Shiningbrow

16 hours ago, Mechashef said:

Weapon Combat       (P197)

 

1.      Attacker rolls against their attack skill (P197)

 

2.      Defenders attempting to dodge roll against their dodge skill (P201)

 

3.      If attack is not dodged, attacker rolls damage (P203)

 

4.      Defenders attempting to parry rolls against their parry skill (P197)

 

5.      Damage is reduced by the results of the parry

 

6.      Location of the hit is rolled

 

7.      Damage is reduced by any armour or magic

 

8.      Damage is applied to defender

 

 

You can speed things up by rolling the attack, Hit Location , and damage dice all in 1 go... Certainly HL and damage work well in one hand.

3 hours ago, boradicus said:

It's probably time for you to try Rolemaster!  Rolemaster has a very exciting combat system - but there are a few extra charts and tables to contend with.  The combat system also uses d100s, but the dice explode.  The critical hits are also quite realistic, with a variety of different damage types based on the weapon used.  Hits are also vs. a particular body part, making the combat more realistic and challenging.  Wounds can bleed, and can affect your character's ability to function and fight properly (but, of course, opponents are vulnerable to the same).  You might really like it!

Thanks!

I've seen the rules for MERP, but haven't had the community to play in 😭... (I really want to move back to Melbourne!!!!!)

I've also seen Harnmaster, and again, yep, I'd be into that!

I also love White Wolf (Vampire and Scion .... and huge handfuls - or 2 - of dice )

14 hours ago, Joerg said:

. (I've seen lines from a medicine phd thesis manuscript "since we had less than 100 tests, we couldn't give the results in percentiles" - slightly paraphrased, and yuck.)

 

As an ESL teacher and (former) English language examiner, I find that really really funny.... My Chinese year 7 students know better than that!

20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Most of the D&Ders I've game with had their own copy of the PHB and some other rulebooks. Most of the people I  play any other RPG with do not. Yes the books cost money, but extra books not only mean another copy of the rules available to look something up, without stopping play or taking the GM's copy, but it also means more people have read that book and so know more about the game. 

 

The thing is with seasoned players chargen can be done in 15-20 minutes. With novices it can take a lot longer. Leveling up tends to be very fast, as most players already know what they want to pick for feats and other abilities, since they got a plan for their future development. This is also where a second book helps because you can look up the new abilities for one character while still working on another. In play I found that a second copy of the RQ rules cut chargen time for a group of 4-6 players in half. 

A) yes, but not incredibly relevant in as much as I'd expect most players who love a game to have their copies. What is relevant is the number of books people have to buy (and thus, the additional add-ons to convince the GM their character can/should have...

b) "seasoned players".... Seasoned players of BRP (who have already planned their characters) can do CharGen in 15 minutes in most games. "Levelling up" in BRP/RQ is 5 mins for said seasoned players (but, again, something to be said about all games). I do think, however, that having the RQ rules shouldn't really matter, as there's really only the experience and POW-gain rolls to do.

20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Mail is  quite effective  against arrows, if it's made correctly and worn over a gambeson. Most modern simulations of longbow vs. mail have been flawed. They tend to use the wrong type of mail, leave out the padding, don't provide and "give" to the target, use the wrong bow (most "longbows" today are underpowered), wrong arrows (too thin and light) and wrong arrowheads. 

 

But the general thought among historians these days is that mail is quite effective against arrows, and that the dominance of the longbow is more of as myth. The British victory at Crecy and Argincourt were more due to battlefield conditions and bad tactics by the French that due to the ineffectiveness of mail.

Very interesting to know! Thanks for the info!!!

20 hours ago, styopa said:

(shrug) I'm not sure of your point?  I mean, it's clear you DON'T think RQ is more complicated and are arguing against the 'common perception' that it is.  OK.  In fact there are two levels to this discussion and you're switching between them willy-nilly.  The two points you're arguing against are:

