Thyrwyn

That thread should be culled of everything but the questions and Jason's answers - there are too many posts with other people chiming in attempt to answer questions and be helpful. Regardless: his answer to the skills over 100% query is troubling on sooooo many levels: 1) "always reduce the highest skill over 100 to 100" is just bad game design. If that is the RAI, then no attack will EVER have more than a 20% chance to special or more than a 5% chance to critical, which defeats the benefit of achieving a skill over 100 in the first place. Since Specials and Criticals are often the only deciding factor in high level encounters against spelled up opponents, the RAI does the opposite of its apparent intent, which is to shorten combats. Jason's stated RAI actually makes high level combats more of a slog, since an engaged character must choose between casting or attacking. (Reasoning: within the scope of this ruling, you should always parry or dodge, even with a 5% chance to succeed, even you've already done so 13 times this round, because it guarantees that your opponent will have no better than an effective 100% skill, whereas, if you do not defend, they get their full skill). 2) The suggestion about what he would allow players to do with the wasted points has absolutely no place in that thread. No "official answer" should include a suggested work around, especially one that throws so much of the rules system under the bus in the process. The only appropriate inclusion to the "official answer' would be an insight into the design purpose and intent of the rule in question. In this specific case, we got just the opposite. 3) It implies either: a lack of familiarity with the written rules, or; a lack of intentional design and play-testing. as someone who is currently running an RQG campaign and has been running campaigns since RQ2 (including BRP, Legend, Stormbringer, and RQ3 - my former go to incarnation), I can say that I really enjoy RQG. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Runes and Passions, the "system" did not seem to have much of a cohesive design philosophy invested in it. The Glorantha content is phenomenal, as is the art. But the "system" is largely a collection of discreet mechanics, with no unifying drive or direction. In my experience, it is effectively a very pretty RQ3.5 The way I run combat skills in my game (should you care): 1) each attack is a discreet contest, and is only considered an opposed roll if the defender declares a Parry or Doge, and is eligible to do so. There are only ever, at most, two sides - attacker and possible defender; 2) If at least one side of the opposed roll is over 100, then do math: either reduce the lower skill to 5% (and the other skill by a like amount), or reduce the highest skill to 100% (and the other by a like amount; whichever leaves the most skilled participant with the highest effective value. This only affects this particular, discreet contest. 3) Specials, Crits, & Fumbles are based on the modified skill levels. [for opposed rolls outside of combat, replace "reduce the lower skill" in step 2 with "reduce the next highest skill"] This is, by my reading, is consistent with the RAW, and - in my experience - effectively speeds up combat. PS - I am also making [Melee Weapon] Trance spells 2 point spells, instead of 1. And, thank you for reading this far.

My point is that the defender has to declare a Parry against each attack individually, as it happens and before any dice for that attack are rolled. This means that for each subsequent Parry that round - regardless of weapon - will be at a -20%. But if they choose not to Parry a particular attack, that attacker’s skill will not be affected by the defender’s skill at all. That’s not my understanding. Any reduction due to an opponent’s skill in an opposed roll applies only to that opposed roll, not the skil. But, for combat specifically, the defender must declare the Parry. My point was that weapon skill does not passively reduce an attacker’s weapon skill, the defender must declare the Parry. Some people seemed to be under the impression that the defender did not need to actually Parry: that just having the high skill was enough to provide effective immunity. I don’t have a problem with the over 100% combat skill mechanic at all - as a GM or as a player. It appropriately conveys a world (and system) in which skill level is relational, not comparative. The difference (mechanically) between an opponent with a 100% skill and one with a 50% skill is literally the same as that between one with 150% and one with 100%. A 50 point difference is always a 50 point difference - regardless of the skill levels involved. I like that consistency, since that is the way that the Resistance Table has always worked. ********************* I have issues with the (Melee Weapon) Trance spells not because of their effect, per se, but rather because that effect requires very little cost or effort to attain or use, AND that it impacts both offense and defense. Berserk costs 2 RP and it has serious repercussions and drawbacks to using it, and is often fatal to the target. Earth Shield is not nearly as effective, is only defensive, and costs 3 RP.

