 (you rarely fumble, and have good odds of getting special or critical successes). So if a 25 skill level is augmented with a 25 skill level, that lowers the chance of success to 15%, whereas at skill 75, the augment raises the success chance to 87%. I like the idea of using augments to deal with these group activities. For example, you could do: The worst adventurer (in terms of hiding) makes the roll, with an augment from the best adventurer. The best guard (in terms of searching) makes the roll, with an augment from the second best guard. However, there's one problem with using augments here: augmentation might already be going on between Move Quietly and Hide (or Listen and Scan/Search for the searchers). I suppose if one is happy to augment augmentation rolls, then one could have: The best Move Quietly adventurer makes an augmentation roll. The worst Move Quietly adventurer makes an augmentation roll (using the preceding MQ augmentation). Now we know how well Moving Quietly is going for the group. The best Hide adventurer makes an augmentation roll (using the preceding MQ augmentation). The worst Hide adventurer makes a final roll (using the preceding Hide augmentation). Meanwhile, from the guards' perspective: The second best Listen guard makes an augmentation roll. The best Listen guard makes an augmentation roll (using the previous Listen augmentation). Now we know how much listening is contributing for the group. The second best Scan/Search guard makes an augmentation roll (using the preceding Listen augmentation). The best Scan/Search guard makes a final roll (using the preceding Scan/Search augmentation). This would mean that as a searcher, having helpers with skill 48 or more will make for an easier time. Similarly being a hider, if your team leader has a skill 48 or more, they may be able to help you pull through even if your skills are fairly mediocre. Note that this would mean that from the guards' perspective, it may be better to let one person do the searching. This seems reasonable: "We sent Mr Magoo to check the haystack, and he said he didn't see anyone there."
  6. Tupper

    Group tasks

    Thanks for the replies, and do keep them coming! Just to clarify one point from Atgxtg's suggestions: in the case where no-one is actively searching, the method suggested in the corebook (for one character) is simply to check for success (no opposed roll). However, to crib Atgxtg's example, with 4 adventurers with 75% stealth, they would only have a 32% chance of getting past guards who were not looking for them, which seems low for such skilled folk.
  7. Tupper

    Benestros

    Thanks Metcalph. That accords with my hunch. I just wondered if I'd myopically missed the region on one of the maps!
  8. Thanks for the answers! Psullie's answer sounds like how I read the rulebook, whereas Sotakss' and PhilHibbs' sound like how I read Jason Durall's answers. I have a feeling that this is an RQ2 vs RQ3 thing (as PhilHibbs suggests).
  9. How would you adjudicate one group trying to sneak past another group (who are aware of them)? Say 4 adventurers try to sneak past 4 guards. With one-on-one stealth (assuming that sight is more important than hearing): The adventurer rolls Move Quietly as an augment to Hide. The guard rolls Listen as an augment to Search (or Scan, if more relevant). Now that the augments have been resolved, if either contestant has a skill over 100, then he/she lowers his/her skill to 100, and the other contestant lowers his/her skill by the same amount. The adventurer rolls Hide. The guard rolls Search (or Scan). The results of the two final rolls (Hide vs Search) are compared, and if the adventurer gets a better result, he/she is past the guard. If the guard gets the better result, the adventurer is found, and if they tie, presumably the task is ongoing (maybe the adventurer hasn't got by yet, but the guard also hasn't found the adventurer). This seems fair enough. However, what happens in the initially mentioned situation, where it's 4 on 4? Several solutions present themselves: The guards all roll their skills, and the adventurers all roll theirs, and we compare the best guard result to the worst adventurer result. This has problems if one of the adventurers has skill (after augment) of over 100: how would that be resolved? Further, with larger groups, the odds of at least one guard getting a success and at least one adventurer getting a failure start getting large to the point where the guards will always succeed. Each pair gets resolved individually. So adventurer 1 makes an opposed roll with guard 1, then with guard 2, then with guard 3, and then guard 4. Then adventurer 2 repeats the process. This deals with the over 100 skill problem, but still leaves pretty good odds that somewhere along the line, an adventurer will lose to a guard. Plus it's 16 opposed rolls, which would be cumbersome to resolve (and heaven forbid that there were more guards/adventurers!). The worst adventurer pairs off with the best guard, and they make an opposed roll. Nobody else needs to roll. This cuts down on the rolls, deals with the over 100 problem, but leaves a few issues unaddressed. Namely, it's no more difficult for one person to sneak than 10, as long as they all have similar skill levels. Conversely, it's no more easy to find someone when searching alone, than when in a posse. Further, if some of the adventurers are better at sneaking, couldn't they help the more inept member of the group in some way? Calculate an average skill for the adventurers and an average skill for the guards, and then roll opposed rolls once for each group. This involves a bit of arithmetic, especially if the guards and adventurers have heterogeneous skill levels. I'm curious as to how people would deal with this in their game.
  10. Tupper