1) RQ is generally perceived to be more complicated than D&D (which is your purported point) - well this isn't based on facts, is it?  This is just perception.  The vast, vast bulk of people learned RPGs as D&D so anything not D&D/d20 is "more complicated".  FATE seems "more complicated" when it mechanically absolutely isn't.  Not to mention each game has a lengthy history, so are we comparing AD&D to RQG?  Or 5e to RQ3?  Much of that isn't even necessarily a mechanics discussion; in my experience D&D games tend to be often in fairly simplistic worlds full of archetypes and tropes* (cf the whole idea of alignment and absolute morality making everything simple - "oh, you're verifiably evil? then I can kill you without remorse") while Glorantha has always reveled in it's relativism, complexity, rather ...er...'dynamic'... fluctuating canon.  Add that to what I've already explained is an inherently more complex combat system, and the perception is easily explained.  (While I agree with your caveats about digging out modifiers etc PERCEPTION isn't based on deep understanding.  Ask someone the elevator-pitch version of D&D combat and it's 'roll to hit, if you hit, you do damage.'.  Ask any RQ devotee to explain melee combat and I guarantee you it's going to take more than 9 words.)

*this is a broad brush, of course.  Nothing inherently in D&D requires simplistic settings (again, setting aside the rationalized ideas of 'classes' and 'alignments' which are much more flexible concepts in 5e now anyway) and there have been some fabulously interesting and creative ones.

2) RQ is more complicated than D&D: (this is where you're actually arguing) in this point, I'm probably 80% in agreement with you, and not further only because I don't care enough to get down into the weeds of details, I mean, what value is there in that?  Are we counting the number of times people have to look shit up in the books?  Are we counting the number of dice rolls each combat takes?  Why bother?

Yep - fair criticisms/comments!

(note, I haven't read through the other 10 posts in response after yours here...) One point I want to look at is the "'roll to hit, if you hit, you do damage" serious under-estimation of what it takes. Sure, once you've figured out that number, that's all you do (which is basically the same as any game). It's what it takes to work out what that number will be that takes a lot more calculation etc. (as I think you were acknowledging in your part 2). One of the features of RQ/BRP is the grittier combat, and thus the meatier combat rolls mechanic.

In response to your second - yes, I'm certainly counting the number of times you have to look up books, rules, etc. The claim, was that RQ is more complicated (and the perception that it is too). Is there a point in arguing this on this forum? Unlikely... unless there really are some people here who believe it (and, I have my doubts that there are...)

19 hours ago, jps said:

<snip> Therefore the strength of my spell with only 15 Free INT would considerably be diminished.

 

Knowledge of Runes and Techniques don't use up Free INT, and neither is MP cost of a spell included. So, if you had no spells in memory, you'd still have 15 points of manipulations available. The MP cost will be huge though 😛

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

10 AP + spells is very high, but I agree with you, defensive spells have a good chance to be active if they perceive someone casting aggressive spells that they can not 'remove' before the end of the casting.

 

While it's high for RQ, it's also very achievable. For that matter, you can just buy the unenchanted iron (700L per ENC), and then have it enchanted. A cuirass will then be 9 pts. Plus 1pt leathers underneath...

Failing having the enchanted iron, the bronze cuirass is 6 pts, plus the 1pt leather = 7pts... so, not that amazing to get 3 more.

If there are two Neutralise Magic spells in place, wouldn't the higher powered one just neutralise the lower powered one?? 😛

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay. The thinking goes along these lines. Most people become familiar with D&D before they discover RQ. THey learn how D&D works, buy their own copy of the rulebooks and can do stuff like chargen pretty quickly. 

Then they try RQ, and:

• Chargen takes longer, because nobody is familiar with it,  and...
• There is only one copy of the rulebook at the table
• Everything is different and so they must learn all new things, and...
• They must unlearn all the old D&D trick that they learned that do not work in RQ.

So because it is new to them and takes longer to do things,  they must look stuff up more due to their unfamiliar and only one copy of the rules, and it takes longer, the rules start to seem more complicated. Any thing that RQ either adds detail to that D&D doesn't have (such as hit locations) or requires a roll where D&D doesn't (spell casting,  hit location determination) are viewed as added complexity. 

But, it's mostly the lack of familiarity and single rulebook, compared to the familiarity and multiple copies of rulebooks with D&D. 

 

I totally get what you're saying, Not sure about the "multiple copies of rulebooks" though... they ain't cheap! And having everyone bring their own (if they did) would be (en)cumbersome 😛

Character generation should only be 1 session in RQ. In D&D, it's basically every level up... (yes, I'm exaggerating... but the idea of needing the tables, feats, class abilities, AND multi-classing, and you should get what I mean).

