Zit

Are you really working alone on this, Jeff ? As Joerg mentioned, can't you get some help, as Chaosium did for the old RQ2 stuff ?

I ran a PBEM steppes nomads game but I'm currently doing a pause. Just for pleasure I wrote 3 mini-settings : one in old Mesopotamia, one for Sarmatians, and the last one incl. simple rules is a mixing of Mesopotamia and classical Fantasy stuff (Sumerians are Elfs and Ammorites are half-orcs).

There are such rules in Revolution d100. 2 pages, based on the conflict rules of the same rule set.

(continuing here a discussion from Google +) I understand Genert's Garden as a kind of lost Eden, with unsettled people, without town or administration, close to the nature and a very natural and simple worship. So I think it is legitimate to see them as no builders as well. Same for the following nomads. It is my own interpretation -YGWV-, but it hurts me a bit to see such people building something elaborate like Petra and I'd rather see their sacred places as almost untouched remarkable natural landmarks -although I must admit that @M Helsdon's picture is quite appealing to me. Unless some foreigners built it ?

How do you manage these super powers ? Some of them are in the Powers list but not to be found under any Skill. Ex. Cyclope. Prohect energy 10. Is that the same as the Beam in Ranged Combat ? Or for Storm: does not comply to : I'm a bit confused.

is an attack spell not simply a spell which is targeted (not self) and has to overcome a resistance ? I mean in the rule POV, I don't want to start a new philosophical debate about attack or not attack here.

Is that in RQ3 ? I can't recall it in RQ2.

Spirits can attack both other spirits a corporeal creatures, so they can "see" both. If spirits do not intend to attack a shaman, why shall they attack his fetch which is the shaman's self on the spirit plane ? Where the shaman can go without trouble, I would state that his fetch should as well. More generally speaking, spirits and shamanism belong to the countless marvelous stories invented by the mankind to explain the World: like all beliefs, it is full of contradictions and unexplored aspects and it is vain to try to completely rationalize it. "It is like this because...it is." It is almost impossible to answer all the questions which players may ask. I'm currently facing this difficulty while developing rules for shamanism: questions arise again and again, without any logical answer, if any. If you start with too much questioning, you may have to completely invent a spirit world, with its geography, laws, and how it interacts with the mundane world. Could be a game on its own. So as David Scott mentioned, handle it as a story element when it brings something to the story line, or ignore it. It does not have to be believable, but consistent with the story and enjoyable.

Does it work when launching a Hoola Hoop of Death ? And what about the Harpoon of Sun County ?

Fact : if so many players have different interpretations, it means that the rules are not clear enough, whatever YOU think. And the game editors have to consider this. It is more a question of form. From my side, I never even thought about applying this spell to missile weapons before this thread. It may have been a kind of unconscious game balancing. Yes, I'd like to have it written "melee and ranged" or "melee only", even if I may change it anyway. Speaking about game balance, players shall not have to adjust anything themselves : a rule has to propose something which works, moreover in a professional game design. That said, every group is of course free to change the rule as wished, and we all do it. And nobody's perfect, so no rule is 100% flawless and we accept this, but any improvement is welcome.

No, you were right. With DEX 19+, DSR=0. You shoot at SR 0, 5 and 10. Many Elfs can do it, or many humans with a coordination spell. Fanaticism for missiles may not be clearly forbidden by the rules, but for game balance, we always limited it to hand weapons. I think it was in the "spirit" of the rules, when not in the exact wording. It would be helpful to clarify it either way in the new version. Generally speaking, every time there is a debate on this forum, there is a corresponding obscure point of rule. Even it is clear to the authors, the most important is that it is clear to the readers.

I'd make it setting or even profession dependent. I'm not shocked by the fact that some Traits are imposed, but it must not be a fixed amount of it for every character.

yeah, put them all in an arena or in a garden and make a round by round report on this forum !!

Please just keep it easy for computer mooks -like me-, for whom IT and the like are like Draconic.

