Shiningbrow

15 minutes ago, Crel said:

Keep in mind these thoughts were going while I'd boinked the fragment @metcalph quoted on p.391 out of my memory. Though, I do look forward to that mystic, magic day we get the sorcery supplement. Wonder if "sorcery rules" will become the next "heroquest rules" type wishlist item, after the Gamemaster's Guide happens.

I believe it's been confirmed that Sorcery will get a good look in in the GoG with regards the various cults that strongly use them, and the GMG when it happens. Chaosium are aware that at the moment it's lacking meat, and that a lot of people want to see more.

1 hour ago, Crel said:

I think from a game balance perspective, Power Enhancing crystals just have to not work for sorcery. Unlike Healing Focusing crystals, Power Enhancing don't have the "only double as many points as its POW" tag--and even if it did, that would still be insanely strong. As a GM, I can't imagine ever letting a sorcerer get their hands on such a crystal. On an average 4.5 POW in the crystal, with only doubling as many points as POW, it would still be an incredible tool. +4 or +5 spell strength to every spell you cast? That's incredible. With the way sorcery spells grow, that's incredibly strong. It's basically getting the crystal's POW as a strength-only inscription for all of your spells. If you allowed it for duration or range...

Oh, maybe that's how the Lunars enhanced the Moonburn.

Looking across the board, it seems that the crystals aren't written with sorcery or Rune magic really in mind. Is this another case of copy-paste? I'm unfamiliar with crystal text from other editions. Generally, at my table I'll probably rule that Power Enhancing, Healing Focusing, and Sensitivity crystals only provide effects for spirit magic. The other crystals feel generic enough that I'd let their effect stand across the board, probably.

It's only 1D8, and it specifically says "doubles the strength", meaning you do actually have to put in as many points as you want doubled (maximum, usually, of 8).

Yes, very powerful... but also incredibly rare to any worthwhile degree.

The fact that sorcerers can just inscribe anyway is a pretty powerful ability on its own, seems to suggest Chaosium is willing to allow high-powered sorcerers in the game.

I don't think it should in any way affect duration or range... but that's just my take. After all, those attributes don't change for Spirit Magic spells. (and, 'strength' is pretty much going to be interpreted as 'intensity').

ETA: "Balance"?? What's that? 😛

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

I wonder whether you can summon a disease spirit from an infected place or perhaps even person, or whether a summoning always opens a pathway to the spirit world.

Place - yes. Under Shaman in the RQG book "Spirit Places"... potent places where such things occur on a large scale will have a related spirit/s (or more).

On 4/26/2019 at 6:46 PM, metcalph said:

p391 under Spell Name: Runes and Techniques used.

IMO the Magic Rune breaks down into the Six Techniques of Sorcery (Command etc.).

While I do get the second idea (and thus, I'd say that having mastered the Magic Rune, you'd get access to all 6 techniques as mastered... but that's a bit of a cheat! ), the use of the Magic Rune as a Rune that can be replaced by any other is just silly!

Attract Magic should actually require the Magic Rune, and having mastered any other Rune doesn't make sense for this spell! Now, if you had Attract Magic with the Air Rune, I'd think that the spell would only attract Air Rune spells.... Castback the same.

Magic Point Enchantment??? I don't understand how any other Rune would be appropriate for this!

Etc Etc.....

2 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Yeah, that  paragraph a very long 4 and an half columns away and a large table between makes all the difference in interpreting the paragraph I quoted.

Cheers

True...

I went looking for it because the paragraphs and the interpretation* just didn't make sense (which is unusual for RQ... there's usually a good logic behind their rules).

(*not your thinking, but the way it was phrased that led to your thinking)

On 4/9/2019 at 12:39 AM, PhilHibbs said:

Where is that from?

Oh wow, I just found it, p169 of the Bestiary. Hmmm. I have no idea why that is in there, it looks like a fantastic way to get a ton of POW by summoning and defeating a series of spirits with a ton of pre-prepared spirit combat boosts. No wonder Malia shamans are so scary, I bet they do this all the time!