35 minutes ago, drablak said:

You need the attack & parry table (page 199) or the dodge table (p.200) and the ability results table (p. 143), then there's the hit location table, and is it an impale btw? And then there's a damage summary table (on the GM screen, or read a few pages in the core book), the resistance table, the skill above 100%, the strike ranks, etc. 

I disagree. Firstly, one simple GM screen takes all of that and puts in in one place if needed.

However, the "ability results" is simple maths (and a quick look up if that math is too bothersome or not written down). The A&P and A&D are pretty simple formulae, and there's not really a need to look it up every time.

Hit location table - is the same for all humanoids. Other non-humanoid creatures, sure...

Resistance table is simple maths, so you only use the table when you CBF.

Strike ranks... annoying, but not exactly hard. Not incredibly different to Initiative (depending on how you play it). Granted, the realism of the combat does mean keeping a closer eye on SRs than on Initiative.

Now, as I said above, compare all of that with a spell book, or class abilities... you've just mentioned 7 mechanics (not including Specials). These are always the same tables (except HL). How many tables, pages, abilities, spell descriptions, etc do you need handy for D&D?

31 minutes ago, Crel said:

That's another good point. I find all the differences in special damage type frustrating. My group has just played double damage for ages to simplify.

Yeah, we did that too. I agree that's a bit annoying, but it is simulationist... ever looked at Harnmaster??? 😛

18 minutes ago, Crel said:

An element that gets missed a lot, IMHO, is that while d100 systems have this initial conceptual simplicity in "Just roll under your number!" there's some hidden math involved with specials and crits. Some players, you roll a 17 and the math for "wait, is that a special?" takes a few extra moments. Or you roll a 98/99 and the GM has to go "hang on a minute, that might be a fumble..." Whereas with D&D, you can see a crit or fumble clearly on rolls of 20 or 1, and the standard "I beat him with my sword" roll is usually just d20+number. Report it to the DM and then hopefully roll damage.

I've encountered this a fair amount with both less experienced players and with less math-inclined players, and it absolutely can bog down the game at times.

The older character sheets used to have those numbers on it. So, if you roll 17, you can pretty quickly see if it's a S/C/I pretty quickly.  D&D had too many potential modifiers (often uniquely to certain classes.

2 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

What edition are you playing? AD&D? I don't mean to criticize, it's just that THAC0 hasn't been a thing since third edition. I also haven't had to refer to a table even once during combat during the few times I've played fifth. And magic users have moved away from the whole "one spell a day" shtick, now they have "spell slots" which basically act as level-specific magic points. I also disagree with your last point, all the classes are currently in the PHB save an updated version of the ranger and an experimental new artificer class.

It's based on the same concept - Base, +Dex + Armour +shield + other modifiers - roll high (plus plus plus).

You may not have needed a table, but have you needed to go back over a few rules to get the right modifiers? D&D was full of rules lawyers, and the excess of such could be quite problematic (read: complicated).

Character classes are all tabulated. And it takes up time with (perhaps ineffective) GM's trying to sort out each and every single players' classes' abilities, etc.

Wizards have (finally) moved away from "one spell per day" schtick (only took a few decades, not including the option in (Unearthed Arcana ??), but they still need to keep a check on whether they've blown a spell slot, particularly a higher one if MM'ed, or lower. Cleric - which level of Heal are you using this time, and do you have the slot to use it? So, those "level-specific magic points" creates an added layer of complication. Therefore, RQ is still by far a simpler system.  (read: less complicated)

Added complication - durations, ranges, damage (fixed or level-dependant? And is that spell level, or character level, or class level???) Elemental damage, and does the creature have a resistance? In RQ, most spells are the same for duration and range. Since there's no levels, there's not a level-dependant damage.

