Skovari

On 4/28/2019 at 4:21 PM, Rick Meints said:

It's always available in Michigan because I always have copies at my house. 🙂

Lol, that I know you A^2 resident.  But it didn't make it's way East to the Metro Detroit area until last Wednesday!

I just want to know when the Glorantha museum opens it doors there?  

My FLGS had it on order ahead of time and just received it on Wednesday.  My copies are finally in hand.  Local availability in Michigan.

So to be clear on the 3rd bullet, if we bought a hard cover RGQ we will be able to get a slipcase set with all 3 books with a credit for the RQG hard cover and credit for any of the other 2 PDFs we purchased?

We use minis and a battle map.  If I don’t have an appropriate mini then I have round pieces I can write on with a dry erase marker for the enemy.  But all the PCs have a painted mini, and I pretty much do all the painting as I like the hobby aspect of that.  One I painted attached.

Love to see the Rubble and New Pavis maps done up at some time!

I thought the answer could be this. 

So if I want to see the content as it is released I have to either buy it all from you or purchase the PDF from you and then the printed version from the FLGS and spend more on it.  Was hoping someone had solved the problem of handling this with the various retailers and companies involved.  I'll just have to make my decision based on need of the product and whether I can wait for the printed version at the FLGS.  My guess is "core" material I'd want sooner, but adventure packs and items I won't use immediately I can wait on.

So I want to support my local gaming store.  They are a bits and mortar shop.  But I also want to get my hands on the PDF version as you release those well before print.

So is there a way to get the PDF when released somehow and then buy the printed version at my local store and get the discount?  I want to foster sales of the new Runequest line locally and get more people excited.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I remember those! I miss all those wonky crystals. I hope they make a comeback in some way, maybe with a limit on them to keep them from being too powerful, now that the cap is off of Spirit Magic. 

They are in the PDF of the adventure book available now.

11 minutes ago, Joerg said:

As staunch RQ2 players, do they mourn the absence of the 1-point Divine Intervention spell for priests, too?

When you are outside of a stressful situation, there is hardly any need to roll. At the end of the combat, with one of the comrades softly bleeding to death, I would rule that as somewhat stressful and time-relevant. Same if the party just takes a short breather in a chase scene, so normal rolls apply.

Yes, I do think that removing the casting success roll will change combat much. I don't know how consequently I will enforce the "spell or strike" rule, taking an entire melee round out of the spell-caster's attack portfolio. I treated the RQ3 strike ranks almost like a pulse system, with spell-and-strike swashbuckling possible.

No priests yet to bring up the 1 point DI rune spell.  But then again in the past they never really took this anyhow preferring other rune magic.  They always tended to avoid one-use Rune Magic and wasting POW earned.

I also don't see how removing the roll to cast changes the spell or strike rule?  You still follow that.  Just that at the end of casting your spell, it works automatically.  You are still limited in what you can do in your round and with available strike ranks.  And the spells still do take many strike ranks to cast.

So I've GMed 3 sessions with my long time gaming group.  5 of 6 of them are old school RQ2 players going back to the 80s.  So we've been playing together awhile.

The one thing that they all universally don't like in the rules is having to make a roll to cast their Spirit and Rune magic.  They truly get very frustrated spending the time trying to cast a healing spell or combat enhancement and wasting all of that time in combat.  They are of course not used to this as we played RQ2 until the RQG was released recently.  I of course let them know they need to remember to augment their rolls as they can, but there really is a limit on how much this can be done.  I also point out it works both ways.  So the question is does anyone else get complaints about this from old school players?  Have you modified the rules in any way to make casting easier, especially when you are outside of a stressful situation?  How do you handle this when it comes up?  Would removing this rule change combat much in your mind?

4 hours ago, Ultor said:

I have a suspicion that the original version might have been written for RQ, as a lot of JJ's early Dungeoneer scenarios were before conversion to DnD, but have no evidence to back that up.

She is active online.  You could ask her and she would answer I am sure.

16 hours ago, BenS said:

Looks great! 

Also running RQG at Dragonmeet. A Prax based scenario in the Afternoon slot, so thankfully no clash  

Apparently the Clash aren't calling London?  

2 hours ago, Pentallion said:

This is where it would be nice for Jeff or Jason to pop in and let us know.  

Ask in the Rules Clarification thread?

5 hours ago, womble said:

it's hard to know what's right. There are no examples on the table (which ought to be a summary of the interactions) where the crit only inflicts rolled Special damage. Maybe crit hit v crit parry should be rolled special damage, but it explicitly says rolls normal.

It looks to me if both rolls are a critical, then you resolve it all as a normal damage roll and armor counts (as well as the parrying item).  They kinda cancel each other out.  Which is what I am seeing on the table at 199.  Same thing if they are both specials.

On 10/19/2018 at 12:49 PM, g33k said:

Nochet?

Someone (and I don't remember who) once told me that this name came about when Greg was asked if he had a name for this city.  And his response was a very quick "Not Yet" which sounded very much like "Nochet" and it stuck.  Anyone able to confirm if this piece of lore is true or not?

Just now, Russ Massey said:

Yep, I'm not saying I think it's a good rule - just that it is the rule as written.

In one spot, and not so well in another!  For some reason I remember this coming up way back when the rules were released in a thread.  I'm trying to see if I can find the reference to it.  I even recall people talking about if the skills are that far apart then it taking the lower to a 0% chance of success.

