Jump to content

Thyrwyn

Members
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Thyrwyn

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Started playing D&D with the AD&D PHB in the early 80's; discovered RuneQuest shortly thereafter. I've played just about every system out there at some point, but RQ and D&D have never lost their appeal.
  • Current games
    Currently running a weekly game that I've just ported to RQG. I also play a lot of Warhammer 40K and other GW games (Necromunda, Blood Bowl, Kill Team...)
  • Location
    State College, PA
  • Blurb
    Comfortably ensconced in the "wilds" of central Pennsylvania

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I always go with “yes” unless the rules already say “no”.
  2. #6 is the big problem that I’ve been struggling with. The system assumes 50% to be competent and experienced. That should be the point at which the economy works.
  3. “Strengthening” Enchantments. Well worth the investment. @EpicureanDM Our group plays 3-4 weekends a year, now. Started as a weekly game in the 80’s. 6-10 players each weekend. We generally lose one Rune Level a weekend. New characters generally reach God-talker level by the end of the next weekend. We play mostly 3rd edition with some adds (Rolemaster criticals as heroquest abilities, lots of hero quests to middle earth, the Young Kingdoms, etc...) at least one of the PCs (a Melnibonean) has a racial Max POW in the mid 30’s We play a pretty ‘high level’ game, since we get to play so infrequently. Most of the characters in our group have at least 30 POW invested in Rune Spells and enchantments. Our troll group once used Mindlinks to cast a Crack spell (one use) backed by 300+ magic points to piss off some Mostali, and then had our Death Lord d10 divine intervention to get us back home before a fight could even get started.
  4. Spit-balling for the new rules: 5 spirit binding matrices in the object for the Pain Spirits - 10 POW 4 POW to link the 5 matrices, 1 POW for user condition (only wearer of the belt), 1 POW for attack condition (release spirits when the wearer says the command phrase - 6 POW Area Binding Effect: Spirit Binding (2 POW), plus Area condition (3 meter cube; 3 POW) - 5 POW Target condition on Area Effect (only affects Pain Spirits - don’t want to trap anything else in there with you); User condition (only useable by the wearer of the belt); Attack condition (don’t attack the wearer of the belt) - 3 POW 24 POW total In RQ 3 it was only 18 because POW spirits and Pain Spirits only had on stat, POW since the spirits are still in a matrix, technically, the wearer can control them and put them away. Don’t pass out, because no one will want to come Heal you And, yes, it doesn’t follow the letter of the rules, but the area affect condition opens a lot of questions, so we just went with it. and it did take 18 points of POW...
  5. I played a dark troll in RQ 3 that had created a linked set of pain spirit binding matrices. He’d go into melee surrounded by a cloud of 5 or 6 of them. The matrices were linked so I could let them all out at once. Cost a lot of POW to set up, but it made the character very survivable in melee. Sure attracted a lot of enemy Missile and spell fire though. POW wise, though, it was cheaper than shades and harder to get rid of, too. Would be in even better in RQG since you now have to choose between fighting or spirit combat....
  6. We use the mechanic every combat - we transferred our campaign over from Legend. The PC swordswinger has a +30 Skills modifier and a native 95 skill. That's before Bladesharp or Sword Trance.... The mechanic works fine. It makes combats faster. and makes challenging foes really stand out
  7. Everyone’s feedback has been great. We’re going to try the rule with as few restrictions as possible, just in the interest of simplicity. I do agree that you should be able to attempt it regardless of relative skill level though.
  8. Exactly. It allows an option without having to change a core mechanic. Since the current system is neither narrativist nor simulationist, the option I’m proposing satisfies both drives without negating the current rules set.
  9. That’s exactly where I’m coming from. It could be. We’ll try it out and I’ll let you know how it goes. I’m satisfied that everyone’s seeing the same potential interactions this would have (even if we disagree on the merits). Only testing it out will tell if the penalty is appropriate or not. If anyone else tries out this or a similar rule, please keep us posted.
  10. 1) The only one I've considered addresses @PhilHibbs concern as well: the character would have to have the 20% to surrender. Narratively, I see this representing circumstances or an over-matched opponent preventing one from having an earlier opportunity. 2) You could act earlier, but because of the way combat skills over 100% work in RQG, you would be sacrificing other benefits. A superior combatant should be able to act more quickly and more decisively than an less experienced one. In my mind (and in my experience), the static SR system overvalues SIZ and Reach. I am considering this rule to allow skilled combatants a measure of adaptability in the face of larger or faster opponents, or longer weapons. But at a reasonable cost. I would include "must have at least x% skill" so that it is actually an exchange. A reasonable point, and one I've considered. But the current SR system really only makes sense - either narrative or simulationist - in the first round of melee. Once the duck with the dagger gets close to the giant, they should be attacking first. I could introduce rules for closing (similar to other systems and previous editions of RQ), but they are inevitably cumbersome, and introduce their own set of problems, edge cases, and inconsistencies. I'd like the rule to be as succinct as possible. Thank you all for joining the conversation! While I understand that not everyone would be open to this kind of rule, your feedback is helping me figure out what will work best for our table. Keep it coming!
  11. Simply stated: I am considering allowing characters to take a penalty to their attack in order to resolve that attack sooner. I was considering -20% per SR. Since the attack roll represents a series of maneuvers, not a single swing/stab, this rule would represent the character rushing their blow, rather than waiting to create or exploit the best opportunity. (by character, I mean PC or NPC) Does -20% seem appropriate? How frequently would you, as a player, use that rule?
  12. Thyrwyn

    Movement Rate

    Movement happens before Strike Ranks begin; If you use less than half of your MOV, you may do something else (Shoot, cast spells, etc...), but your SR is delayed by 1 for each 3m you actually moved, as long as you can get it done by SR 12. (p. 192 - movement of non-engaged characters). Characters which begin the round engaged, may not move that round.
  13. I like the mechanic, but I would (and might) use CHA instead of INT, given the changes in RQG. This feels more appropriate, and keeps it distinct from sorcery - both in terms of mechanics and setting.
  14. 1. Yep - so the OP stated, which matches my experience and (conveniently) reality. But the OP was asking for opinions about restoring the cap, so I was sharing my experiences with the cap: ie, everyone just learned the spells at the capped value, so the point of being variable was rarely significant. Once acquired at the cap, it was never cast at less then the cap (exception: Heal); the only reason to learn cast less than the cap was usually “new character syndrome”, and was corrected as soon as resources allowed and was never relevant again; the mechanical process of progressing to the capped value was, in general, just book keeping and not interesting from a story or character perspective. 2. I did mention mention that Heal broke the cap rule 3. Most definitely not. “No hard limits on variable spells” was one of my favorite changes form 2nd to 3rd. I was making the suggestion to the OP, that if you dislike having no cap, it would be more efficient to just remove “variable” as a battle magic spell type, and make all of the variable spells fixed. That was my concluding suggestion to the OP, based on my reasoning as outlined in my post, and repeated in #1, above. I prefer variable spells as they are, but if I were to consider a limit, I would just make them fixed point spells. That would make them easier to use and describe, and would speed up play without Changing the play experience significantly. “What does Bladesharp do? - It adds +20% to hit and +4 damage” done. I will try to be more clear
×
×
  • Create New...