I disagree with your last point... all the current base classes are in the PHB... the thing about D&D is that they kept bringing out new (and not necessarily improved) classes, and I expect no less for 5E (they've already done so!). RGQ currently has a 445 page main rule book, a tiny 204 page Bestiary, about half a dozen pages in the Adventurer's book for rules (the rest is scenario and setting) and an upcoming GoG (which will be extremely useful, but not incredibly necessary). If you really want to get deeply into all the Gloranthan lore, there's obviously a whole host of material - much of which has been around for decades, and some newer stuff that adds flavour (more like scenarios and settings - not rules additions). The D&D 5E PHB is 316 pages alone. The GM's book is another 320 (granted, a large chunk of that is magic items...), and the MM is 350.. so, close to 1000 pages. So, merely the basic rulesets are double the size of RQ. Should we start adding in the add-ons that have been published? Again, to me, that equals "complicated".

So, back to my original question which I obviously need to clarify - why is RQ more "complicated" than D&D, and what definition of "complication" are you using?

6 minutes ago, styopa said:

In its simplest terms, it's the combat.

D&D you roll against a single number, if you exceed that, you hit.  When you hit, you deduct an amount of points from the target, when they run out, they die.

RQ complicates that by allowing the defender an active chance to defend (with varying mechanical consequence), as well as segmenting the target into hit locations.  Each location further has an armor value that reduces the amount of damage applied.  If the attack succeeds to a degree that it penetrates armor and does damage, each location has varying consequences for disablement (as well as the target having a collective health total, like d&d).

There are other subjects, but I think combat is the main point.

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

D&D is one roll to hit and one roll for damage, maybe a flat damage bonus.

RQ is Strike Ranks, a roll to hit, maybe a parry (which might have changed the roll to hit if it was over 100% skill),  comparison of success levels, damage roll including damage modifier die, HP of the parrying weapon, a hit location roll if it wasn't parried, remaining damage versus location armour, then if enough damage is done, figuring the location HP effect on the character.

Maybe D&D has become more complex since I last played it?

Yep, I know all that.

However, how many tables, references, screens etc does one need to look up in order to figure out the full effects of said combat?

While D&D has 1 THACO roll basically, the sheer number of adjustments (add a few here, remove a few there) and the reasons for them can be staggering (conditional effect to add + to hit 😛).  In RQ, sure you have more base  rolls, but very rarely will you need to do much adjusting. What there is is pretty simple - -40% to hit because X, type thing.

Wizard and cleric - which spells have you prepared today, and have you cast them yet? Vs - well, I sacrificed 2 RP last holy day, and the local priest taught me Bladesharp 4. I have 15 MPs.

Also, while I get that character creation in RQ has a few more steps, after that, everything is extremely straightforward. I don't need to consult any books (and do you have the right one for your specialist class on hand?) Obviously for D&D, there's table after table after table.

So, for my money, I think D&D is a lot more complicated. As evidenced by the number of books that should be purchased (calling them "supplements", but are needed to get away from base classes). Sure, RQ has a few books out there as well, but those tend to be modules. Once you've got the first couple (and, with RQG, you really only want the main book, bestiary, and soon to be GoG

I'm now quite confused by the Moonfire spell... (and, wondering where this Moonburn that @David Scott is talking about...)

Firstly, Moonfire has 4 Runes - and thus, you should probably know all 4 before you go casting, or it's going to get very expensive (unless, of course, I've missed something that says otherwise!)

Secondly, it's temporal, meaning it lasts a few minutes. Yet, RAW, there's no indication to how many hits a person should take... especially across that area. Is it only once? Or, is it every round? If it's the latter, then this spell would be nasty on the battlefield, especially against Yelmalians, who just love formation fighting. Sure, they're going to start running away, but it's going to hurt while they do. And, in all probability, they'll be incapacitated before they can get out.

The standard hit location seems odd... especially compared to the 1D10+10 for mounted combat rolls... this would also make sense for a rain of moonfire...

Would someone please explain why RQ is considered more complicated than D&D? (in terms of mechanics)
 

On 4/20/2019 at 6:28 AM, Numtini said:

Maybe I'm daft, but I see D&D 5E as making the best use of stats of any game I can think of. Gods know, old D&D they had little or no effect at all. So many rolls in 5E are based on a stat roll plus proficiency if you have it in the skill. 

Have you tried White Wolf?

Vampire, Scion, Exalted etc.

All rolls are basically stat + skill. It's impossible (well, should be) to have a roll that doesn't include a stat.

8 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Er...yup, that's powerful!

Is that to a single location or general hp? Doing AoE effects in systems with hit locations never really works well...

A random hit location.