The rules are so easy that I'm not even sure it is necessary to have any method: we can use the easy, moderate, difficult or very difficult oppositions. For more detailed opponents, or as guideline, a few ideas: 3 levels of competencies: beginner 51%(*), veteran 81%(*) and champion 111%(*) = best skill + trait 3 levels of resistance = RP : the best at 16, the second at 14, the rest at 10. One skill at maximum level + 16 RP, one at one level less + 14 RP + one at same level but 10RP, the rest at 51% + 10 RP. Apprentices shall be at 51% everywhere with about 12 traits max.. ex: veteran hoplite, Close combat (Spear, Shield, Short Sword) 81%, 16 RP / Athletics (Run, Brawl, Jump) 51%, 14RP / Communication (Oratory, Thessalian) 51%, 10RP / all other traits at 51%, 10RP Warlock apprentice, Concentration (1x manipulation, 2x spells) 51%, 16 RP, Knowledge (legends, medicine, 1 free Trait) 51%, 14RP, Perception (insight, 2 free Traits) 51% Warlock Hero Concentration (Willpower, 5x spells, 3x manipulation) 111%, 16 RP, Channeling 9, Communication (Persuade, demonic tongue, Languages, up to 3 more free) 81%, 14 RP, Knowledge (Book of Doom, demonic plane , 4 more free) 81%, 10 RP, If dedicated to one skill, increase the number of traits but decrease one of the 2nd skills of one level. Ex.. for the warlock hero, Concentration 111% (Willpower, 12x spells, 4x manipulation), 16 RP, Communication (Persuade, demonic tongue, Languages, up to 3 more free) 81% 14RP, Knowledge (Book of Doom, demonic plane , 2 more free) 51%, 10RP (*) 51 % because it allows 3 Traits, while 50% would allow only 2 But actually, you can build the NPC while using it. ex.: you want the Warlock to be strong, you give him 16RP for his spells, which gives you directly his INT. And you fill up the Traits on the fly.

I'm not so sure. This paragraph is a summary of how skills above 100% work. Both sentences are separated and may refer to two different situations This is the quick start, a condensate text, I suppose the full rules will clarify this point. But since levels of success are compared in combat as well, even if not stricto sensu an opposed roll, I think that it does not make so much difference statistically if keeping the original skill rates or decreasing the highest to 100% and all others accordingly. Opposed resolution are for abilities.

Whatever the game rule, you'll always find a counter-example in real life. At some time, it is necessary to accept that everything cannot be simulated and that logic and common sense (if this does exist at all) supersedes any rule.

My feeling is that the Strike or DEX Rank rules as in the BGB are not really made for simulating detailed combat with effects and maneuvers. An attack roll is actually a series of mouvements or feints aimed at placing a strike at least. It is all abstracted in the die roll. Most attempts to increase the level of details and description are problematic, as the numerous discussions on this forum show it. If your goal is only to accelerate things, introducing a supplementary level of success can help, but you have to invent the effects of it, and this is exactly the difficulty you are facing in combat. However, the BGB as it is already allows 16 different outcomes, which should be sufficient. Another way would be to increase the chances for special dies, like 1/10 for critical, a suggested before. A nice way for Specials could be as in Revolution d100, where you get a special (called Advantage) when, in case of a success, the tens die is bigger than the units die -no maths and the more skilled get relatively more specials. All this remains very abstract. If you want a system with effects, I think you'll have to go with the above mentioned rules like Mythras or Revolution d100, which are made for combat effects. Nothing prevents you from announcing an effect before rolling, or to use combat effect cards to speed-up the process.

or switch from "roll under" to "roll over"

if you can read French (or even if you can't) : https://d100.fr/point-sur-la-gamme-revolution-d100/ That's a summary of what has been officially edited or announced (if i didn't forget anything).

I would agree with you on Dragonewts.

Gold is the best weapon

Mostali, Aldryamis and Dragonewts. I don't know how to play them. Too weird for my laziness. I leave them go their way.

It's a point of view and there is no point here arguing about who's right or who's wrong. I consider myself that you protect the room inside the hoop and that the spell is bound to the space delimited by the wands. Speaking about RAW, these say that the Ward "protects an area" and the "air space above" it. Period. There is no mention of a condition of intending to protect anything else. And also "The Detect Enemies component will then detect anyone wishing to assault the area, steal an object, or whatever is appropriate to the manner of casting the spell". So I don't see here anything forbidding the Warding Hoop, but if you believe it should be, that's fine -but it is not RAW. YGWV

The Revolution D100 rules use Traits. The Martial art is a Trait which allows a list of stunts, each one being a Trait as well. Pretty easy.