The problem with that is it still doesn't address the situation where taking off the lower skill would put it below 5%.  And thus penalizes the person with the higher skill more than the lower skill person in removing a serious chunk of special and critical chance they would still have because their skill could still be well above 100% and still take the opposing skill down to 5%.  That is the crux of the problem I (and other here) have.  As well as showing two different areas contradict each other a bit.  Which is why I am eager to see a response in the rules clarification thread!

2 hours ago, Russ Massey said:

You are right that it doesn't say 'attacking' skill. This is because if the opposing skills were (say) 120% shield parry and 50% spear attack then it is the parry that gets reduced to 100 and the spear to 30. It's the higher of the two skills that is lowered, and this can ber the defensive skill in some circumstances, or in non-combat matchups like listen vs move quietly.

But you see, that is the heart of the ambiguity here that you seem to just be ignoring or glossing over.  It does not matter if it is an attack or a parry.  Just think of them as higher and lower skills.  It does NOT say lower the higher skill (which just happens to be an attack) in the bullet.  It says the opposing skill (which just happens to be a parry) is lowered.  Not anything about changing the higher skill.  Don't get caught up in the work "attacking" or "parrying".  That doesn't matter in the least bit.  Use higher and lower skill to be clear I suppose.  It quite clearly is written that way so there is obviously clear ambiguity to this whole rule section that you seem to be ignoring.  Not that I agree with the fact that the higher skill should not be lowered, but you're extrapolating what is written and calling it written rules, not reading the text as written.  I call that completely ambiquous.

Which is why I said let's find out from the authors what is intended and see how we can go forward. 

3 minutes ago, Russ Massey said:

She could also delay to SR12 and aim for the the least armoured location, or the head. It halves her chance, but if you have 200%+ skill it makes a good deal of sense to make everything as hard as possible. You may as well kill the lantern and fight in total darkness as well. The -75% will bother Alice not one whit.

With such a high skill you have ALOT of great combat options to use of course.  That's a cool part about the combat system, how to approach each round of the battle.

But a berserk Death Lord isn't going to be doing any of that fancy holding!  Zorak Zoran Smash!  

23 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I very much doubt that this is, though. I think this is merely an oversight that has never come up in practice because GMs tend not to throw in massively under- or overpowered opposition.

I agree it is an oversight for rules or example showing this sort of over sight.  But it's really not hard at all to get to a level like this given rune magic, augments, and very high starting skills for many.  It's not hard to get a Humakt or Storm Bull hitting at these percents against the rabble with low skills it has to clear through to get to the big bad guy.  So I can see such a scenario happening sooner than later.  Let's see what their answer is again, then we can all decide how we want to do it in our games of course!

30 minutes ago, Psullie said:

The first bullet on page 201 clearly states that >100% skills are reduced by the the amount over 100%. So unless the opponent also has a 100+ skill, their skill is reduced by the excess, with the same value reducing the opponent. In eta examples above, Alice drops to 100 (with Special @20 and critical @5), Bob's dodge is lowered by 400 taking well beyond Zero which defaults to 5%

The first bullet clearly doesn't say ANYTHING about lowering the attacking skill (perhaps an over site, but you're saying it does).  Just mentions reducing the the opposing skill by the amount the attacking skill is over 100%.  So again the section here clearly doesn't answer it to your way or mind as I said above.  Why I asked for the clarification in the other thread here.  The example and verbage here is not clear either way.

The 2nd bullet enforces that the attack is not lowered also as it DOES say both combat skills are reduced, not just one.

What I think happened here is that they didn't work in an example of when skills are way far apart.  We just need an official example and clarification on this.

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I just saw your question on the official rules thread, and that made me realize that this rule also means that the GM can't keep the opponent's skill a secret.

Player: "My final chance is 250%, so what's my chance to hit?"

GM: "160%"

Player: "Ok, so I know he has a 90% skill. Right, I'll split my attacks 150-100 next round."

Well it's a game of numbers at that point.  So players will always try and min / max things.  Why it seems easiest to me and makes sense to lower the attack just the needed amount.  Works the same for enemies also of course and keeps everyone level.

Edited to say although I like the MGF that can come from the attacker having to guess what percent to use to lower it.  If he chooses too much, his loss.

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

Ah ok thanks. I don't have my rulebook to hand. Well, that's a lie, but I don't want to load it up at work!

I keep the latest PDF handy always on my tablet.  Great to go over when I have some spare time and re-read sections to get them into my brain!

8 hours ago, Russ Massey said:

I don't think the rules as written on pages 201 and 202 back up your interpretation of just using anough of the skill excess above 100 to lower the opponent to 5%. I beleive the last bullet point allowing for higher chances of ciriticals and specials is referring only to unopposed rolls, but the eules are not completely unambiguous. The first bullet point seems to say that the opposed skill is always lowered to 100%.

I also don't see where the rules as written then support your method either as there is not an example in the range we are talking about here.  The first bullet point is only lowering it to 100% and the parry to 55% because there is NOT enough to lower the parry to 5% and you can't lower your attack below 100%.  So this doesn't really tell either of us anything.  We both needed the attack to be much higher in that example to see what their "official" intent is.

But the FINAL bullet clearly says "the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase or decrease, based on the final modified chance of success".  So not just unopposed rolls, but clearly opposed rolls that change the percentage of the skills used.

I asked this question in the rules question thread elsewhere.  Hopefully we can get the "official" answer and then decide how we want to run it in our games of course.

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

*Edit* I just realised that I got this wrong, you only reduce the skill if both are over 100%, isn't that right?

I know this isn't true as the combat example on page 201-202 shows the case where a skill lower than 100% is lowered if the opposing skill is greater than 100%.  The first example on 201 in the "Combat With Skills Above 100%" area.