This came up on the Munkinnery thread (as you know), and I was thinking this when it was posted - is summoning a Disease Spirit considered a chaotic act? What about sicking said disease spirit on someone? (yes, obviously pun intended!) And, what if that person is yourself?

Personally, if I was munchkin enough to do that (and, frankly, I am! ), as a sorcerer or shaman, I'd be doing this every 2nd day... Capture a disease spirit (get its True Name), bind it, and then get it to attack me (while under Command/Dominate, etc) until I defeat it... rebind, rinse and repeat until its POW is zero.... rinse and repeat until all of Mallia's (lower powered) disease spirits are gone! (and I'm super POWerful )

How about, for a Lhankor Mhy sorcerer, an ability similar to the Shamanic Expanded Presence, but for INT... +3d6 Expanded INT that is used to memorise spells and Runes/Techniques, but doesn't affect (positively or negatively) Free INT for casting?

ETA: I had an idea that if an LM went on an Orlanth HQ, if before every time they cast a spell (especially a sorcery spell), they had "Orlanth" turn his back, or otherwise hid his spell casting from that player, then at the end of the HQ, they could have the ability "What Orlanth Doesn't Know...", or "Orlanth Can't See", which would be the supernatural power that Orlanth (and his followers) were unable to perceive or accurately identify the character's sorcerous powers/spells... thus allowing the character to join Orlanth, and rise through the ranks.

Why would you want this? Because in Sartar, Orlanth is Rex, and so if you want to be the king.....

2 minutes ago, Bohemond said:

According to the Greydog campaign, which seems to be essentially canonical, Indrodar's last act was to go into the Upland Marsh to kill Delecti. That is when Humakt punished him, presumably by withdrawing his protection at a crucial moment. Exactly what happened isn't entirely clear, but Indrodar's undead corpse still walks the Marsh. For those who haven't played the Orlmarth campaign, I won't give away the spoiler, but it's an especially poetic punishment. So it's not so much that Humakt turned him into an undead as Humakt allowed the worst possible thing to happen. It's really quite suiting--for me, it captures some of the feeling of medieval literature. 

Ah! Fairy Nuff!

That makes a lot more sense...

3 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Alas Phil, not so. That was RQ 2 not RQ RiG "Javelins, Spears, and Darts" are a separate category from "Thrown Weapons" From page 212 in RQ RiG. 

Javelins, Spears, and Darts

Atlatl: A short stick with a socket at one end used to add range and damage to a thrown javelin or dart. Using an atlatl makes a javelin slower to use (it must be reloaded) but allows for more force, giving greater range and causing additional damage. Price: 10 L.

Dart: A short, weighted point suitable for throwing. These may be kept clipped on the inside of a large shield for convenience. Price: 25 L.

Javelin: See page 211. Spear, Short: See page 211.

Thrown Weapons

Axe, Throwing: See page 210. Dagger, Throwing: See page 210. Rock: A fist-sized rock. Price: —

Prior to this section you've quoted is the paragraph on p 211 :-

Missile Weapons
Missile weapons are weapons that leave the grasp or possession of the user to reach their target, usually traveling through the air. There are two types of missile weapons: thrown and projectile: thrown weapons are typically melee weapons that are balanced for throwing. Thus, the javelin is a one-handed spear that can also be thrown. This category includes throwing axes, darts, throwing daggers, javelins, and rocks. . Projectile weapons are weapons that project a missile at a target. This category includes bows, crossbows, slings, atlatl, and staff slings. (my emphasis)

The paragraphs relating to Thrown Weapon Damage Bonus says "If an adventurer using a thrown weapon has a damage bonus due to STR and SIZ, their thrown weapon gains only 1/2 the normal effect of the damage bonus. "

Thus, yes, the 1/2 DB should apply.

OTOH, I'd say that by definition, all sorcery spells are variable...

