Jump to content

Russ Massey

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About Russ Massey

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • RPG Biography
    Started playing D&D with one of the first imported copies into the OK. Ran Empire of the Petal Throne, Chivalry and Sorcery, Metamorphosis Alpha, Runequest, Traveller, Champions, Top Secret, Mage, Heroquest. Dabbled with many other games.
  • Current games
    Playing in a Heroguest game. Running a RQ:G game in the Rubble, using the Grey Company scenarios from Tentacles Press.
  • Location
    Worthing, UK
  • Blurb
    Born 1960

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. RQ generally holds to the idea that even the meanest stickpicker is capable of becoming significant, and that the lowliest trollkin can get lucky and impale a Wind Lord. Rabble/Extras are for games designed around cinematic action and where PCs are set on pedastals, removed from the concerns of normal men. RQ does not fall into that category IMO (though it's possible to play HQ that way, certainly).
  2. I tend to beleive that any 'Trance' spell should be handled as the Aldryami 'Arrow Trance' used to be. While the spell is in effect you are in a combat focussed trance and cannot use any skill other than to attack with the trance boosted skill. You cannot eat, drink, sleep or converse while the spell is in effect. That would make any extension lasting more than a day impractical.
  3. Yeah, the basic problem with DB is that there are much more efficient ways to affect an enemy for the same MP cost. Maybe if it removed the chance for a special damage result it would be more worthwhile.
  4. In 30 years GMing I have yet to see a PC cast Dullblade
  5. Situational modifiers do surely have to be applied to each attack, as they can change during the round. You could make your first attack in total darkness and then a light spell goes off before the second attack. Surely the -75% does not apply at that point. Similary you could make two attacks against an opponent with the first attack crippling him so he falls. The second attack would surely then gain the bonus for a prone opponent even if he was standing at the start of the round.
  6. Exactly. Your physical damage bonus applied to every hit, and if that goes up due a strength spell it would still apply to each hit. But it would seem to be different if your chance to hit was increased by a coordination spell - in that case the spell adds to your overall hit chance before any splitting of attacks, just as it would for Trance spells or Berseker, as these spells all affect the user. My argument for bladesharp (and dullblade) is that this spell enhances the weapon and not the user, so any bonuses should apply to each attack using that weapon.
  7. Yep, I'd go with 2 attacks at 40%. The user has the skill, but the sword is clumsy/blunt/unwieldy due to the spell.
  8. You would add it in with the modifiers for Sword Trance, until either expires. Generally speaking, you can't pick and choose when magical modifiers come into play if they're both cast on the same item at the same time. This was the answer given by Jason to a question in the rules thread, but I don't feel that it makes sense. Bladesharp is a spell that affects the weapon and not the weilder. It adds damage and a percentage to hit based on the number of points cast. If you are naturally 100% with your sword you can attack two different opponents at 50% each. If you have bladesharp 2 on your sword you will get +10% and +2 damage. Jason has ruled that the +10% is added before the split, so that you have 110% to divide against 2 opponents, but presumablythe +2 damage would apply to each hit. This seems nonsensical to me. An enhanced weapon should gain its bonuses each time it is used, and an additional percentage due it being magically sharp should surely apply against each opponent you are capable of attacking, just as the extra damage does. Thoughts?
  9. In some respects it does seem strange to have phase 2. Why does non-engaged character movement need to be seperated out from the rest of the resolution of the round? I can only think that it is to stop you having to count down the SR and move each character a fraction of their total movement each time. It does speed things up to take all movement in a single action, but I think it could lead to some confusion about timings within the round, especially if non-engaged characters are also casting spells or throwing weapons while moving. My advice is to ignore phase 2 until you have run a few combats, and the GM and players are familiar with the basics. Start by counting up from SR1 to SR12 with each character making their attacks on the appropriate SR, and moving 3m on each SR if they are unengaged (this assumes you are using figures and a scale respresentation of combat - if you are leaving things abstract then a lot more comes down to GM fiat). It will be slower at first, but once you become used to what is and is not possible in a round you will be able to quickly move figures into their final positions in a single step, and just say 'I run to attack broo7, taking 4SR to get in and rolling to hit on SR8'. Don't worry about making mistakes. RQ is a very robust system, and you can't easily break it. Just play, make sure its fun, and re-read the rules after a few sessions when your experience will let you see if you have missed anything significant or made any errors in your initial application of the rules.
  10. It is the same rule as was in RQ3. I must have decided to ignore it in 1984, and probably never reread it since. The paragraph about changing intent in RQ3 is: It is possible for either a player or gamemaster to alter his Statement of Intent (SoI). However, any action performed in addition to that in the SoI, or instead of the SoI, will cost an extra 3 strike ranks. Thus if an adventurer, sword and shield, ready, was waiting for something to happen, and the player then decided at SR4 that the adventurer needed to run out the nearest door, then the adventurer would take 3SR plus his DEX modifier to get moving and on melee ST10 would move 3m. It's workable from a player point of view, but it starts getting each melee round into GURPS-like tactical mini-maxing, and puts an additional burden on the GM who is having to decide for each NPC if they need to alter their pre-chosen actions as the round unfolds. I don't think this option is in the RQ:G rules.
  11. If I were going the stat route for order (and personally I don't like having to slow the game by having to write out a list that would involve switching back and forth between GM characters and player characters), I think I'd choose INT. IMO the Statement of Intent is about judging the situation and making good choices, a better fit for cognition than speed of reaction. You could even average INT and DEX I guess, but I doubt the extra calaculation is worth the effort.
  12. I like that idea a lot. That's certainly how I'm going to play it, as it makes sense to the players and removes any ambiguity. Most encounters are going to be in the players favour, as they will usually have someone with reasonable battle skill, but it will be a huge shock the first time they get to have to declare everythnig first because there's a lunar polemarch in the opposinjg group. What about fights with animals? I guess you could use the beast rune as the equivalent of battle in man vs savage nature encounters.
  13. I was thinking more about the GM vs the PCs. In previous editions as GM I used to say, "Hang on a sec while I work out what the NPCs are going to do. Okay. Now give me your statements of intent." I don't have any worries about the order the players go in, but the new rules state that the GM gives the NPC statements of intent aloud as well. Before the players? After the players? Some horrendous mixed mess based on SR or DEX? It's hard enough as GM to run RQ combats with a dozen NPC characters without havng to worry about that. And if you tell the players what the NPCs are going to do and then allow the players to choose their actions it gives them a huge advantage. If you make the players speak first they'll accuse the NPCs of being game-beaking mind-readers even if you are simply using a prepared plan. To my mind its much better to keep the GM intent hidden - as long as you trust the GM, at any rate.
  14. I'm surprised no one has yet queried in what order statements of intent are made, since it does make a huge difference.
  15. I'd forgotten about Frog Woman. Was that from an old issue of Drastic Resolutions? I suppose the name might be kept as Teleport if it was a rune spell available to other non-Orlanthi cultures. Each culture could have a different, more myth-specific name for the same effect. Given the Mastakos/chariot link I thought it odd in Heroquest that all the references were to things like Sunset Leap. But I'm derailing the original subject here. When Flght is in use (whetehr 2 or 3 or 4 points, depending on the SIZ/ENC issues), how would you deal with players wanting to use Flight in combat? It seems to me that if the Air or Movement rune is being used as a flight skill level then this should also be the limit for combat skills used while flying, in the same way that riding skill limits mounted attacks.
  • Create New...