Zit

In an opposed roll, there are actually 4 levels of success: two for each.

did you ever consider Disadvantages, just as there are Advantages ? Like when the roll is a failure and the unit dice bigger than the ten die ?

oops.

wouldn't be better to have the 2H mounted spear as a Stunt ?

what about using 2H weapons on horseback (*) ? The rules don't say anything about it (or I missed something), but I would at least expect a stunt to allow it, at least for some of them.

(*) ex. sarmatian konthos, hooked lance, or 2H-maces used by Mongols as depicted in some pictures. But no 2H sword or axe.

but only spirits can initiate spirit combat. And only shamans can perceive spirits. So the humakti can actually not use his rune, except may on a spirit possessing himself.

I know it may be too late, but for Mounted Combat, I would limit the skill with the ride skill, as in the BRP. Or is that not in accordance with the spirit of the rules ?

1 hour ago, Runeblogger said:

I'm loving this discussion. Keep it up!

I just wanted to say it ! To be found only on this forum !

The long sword has the slash (auto) effect, while all the other straight swords have it as (effect) only. Is that correct or a typo ? I was expecting to reserve the slash (auto) for the curved sabre, because of its curvature.

That's it, and I don't see any breaking of the game balance here. The next difficulty resides in finding a way to project it. You cannot use a sylph because it will trigger the Warding. You can use a teleportation spell with POW backing to pass through the warding's countermagic, or a couple a Great Trolls to throw it. Or a huge catapult which no adventurer can carry with him, not speaking about the frame itself.

And since the protection is actually effective on a 3m high parallelepiped, you may even turn the frame upside down and use it underground, for instance as protection against earth elementals or to attack the floor behind you. Or hold the frame vertically and push it against a wall or a door to attack defenders, in combination with a battling ram, or even in front of a charge. But here again, you have to build the frame, and I am not sure it would be easy to carry: these ideas are more appropriate for war than for adventuring.

I would anyway always reward imaginative players.

Any scheduled publication in any form of this setting ?

19 hours ago, 7Tigers said:

Nothing in the text indicates that the Warding spell is functional when cart is moving.
As I understood it when I read Griffin Mountain a long time ago, the Warding spell was for static protection only.
As a GM, as soon as one of the wands moves, I rule that Warding spell ceases then to protect.

and nothing indicates it is not, neither in GM nor in the rules. In GM, nothing mentions that the wagons must be static. It is mentioned that the Jack o' Bears avoid the wagons but without specifying "while static" in any way. The whole wagons glow when a detect magic is cast, and since the spell can be cast to protect "an area or an object" (RQ classic), I strongly tend to consider that the wagons can move while the warding remains on.

So nothing in the rules forbids it, and it is too much game fun to go without it.

Gondo Holst has a cart protected with a warding spell. It moves, so why not a ring. I think this is a brilliant idea.

Stamina ?

Life Breath ?

Trunk works in French as well (tronc).

The question may already have been addressed somewhere else, I'm sorry if it is the case.

The rules for augments on page 2 are not the same as later for Runes and Passions, although it is said on page 2 that "Where appropriate, abilities—whether Runes, skills, or passions—
may be combined to augment one another".

Page 2:
• Failure: Subtract –20% from the desired ability.
• Fumble: Subtract –50% from the desired ability.

Page 8 & 10

• Failure: Subtract –10% from all rolls using that Rune/passion etc.
• Fumble: Immediately lose –1D10% from the Rune/passion etc.

I know the Quickstart is only a draft and I guess this has already been spotted and will be corrected, but I'm wondering if, the definitive rules, there will be a difference when augmenting with skills or with runes/passions, and if yes, why ?

There should be one in the Scorpions' Hall Soloquest  as well, if I remember well.

15 hours ago, soltakss said:

A Motivation is something that drives you. "Wants to get a fix" is a valid Motivation and is certainly not positive.

"Can hardly resist a [temptation]" is a good Motivation, as it motivates the PC. If the PC sees what can hardly be resisted, then the PC will try and do/get it. The Motivation can be used in an Opposed Contest, with a RP against WIL, as the PC tries to resist the temptation. Consequences could happen as a result of the Contest. 

A permanent consequence would work, but a permanent consequence could well end up as a Motivation, so is a means to the same end, almost an intermediary step.

I'm not sure. Citing the rules : "A Motivation is a short phrase that expresses what your character believes in, wants to achieve, what is important, what haunts his or her dreams." And  "“Addicted to alcohol” is not a good Motivation".

I understand a Motivation as something which shall drive you doing voluntary something (this is what I mean with "positive"), not prevent you or force you doing something, which is in terms of mechanics the opposite and like would be an addiction or a phobia. So it should be "despite blablabla..." or "tries to overcome blablabla..." instead.

And what would mean "activating a Motivation" ? Getting drunk for an alcoholic ? (and gaining Fate Points, as everybody knows that there are guardian angels for alcoholics )

Well, I understand Motivation is something positive, which "drives you to improve your situation", like trying to overcome a weakness. As the rule says, "addicted to alcohol" is not a good motivation, but "tries to overcome his addiction" is a good one. In this case, the player wanted a true impairment, like a passion, an addiction, a phobia. A kind of HQ flaw.

What about giving a permanent Consequence ?

sorry if it already has been mentioned: p. 93, side block "spell singing", there is a reference to POW instead of WIL.

At many other places, WIL is written Will.

On 8/28/2017 at 11:24 PM, Mechashef said:

The idea of two handed weapons being able to attack and parry in the same round while one handed ones can't seems to be on par with D&D's old rule of two handed weapons attacking last. Put in for game balance, but makes no real sense.

My (late) HR was that you were able to attack and parry if holding one single weapon, whatever it was (1H or 2H). It is another combat style than having two weapons, with different stances and tactics. Not perfect but more balanced and not so unrealistic I think.

One of my players wants to give a personality Trait, like "can hardly resist a [temptation]". How do you manage this ?

38 minutes ago, Joerg said:

The freeform games for our adult players usually have rock paper scissors.

Do you mean a Three Feathered Rivals Contest ? Fist = Darkness, 2 fingers = wind or lightning, hand = sky dome

Very broo-ish, it perfectly suits to Dorastor. And a very successful game : led by very inventive players enjoying the game with the GM as spectator. Perfect.

YSFWV

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

Single biome worlds?

 

Well, I think it depends on the game. If you play in kind of Star Wars game, planets with one single biome, one single land and even one single town is not so much of a concern