4 minutes ago, MOB said:

Though Yelmalio's justice burns pure and clear, fortunately for player characters "needlessly" is a great MGF get-out clause for that geas...😎

The Yelmalian (and cohorts) could have walked! Or taken another form of transport... Plenty of sables and bison around.

(If I was GM, I'd have this in mind...)

I saw this question last night... and I'm still not sure on my position.

Does a geas require the person to actively fulfill the requirements? Or does it also include passively. By those, I mean either wilfull, or with full knowledge and consent, versus not.

So, in @svensson;s "thrown on the back of a horse while unconscious" - does that count as breaking the geas, because the initiate had no way to either know or stop it? If a geas is about how you act, then being thrown on the back of a horse while unconscious isn't actually about your behaviour! (Granted, this all assumes that gods aren't petty...).

Now, what happens if the Lightson is out camping in foreign territory, and he's served dinner, and asks "Is this horsemeat?". The others in the group know about Yelmalio and his interests, and lie.. "Nope - it's really tough bison". The gods aren't omniscient... so I'd presume that the Gift etc remain in place. So, what happens 10 years later when they're all drinking at the pub, and some drunk idiot says "Hey, you remember that time we told you it was Bison, when really it was horse? Sheesh, that was hilarious!!!"... is the geas now broken? (was it actually broken in the first place??)

11 hours ago, soltakss said:

A Yelmalian with "Never let a horse suffer needlessly" who <snip> takes his horses to Ikadz' Flaying Pit where they are flayed and their souls given to him as beads on a necklace, I'd say the Geas is irrevocably broken and he couldn't get the Gift back, ever.

 

You are irrevocably cast out of the cult.. no amount of atonement will ever let you back in. A number of Spirits of Reprisal equal to the number of RPs you've sacrificed to Yelmalio will haunt you for the rest of your days... And, you'll never be able to ride on a horse again. (and, probably, you'll never see the light of the sun again, either!)

Yes, I do believe some things are irrevocable and unforgivable.

27 minutes ago, Bohemond said:

In Irish literature, which is where the concept of a geas comes from (fun fact: it's pronounced more like 'gaysh' than 'gee-ass'), when a hero breaks his geas, he will die. It's just game over for him. So if you're running a more epic-level game, breaking a geas ought to be something earth-shaking for the character. Things should never be the same again. Look at Indrodar Greydog--he broke his geas to not marry and although it took Humakt a while to punish him, Indrodar came to the absolute worst end a Humakti can have--he became undead. 

But... Irish pronunciation features tend towards that "slurring' and rolling sound anyway.... So, FWIW.

I don't understand the last story... why on Glorantha would Humakt want to make someone into an undead???That seems a completely stupid punishment for a god who hates them so much. Killing Indordar and not allowing his soul to join him in the ranks - sure. Sending him to a really nasty area of the underworld - sure. Undead???

10 hours ago, boradicus said:

<snip>

I think a lot of the spirit of D&D's agglomerative design approach can be seen in the way that enthusiasts would create new character classes, and expansions of the rules, which would then be shared with the community through Dragon Magazine, White Dwarf Magazine, etc (in the early decades of the game's history).  There is nothing wrong with this - in fact, it has been an earmark of the game's creativity.  But it can make the game more difficult to streamline for ease of play.  

I honestly don't know if Chaosium has publications where game enthusiasts add new classes with various bonuses and special abilities that are not already somewhere accounted for in the Chaosium system or not; neither do I know whether or not Chaosium supplements, and milieu expansions are written in such a way as to avoid the pitfalls of trying to add disparate sets of rules and character archetypes together, but I do suspect that Chaosium is much better at this than WotC, if only for the reason that the artifice of the "character class" does not exist for the Chaosium system.  In fact, I would say that D&D's class system is simultaneously a creative inspiration for describing special abilities hitherto not described, and a continual source for departure from any centralized rule-set.  If we rest our case for Chaosium's system being simpler than that of D&D's on this one factual difference between the two, I think the argument is a reasonably strong one.