Reread the rules on skills over 100% reducing the opposing skill (RQG p144 & p201) it only matters in opposed rolls, and only affects that contest (for purposes of this conversation, this means not the whole combat, but only that particular opposed roll) so a defender with a 200% weapon skill does not reduce the chance of every attacker by 100% - only the first attacker against which they declare a Parry. If the defender does not declare a Parry, then the attacker’s skill is not affected. For each subsequent declared Parry, the attackers’ skill would be reduced by 20% less. TL,DR: against defenders with weapon skills over 100%, only DECLARED Parries reduce attackers’ chance to hit. PS - I still believe that the (Melee Weapon) Trance spells are under-costed compared to their benefits, but let’s at least establish a common understanding of the rules context for that conversation.

But it worked differently in RQ3. It didn’t affect defense.

I don't think it does - Extension isn't the problem. As a GM, every potential combat encounter has to be planned around that spell. That spell reasonably represents a 100 point swing in the opponents' chance to hit AND defend against a character that can cast that spell. Opponents intended to challenge said character with the spell, will walk all over them if they (don't/can't/fail to) cast it. Those same opponents will likewise walk all over anyone else in the party who doesn't have the spell. Classic "monster" opponents become similarly problematic: if they have any chance of hitting the Trancer, no one else in the party will be able to defend against the monster's attacks. All fights focus on that one character, even if the other party members are so-called warriors, too. Look at the mechanics, alone: Each MP stacked with the spell provides +10% to hit and -10% to be hit (the effective equivalent of Bladesharp 2 and Shimmer 2). Unlike Arrow Trance (from the RQG Bestiary), the user can Parry, and there is no prohibition on spell casting or behavior (RAW). Because it adds to the skill, not just the attack (like Bladesharp) it would be a great spell even if it were +10% per Rune Point. Compare to Crush, each RP of which gives +10% to hit (only) and +1d4 Damage (effectively Bludgeon 2). The Spell is challenging because of the way RQG handles skills over 100%, and the fact that it works off of MP, which are much more readily available than RP. Even without factoring Extension into the equation.

(In my game only the RP of Sword Trance need to be Dismissed or Dispelled) It is still a very powerful spell - less so because it makes the weapon indefensible, but because it makes the wielder equally immune to attacks. No matter how powerful the foe, if they don't have the ability to dispel, they pose significantly less threat to Sword Tranced defender. from a GM perspective, planning encounters for a party that includes a character with such a spell is highly problematic. Opponents must have weight of numbers on their side, and probably be highly skilled, as well. This means that any foe strong enough to jeopardize the Sword Trancer, is well beyond the capabilities of the rest of the party. Geometrically so, since - RQ being what it is - an unlucky 01 early in the fight can mean that Sword Trancer is off the board. Sword Trance itself - not the character that knows it or the rest of the party - frame any threat assessment It is also unfun: Sword Trance means that either every foe dispels it at first opportunity (unfun for everyone - especially the player, who never gets to use it), or that character is never really at risk, or the party is suddenly at risk of a TPK. I feel it has a greater impact on adventure design than Sever Spirit. Sever Spirit - even at 3 points - must be cast in the moment, must get through defensive spells (if any), and then must overcome the POW of the target. How do other GMs handle designing encounters for characters with Sword Trance in which dispel will not be a factor?

It costs 3RP to cast. Each RP you sacrifice for allows you to a learn a new spell. I’m suggesting that you treat each destination as a different spell.

How about: each time you gain an RP, and choose to learn this spell, you gain another “spot”. The ritual is still required to set the actual destination. If you have more destinations than “spots”, you may choose which one to forget.

I’ve found that the mechanism of subtracting skill over 100% effects the same feel, has that been your experience?

Sure. (I was trying to be brief). The OP point still stands: if a vampire gets to steal a Rune Spell, they can still learn the last spell learned and an RP. Nothing about the current mechanics changes that. The victim either knows Rune spells or not; they either have RP or not

Rune Points are still attached to spells. I don’t see the problem.

Dodge is not a “trap”, since it’s effect is superior to a Parry. With Parry, damage is always a factor, and you put not only yourself, but your weapon at risk. Parry costs resources. Always Dodge, when successful, negates all damage. If A successful Dodge always reduced the success level of the attack, then it would be probable for a being with a high Dodge and enough armor or magic to be effectively invulnerable. Dodge would become the must have skill at higher “levels”.

CHA is also more easily raisable than it used to be.