    Benestros

    Does anyone know where Benestros is? I can’t find it on any maps. I know it’s somewhere in Afadjann. Is it in Gargosganda?
  11. I've been trying to wrap my head around the rules for wounds in RQG. My confusion stems from whether "major" effects (going into shock or being maimed) can be achieved by many small wounds, or if they have to be done by one big wound. Rather than clog up the official answers list, I thought I'd try asking the question of the fine folks on the forum first! :) The core book reads (under "Damage equals or exceeds double the location's hit points"): "An adventurer cannot take more than twice the possible points of damage in an arm or leg *from a single blow* ... However an adventurer so damaged *from a single blow* is functionally incapacitated: they can no longer fight until healed and are in shock" (emphasis mine). Analogously, under "Damage equal or exceeds triple the location's hit points" reads "A limb hit for three times more points than it can take *in a single blow* is severed or irrevocably maimed" (again, emphasis mine). Do these effects only happen if a *single blow* caused double/triple the target's limb's hit points, or can they happen cumulatively? My naive read of the rules was that these results only happen if they're from one big hit, but Jason Durall's answers from last October seem to suggest that cumulative damage can yield shock or maiming. To make my confusion concrete, here is an example that illustrates my three conundrums. I have 18 total hit points, giving me 5 in each arm. I get hit twice in the left arm, first for 5 points, and then for 10 points. 1. When I take the second hit, is the damage reduced to 5 points, since my arm can only take 10 points (5 x 2) total, or do the 10 points still go to the arm, since they do not (as a single blow) exceed twice my hit points? 2. If the answer to question 1 is that I've taken 15 points of damage to my arm, is it now maimed, because it has taken 3 times its total hit points (10+5=15)? Or is it not maimed because it didn't take 15 points in a *single blow*. Now suppose I got hit twice in the left arm, first for 5 points, and then for 5 points again (there's no ambiguity here: I've taken 10 points of damage to the arm). 3. When I take the second hit, am I in shock? I have taken 10 points to my arm (twice its capacity), but it was not from a single blow. Note that I've still got 8 total hit points left, so I'm nowhere near unconsciousness based on total damage. Thanking you all in advance!
  12. Thanks for all the comments! I've generally assumed that the (more extensive) discussion of binding spirits in the Shaman section is supposed to apply to the use of Binding enchantments (i.e. that one can use the spells as well as the magic points of the bound spirits). One thing that's still got me scratching my head is the role of the Spirit Binding spirit spell. As I see it at the moment, there are three obvious ways to bind a spirit: Spirit Magic: cast Binding Enchantment (spirit spell) to make the item, beat the spirit's MP to 0, use Control Entity to force it into the enchantment. Rune Magic: cast Binding Enchantment (rune spell) to make the item, use Command Cult Spirit to force it into the enchantment (requires POW vs POW save; only works on Cult Spirits). Sorcery: cast Bind Spirit or Bind Elemental to make the item, use Dominate Incorporate Spirit or Dominate Elemental to force it into the enchantment (requires POW vs POW save). When I first read Spirit Binding, I saw this as a last stage (i.e. control the entity, and then bind it). However there doesn't seem to be an analogous spell for Rune Magic nor for Sorcery (and Sorcerers are unlikely to use a Spirit Magic spell to do their binding, since the two magic schools are anathema to each other). This interpretation would make spirit magic an inferior way to deal with spirits (in that it requires an extra stage the others don't). In search of enlightenment, I looked at Vishi Dunn (the pre-rolled character), and saw that his spells were: Detect Spirit, Heal, Second Sight, Spirit Binding, and Spirit Screen. So it looks a bit like he's fixing on bagging some spirits with Spirit Binding alone. He does have a big old 14 point magic crystal to store them in (so he wouldn't need Binding Enchantment until he's filled his crystal). So maybe Spirit Binding is a substitute for Control Entity? Page 249 does say "To bind the creature not the enchantment, an adventurer must have a relevant control spell (such as Spirit Binding or Command Cult Spirit)." I guess with this interpretation, Spirit Binding is an easier way to *bind* a spirit than by using Control Entity (since it obviates reducing the spirit's MP to 0 first), but if you don't have a spare enchanted item to bind the spirit in, it's a bit less versatile. I guess this interpretation says that Spirit Magic is the "best" way to deal with spirits, since you have two alternative ways to bind them. What do you all think?
  13. Okay ... I think I'm getting this. Thanks for all the helpful answers! To summarise, I now think that the advantages are: Avoid costly and time-consuming summoning. Avoid risky control spells that might or might not work on the fly, because the spirit is automatically controlled. The bound spirit could be used as an extra source of MPs and spells (like spirits bound by a Shaman), which wouldn't need the spirit to be released. Here are some followup questions: If I reduce an unbound spirit's MPs to zero, and then cast Control Spirit on it, does it get a POW vs POW test to avoid being controlled? If I cast Spirit Binding on an unbound spirit, does it get a POW vs POW test to avoid being bound? If I have a bound spirit (which is starting to sound like a very good idea), it seems that Command Cult Spirit (Rune Magic) would work for commanding it, as would Dominate Spirit (Sorcery). However, would Control Spirit (Spirit Magic) work? Or would the spirit have to have 0 Magic Points for Control Spirit to work?
  14. This might be a dumb question: why would I want to bind a spirit into an item? It seems a pretty expensive process. If I need a spirit for some reason, wouldn't I just summon it and then control it? I guess binding it to an item saves me having to summon it, but is that the only advantage?
  15. Tupper

    Motumobabi

    Does anyone know where Motumobabi is? It’s listed in the Guide to Glorantha in the East Isles, but I’m struggling to find it on any of the maps. Any pointers gratefully received!
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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!
  20. 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?
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Great answers! That clears up fetches a lot for me. One last question, though: what happens if one Shaman captures another Shaman's fetch?
  24. 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.
  25. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...