True. One thing I haven't actually said about D&D is that it makes characters seem somewhat more unique for each party. This is, to me, both good and bad (as far as my gameplay is concerned). It's difficult to make a fully competent fighter/mage combo (and by "fully" I mean getting all fighter abilities and all mage abilities with no losses. The system doesn't want to allow for that!) In RQ, you can obviously do both with minimal reduction... in fact, with the current rules settings, you can... Given both weapon skills (the hallmark of the 'fighter') and (most) magic skills (hallmark of some mages) can be learned by anyone, you can have both... experience checks for used skills in adventures, plus up to 4 cult/occupation skills per season. I'd allow that if you've made the right choices, you can get Spirit Dance, Spirit Travel, Spirit Lore, and weapon skills (although, they too can be experience checked up, just as well as the Humakti).

D&D classes does make individuals less expendable.. if you need a mage, you need a mage. If the mage dies, you need a new mage. In RQ, it's obviously much less clear... for better or worse!

RE: Chaosium and "new classes"... Obviously, not new classes, but new environments where there are different skills in base occupation and culture, and different magics, cults and Rune Spells. Occaisionally, a new skill would also be introduced, and for a new cult, new spells. However, much more situational. In D&D, a new book can come out with new feats that many could opt for. In RQ, you'd really have to work hard trying to justify the choice, and take all the limitations that come with it.

In regards your last bit - Min-Max forums are replete with "egregious munchkinnery" that leaves RQ to shame (or gloat, depending on how your boat floats).

11 hours ago, soltakss said:

Sometimes, sure.

If I am a Humakti and go on a Humakti HeroQuest and gain a Humakti Gift as the result, then I'd expect it not to have a corresponding Geas. However, if I am an Orlanthi and go on a Humakti HeroQuest and gain a Humakti Gift as a result, I'd expect the associated Geas.

Soltak Stormspear did this several times, he had a Yinkin and Yelmalian Geas and, even though Illuminated, rigidly kept the geases. I think he had "Never let a Cat suffer needlessly", but can't remember the Yelmalian Geas.

I certainly accept the first -a Humakti is obviously going to care what their god thinks and cares about. It's just respect!

Not so sure about the Orlanthi caring so much about Humakt's geasa, given the "no-one can tell you what to do" bit! It would imply to me that all Humakti HQ abilities should come with a corresponding geas. That's a LOT of Spirits of Reprisal getting a ton of work (good for the economy, I suppose!) 😛

(Q: Does a SoR only attack once, and then off it goes? Or, if it fails in its mission - - or even if it succeeds - does it keep on hanging around to annoy for as long as it can? Or what's the deal?)

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, they get +20% in RQG too.

MY math just kicked in... IIRC, Priests (and Lords??) rolled POW gain as if they had POW species max of 25, instead of 21. At 5% per point, that would equal 20%...! Go figure!

(I admit I might be mis-remembering the use of the 25... It could also have been for POW v POW struggles)

I just wanted to talk about one thing about the difference between D&D & RQ and one of the reasons I like RQ.

It's been mentioned about levelling in D&D, and how that affects players and their relationship to the world and NPCs. Vs RQ, where it's a very flat progression (ie, not exorbitant HPs, or usually god-killers at level 20, etc).

But, going a little more in detail... creatures (enemies) are levelled in D&D. WE know that. A level 20 character can look at a kobold, and there's a 1 in 10,000 chance the kobold is going to kick the character's butt. The other 9,999 times, that kobold is toast (possibly literally with the right spells!)

OTOH, in RQ, due to the effects of Chaos, a superhero like Harrek (if he was ever in his right mind) might just think he has a 50/50 chance of either wiping the floor with a certain broo he sees... or getting Total Party Wiped.

Most creatures aren't readily identified by CR (Challenge Rating) so you know whether you're likely to defeat them or not. (obviously, some are... looking at you Crimson Bat, Cragspider, most giants, etc). No two broos are alike (well, you know what I mean). Chaos features means individuality, and that means uncertainty, and for me, that means more fun and excitement.