I like the once per session because it forces characters to rely on many aspects of their character, not one. It forces players to look for alternative means of solving problems and conflicts. It is a storytelling tool. It allows the player to say this scene is important to me.

They don’t suffer. They reduce their opponents’ chance of succeeding. This means they are much more likely to land an undefended blow, or not have to bother defending themselves. It also means that they are much less likely to Be on the receiving end of a critical, which is the bane of every adventurer everywhere It is a huge advantage. Huge. Especially against multiple opponents.

Welcome aboard!

It doesn’t matter who made the Binding Enchantment or how, only that it is big enough (at least 1 POW per characteristic of the spirit to be bound). A Rune spell could be used to command a spirit summoned by a sorcerer to force it into an enchantment made by a Shaman. Unless the enchantment has conditions limiting its utility (which cost additional POW).

It is quite possible to be able to read a language you can neither speak nor understand when spoken. This was the point of the Chinese system of writing - it allowed understandable communication across a vast empire even between individuals that shared no spoken language. The meanings of the characters could be taught to anyone, regardless of their spoken language or the sounds of the words, because the characters do not correspond to sounds. Even today, you can learn to read and write Latin without having the remotest possibility of understanding a word an actual Roman citizen might have said My wife used to work with a guy who can read and write Russian, Hebrew, Greek, and Ancient Greek without being able to speak a lick in any of them.

I’ve been playing since AD&D, and 5e is my favorite system by far, but it’s strengths may only really prove evident during play. It is not deeply intricate, but it is consistent, and broad enough to allow meaningful choices that remain engaging and fast. The action system is deeper than it appears at first glance, and the advantage/disadvantage mechanic makes tactics relevant without requiring the number crunching that hampers some systems. The character backgrounds allow another layer of character customization that creates varied and diverse characters, despite the constraints of a class based system. The mechanics make it easy to prep for (as a GM), and easy to play. As a GM, I find it easy to get even new players to look up from their character sheets and make engage the world; to make decisions based on situations, not mechanics. Give it a chance

I’ve used the DOUBLES count as CRIT/FUMBLE up until RQG came out. But - to smooth out the progression, we counted 00 as the lowest roll (zero) not the highest (100). This avoids the fumble “pile up” at 99 & 00, and keeps the “lowest roll is always a critical” aesthetic. CRITS occur at 00, 11, 22, 33, ... if under your skill 99 is always a fumble, as are any doubles over your skill It also allows a smoother implementation of the “high roll breaks ties” but working special successes into the mix is problematic.

@Mechashef in the current rules, opposed perception/stealth rolls are only used when the perceiver is actively using their perception skill (per Hide & Move Quietly on page 189). Otherwise, a simple skill check of the stealth skill is used. So, for enemies sneaking up on or hiding from unsuspecting player characters, you don't need to ask for a roll at all. If the enemies fail their roll, they are discovered; if they succeed, they are not. If the player characters are actively looking for something, finding nothing only means that either there is nothing to be found, or that their enemies are at least as stealthy as the pcs are perceptive. Which doesn’t give them any more information than they had before the roll.

@g33k the difference between Glorantha and early AD&D settings was that the big bads weren’t running around chewing on the scenery, following a timeline, and changing the setting canon. @Tywyll that’s why I don’t set my games in canon Glorantha. Because especially in RQG, we aren’t playing with the full rule set (or, there are elements in the setting that are clearly beyond the current rule set).

Which is why we (at least I) am not arguing for using lowest roll, either. The problem is trying to quantify “best” among equals by using the original die roll. It doesn’t work.

@Mechashef I meant mathematically across all skill levels, it’s essentially the same thing An easier solution would be: take each actor’s chance to special and roll on the Resistance table. This assumes, of course, that a “winner” is needed, and that a tie doesn’t make sense.

RAW, the lower the roll the better the result: a roll of 15 with a skill of 70 is a regular success, but is almost a special success. If we resolve ties in favor of the higher roll, then “almost a special” becomes “barely successful” against an evenly matched or superior opponent; against an inferior opponent, it occupies a grey middle ground where it wins against some simple successes (those lower than 15) and loses to others. There’s no problem mathematically, but it is thematically problematic. It breaks immersion. It requires us to treat the die roll not as a narrative representation of the character’s action, but as a purely mathematical one. It takes the players out of the setting and the narrative by imposing a disconnect between the die roll and the resolution.