Jump to content

EpicureanDM

Members
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

EpicureanDM last won the day on April 8

EpicureanDM had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About EpicureanDM

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    35 years across dozens of RPGs, including RQ3.
  • Current games
    D&D, RQG
  • Blurb
    Hello.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks for digging that up, @PhilHibbs. The answer could be nudging some annoying, follow-up questions in the back of my mind, but I'll ignore that feeling for now.
  2. I realize now that people haven't read this paragraph from the Bestiary's entry for wyters. This same language appears on pg. 286 of RQG:
  3. I'm sure that wyters would too if they had the option. Do they? Naturally, the Bestiary contains Kogui, a village deity who breaks the general rule by specifically stating that it can spend Rune Points on certain Rune spells. So Kogui can spend both Rune Points and POW on Rune spells, I guess. C'mon, Chaosium. *rubs eyes*
  4. I've somehow missed during this discussion that while wyters in the Bestiary have Rune Points included in their listings, the rules say that wyters cast Rune magic using their POW rather than Rune Points. Why exactly do they bother having Rune Points, then? Can Rune Points be used for something other then casting Rune magic? EDIT: Is it to measure how many points of Rune magic spells a spirit has access to? So a spirit with 8 Rune Points has 8 Rune magic spells? That doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that a GM would leave to chance (e.g. a GM wants designs a powerful Snake Daughter with 11 particular Rune spells, but only rolls a "9" on 4d6, so they change their concept to fit the random roll).
  5. I shared it with my players, but they also shied away from doing their homework. "Engaged" might seem more tricky than it is, but what's obvious to some might not be for others. I used the old wargaming "base to base" concept with my players, meaning that if they could imagine the base of their character's miniature touching the base of another, they're "base to base" and Engaged in RQG terms. We don't use minis when we play RQG, but they could visualize it. Another way to think about it is if one combatant tried to make a melee attack against another (regardless of success), they are Engaged. There's a distinction here between being close enough to engage in a melee attack and actually trying to make one. There could be some edge cases where one combatant is within arm's reach of another and not Engaged. My rule of thumb is that once one combatant tries to murder another with a melee weapon, that's when both become Engaged. It represents a narrowing of the combatants' worlds and options to being in a fight for their life with someone who's in their face.
  6. If I read this correctly (the fault is mine if I'm not), then I don't think I factor SIZ into things when someone's Statement of Intent also contains movement. SIZ is bundled into a character's overall melee Strike Rank (DEX SR + SIZ SR + Weapon SR). It's accounted for there. To recalculate it or adjust for it again once combatants become Engaged is probably more trouble than it's worth. Your example is unintentionally awkward because you're starting in melee, i.e. you're Engaged in RQG terms. You can't move 3 meters if you're Engaged in RQG without triggering a 5e-style Attack of Opportunity that you can't parry or dodge. That's pretty nasty. Assuming you aren't Engaged, your tentative SR would be 7 (1SR to move 3m + DEX SR 3 + SIZ SR 3) before your weapon SR is added. RQG allows you to draw a weapon as part of that movement, so you wouldn't trigger what I call "The Universal 5 SR Penalty." I deal with most of your questions in the document I linked to above.
  7. @Bill the barbarian has added some important details to the basic answers, except for the MOV/SIZ stuff. I wrote this guide to RQG's Strike Rank system. It borrows from RQ3, so it's not RAW. The RQ3 additions are minimal and mostly related to quality of life. They don't include the RQ3 MOV/SIZ stuff. You might find it helpful, @klecser. Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sqmq88ratu5s6go/Newcomer's Guide to Runequest's Strike Rank Combat v0.5.pdf?dl=0
  8. Semi-related, I'd be keen to know how healing potions are made in Glorantha. Does someone dump a 4-point spirit magic spell into a special flask?
  9. I'm with you and @HreshtIronBorne on this one, @Pentallion. You're exploring the rules given to you by the designers. If the rules about wyters had been playtested more rigorously, we might have seen some limits published in the RAW. I think you found a very interesting set of ideas and rules around wyters and clan war. Some reasonable limits have been proposed to tone down the pure power-plays, leaving some powerful new options for RQG play. I've taken some notes for use in my own game. I find this thread interesting for addressing the stunt monsters in the Bestiary like the Crimson Bat or Cwim. I understand that they're designed using a "LOL, this is funny" principle and I couldn't see a way for RQG characters to ever challenge them (using the rules we currently have). But now we've got this "burn down your wyter" idea to think about. Can it be theorycrafted? Maybe. I'm probably not the one to try. But it expands the horizons of what's possible. And before the grognards start declaiming about AD&D/Deities and Demigods/"If it has stats, we can kill it," I know. I know. I've been around a long time. I read about it in the letters section of Dragon.
  10. My new-to-RQ players struggled with different parts of RQG, but Rune and spirit magic wasn't one of those parts. Just as you explained, they listened to my warnings that Rune magic was a powerful, limited resource. They treated it that way. I might have mentioned it upthread, but what they stumbled over was remembering that they had a slew of common Rune magic spells available that weren't on their character sheets.
  11. Thanks! My players also found it helpful. If you've got any changes or feedback, I'd be glad to get it.
  12. That part I get, but are the ranks of Lunars comprised of people who are culturally Dara Happans who converted to the Lunar faith? Do they dress and eat and talk to each other like Dara Happans, but with a different religion? If the Lunars were an outsider culture and people who invaded Peloria (Are Dara Happans from Peloria?! Why aren't they called "Pelorians"?) and are living among Dara Happans as conquerers, I could more easily see how to play each of them. It would be like Mongols ruling over the Chinese: two distinct cultures thrown together (Side note to the inevitable formal or semi-formal historians who are more likely to be found in this forum than others: that's meant to be the loosest, simplest, most casual analogy drawn from an extremely limited knowledge of the actual history. Don't nitpick it). I manage my confusion by largely avoiding them in my game.
  13. Dara Happans! The whole difference between Lunars and Dara Happans and the mixed culture of the Lunar Empire in general still gives me a headache.
  14. I kept the fusion of attack/parry. I do like that idea, just not how it interacts with other new rules. I made this handout for my players. It incorporates all of my RQ3-ish revisions to RQG combat. You might find it helpful: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sqmq88ratu5s6go/Newcomer's Guide to Runequest's Strike Rank Combat v0.5.pdf?dl=0
×
×
  • Create New...