(I do, however, get that lots of people prefer to know exactly what they're getting in for...).

Chaos rules!

39 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yeah, I'd allow +1 to species maximum as a 2-geas gift.

You'd still require a geas for a HQ gift???

20 hours ago, Numtini said:

*raises hand*

A load of the stuff you're talking about is something a player deals with and it goes on their character sheet before the game. When I first played RQ, one of the revelations was that virtually the entire game was on your character sheet. That was a huge innovation in 1980 compared to squinting at the endless tables of AD&D. But D&D has caught up. The complexity is not at the table, it's all right there on your character sheet. And for the adjustments that aren't on the character sheet, they tend to be advantage or disadvantage which is easier to deal with than percentage calculations on the skill level which may change the chances of special successes.

Having said that, I don't find RQ particularly difficult mechanically and I don't know why someone would think it is. But making out that D&D is still the mess it was 40 years ago is just not fair.

I confess to a bit of hyperbole - however, I still stand by the assertions - and the possible modifiers etc I listed.

While some (many) of those modifiers will be on the character sheet - some will be coming from other characters and their sheets. And those sheets aren't going to be 1 page... (unless you've remembered all the spells - possible ...I'm a bit like that - you're either going to have them printed out (eg, cards) or have the book handy). Now, I also confess to not having looked at the character sheet to recently (mostly because I wasn't incredibly enthused about D&D), but as I recall, some of those modifiers I just mentioned are going to be all over the place. And, as has been said, in many cases, if you forget a modifier, you lose it. The last D&D character I had done up was 4 pages with lots of columns of info (including various bonuses) in small font. Some auto-completed, some did not ... and some were conditional/situational.

Secondly, 3.0 - the biggest, most munchkinest, cheesiest version of the game (with all of the above modifiers) came out in 2000.... only 19 years ago.3.5 in 2003. And bucketloads of books, scenarios, add-ons, handbooks etc in the years since. So,  "Is that fair?" Well, it's still a very popular version of D&D (perhaps because of the cheese - death to serious min-maxxers!!!) However, the thread is about D&D in general... not a specific edition of it (so, again, I stand by my assertion - RQ is less complex than D&D).

Ironically (well, I see it as ironic!), the need to seriously calculate the special/crit table is going to happen much less than 20% of the time.... That is, the number of times a roll is made that is both close to the border of the special/crit, and yet obviously has some uncertainty. Rolling a 12 on 85% is clearly not going to be a Crit, and is clearly going to be a Special... Rolling a 02 on almost any skill is going to be a Crit (unless you have a really low skill... and, even then, most of the time, it's going to be somewhat irrelevant).   (and, talking of character sheets you mentioned above - the old RQ sheets had the Special/Crit scores on the weapons tables).

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Gifts can raise non-raiseable characteristics, but it doesn't say that that raises the species maximum. It could still work like Pentallion says, where it's temporarily above the maximum. I think that's a bit mean, though. You clearly have to have it already at maximum as well, you can't have POW 18 and raise your species maximum to 22 by gift.

Well, I'd say it'd either be +POW, or increased maximum (as per the shamanic ability). Obviously not both for the same HQ gift...

16 hours ago, Pentallion said:

 That included power and allowed for increases beyond species max.  However, if the PC sacrificed that power the species max returned to normal. 

But now, a shaman can just venture off to a local powerful spirit and buy an increased POW species max for very little (in comparison... especially if they're using POW to pay for it). Also, Humakt and Yelmalio have gifts that can increase species max for an annoying geas or 2 ...  Returning to former maximum would be a bit mean given that!

Quick Learner - automatically pass experience checks

I was going to be deeply offensive and suggest the Heroic Abilities as per Mongoose RQ (but I think @soltakss was referring to that with RQ5...)

(is there something against MRQ on this forum?)

1 hour ago, gochie said:

Those are the rules, except I believe the item must be forged before being enchanted. 

If it's reforged, it loses the enchantment. (probably because whatever runes have been inscribed in it have been melted/hammered out).

20 hours ago, drablak said:

Simple math: yes, and D&D has simple math as well. Add a few numbers, roll over. All the modifiers are easy to remember. Compare that to a skill above 100% vs an opponent, reduce both by the above 100% skill, recompute the critical/special success, etc. It's not that the math is hard, it's that you pretend it's easier than adding a few modifiers.

Compare with spell books? Really? What's complicated with spell books? Have you seen the magic systems in RQG?

 

I'm glad you brought such things up! And, yes, the magic system is exactly the example I wanted to make of the complexity involved.

Let's just take a real good hard look at that "few modifiers" bit...

Let's assume a newbie player is trying out RQ/D&D, and they're given a pre-gen (a few levels up/experience checks), and knows about RPGs in general. They want to cast a healing spell...

RQ

I cast Heal 3 - what do I do?

Roll to see if you cast it, deduct MPs, remove damage.

I roll under my POWx5% - success - how many points do I heal?

Three.

I rolled a crit.

Three.

It says I'm a human...

Three.

I'm healing another human...

Three.

My character is in Chalana Arroy, the healer's cult...

Three.

I'm a priest...

Three.

It says here I have First Aid.

Three

I'm trying to heal their head...

Three.

I have some healing matrix thing...

Three.

I have this 2pt Healing Crystal...

Oh, ok - five.

D&D

I cast Heal - how many points do I heal?

(GM starts the inquisition...)

Which spell?

What class are you?

What level?

What level of what class?

What race are you (does it allow any healing modifiers?)

What level spell are you using? (do you have that slot available? Is it level dependant?)

(if you're a cleric) What is your domain?

Does it have a healing modifier? (Can you use it in this situation?)

Do you have a feat that adjusts it?

Does your heal spell have an ability modifier?

Do you have a feat that changes that ability modifier?

Have you changed your modifier?

Have you done an action that has enabled you to modify your spell?

Has someone near you done something that may modify your healing ability?

Does someone nearby have an ability that changes your modifier? (eg Aura) Have they turned it on? is it currently in use? (wait for the arguments about all that!)

Who is your target?

Do they have any modifiers to healing?

Does their race have any healing modifiers?

Do you have any magic items that can change your healing modifiers? (what are they? What do they do? How many can you use at once?)

Are all the above modifiers stackable? Which ones? Which don't count?

Does anyone think I'm being grossly unfair in my comparison? Because I know I've missed a few things in the D&D comparison... And, obviously, I can do the same for attack rolls... And, what's worse, a lot of those questions/modifiers need to be recalculated not only for every battle/situation, but often within/between combat rounds! (do you still have advantage? Has the enemy moved away? Has your friend moved next to them? Are you considered to be flanking still? Do you have companions who have a feat that is now activated? Do you have a feat that needs them to also have the same feat, and are they now activated?

As for other magic... D&D has quite different stats, abilities, and everything else. RQ? Spirit (POWx5 for every, basically same range, all with same duration (well, instant/temporal), variables easy math for MPs). Rune (usually same duration, range, have to sacrifice POW, wipe of RPs for a while, % roll under appropriate Rune). Sorcery - yeah, getting more complex!! I'll pay that. But, it's supposed to be complex, which is part of the reason most characters (not players) don't use it! There's an actual in-world reason associated with the complexity.

So, yes, I think D&D is far more complex and complicated... How many times have those here played D&D and forgotten a bonus/modifier in amongst all the race/class/feats etc etc??

As indicated previously, I don't dislike complex... In some ways, I revel in them. (Personally, I'd like to see a more defined Hit Location table in RQ )

I also agree with what's been said before - this debate is somewhat apples and oranges. D&D is "high fantasy" with lots of books telling you what you can do. RQ is fantasy, with a couple of books with a few rules, and you decide where you want to take it within the game world.