2 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Yes, and WITHOUT a POW vs. POW roll, as the damage is physical (like for Fireblade).

Armour protects as usual. (For Twyyll)

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, all tricksters are sociopaths. Some say all munchkins are, too!

🤣🤣

1 minute ago, metcalph said:

Depends on what you mean by atheism.

1)  If you mean does not worship, then worship of the Invisible God is not necessary to perform sorcery.  Some Malkioni may do it but they are considered to be stupid by others.

2) If you mean a denial of the existence of Gods, then I don't think this is Glorantha.  The Gods are real, not figments of imagination.  Whether they should be worshipped is another matter.

 

2) but with a caveat. The Gods are entities (powerful, of course), but still just spirits - manifestations of the Runes - which are primordial forces in the world - not overly different to Malkionism (of at least 1 sect.. I don't recall the name). However, there is no Invisible God behind it all... that part was just made up .

So, sure, the gods are real in teh same way that magic and spirits are real... but their existence isn't as intrinsic to the world as assumed.

I don't see any reason why a person in Glorantha couldn't take this perspective - especially a sorcerer who's been using their magic for years, and finally coming to that conclusion (hubris/arrogance).

2 minutes ago, metcalph said:

I do not believe in different types of sorcery.  There is only one sorcery which stems from the Invisible God.  However the name and nature of the Invisible God varies according to his worshippers (Loskalmi, Seshnegi, Fonritans, Lhankorings and Mostali).  One believes the Invisible God is utterly removed from the world while another believes he is totally manifest.  Depending on what the worshippers believe, some forms of sorcery are available or forbidden.  Pretty much every worshipper believes his own version of the Invisible God is the Absolute Best Invisible God there is and that everyboy else's are just plain wrong.

So, no atheistic sorcery? (or are they just fooling themselves?)

22 hours ago, Jeff said:

I am going to be brutal on this one - Ernalda got a whole-hearted rewrite in Sartar KoH and even more in RQG. As a result, I don't advise writers to even look at the description of Ernalda in TR. She is much more a goddess of sex, life, and all things on earth that was presented in previous books. 

Men may initiate into Ernalda's mysteries, but only a woman who has given birth can become a priestess.

22 hours ago, Jeff said:

The reason for all the changes was feedback from women players - especially women players who had children. I can recall Neil, David Scott and I sitting down with Claudia and having her describe Ernalda and what her magic should be. Claudia, Kris, Christine, Ellie, Pam - all have had huge impacts on the RQG version of Ernalda. It makes me wondrously happy that Yanioth is now one of the most popular pregen characters.

Awesome! As you  can see above, I had envisaged such an Earth, life, sex cult to be inclusive of men... although perhaps not allowing them to the top ranks.

Is the rule for Goddess-Speaker remaining (ie, no need to have given birth)?

I presume there will be sub-cults that are decidedly female only?

And sub-cults that very definitely reflect the "Don't even think of messing with us" aspect of protecting life, earth, etc?

23 minutes ago, Kloster said:

As Orlanth and Lhankor Mhy are treating each other as an associated cult and Lhankor Mhy is using and teaching openly sorcery, I don't think Orlanth has a problem with sorcery, nor with sorcerors. He simply does not teach, nor use it.

That would be my take.. but previous versions of RQ were quite specific that various cults required initiates to forget all sorcery spells. Now, I would presume that once you've learnt a Technique or mastered a Rune you wouldn't be allowed into Orlanth.. unless you took an Oath not to use any sorcery again (with the consequence being a visit by your non-friendly spirit of reprisal)

21 minutes ago, metcalph said:

In practice, I don't think this distinction will matter too much as sorcery is really only effective if you cast Big Spells.  Otherwise you are better off learning the equivalent rune and spirit magic spells.

What's a "Big spell"?

And, obviously, there are sorcery spells that do things that Sprit and Rune magic currently can't do.

(just saying!)

22 minutes ago, metcalph said:

As to why Orlanth might have an issue with the knowledge of sorcery (which would extend even to Lhankoring Sorcery even though they are the best of friends).  Knowledge of Sorcery requires some degree of henosis, the unity of one's mind with the Invisible God (based on Real World Neoplatonism FWIW).  This insight is incomptable with the direct worship of other great gods (Gods that are rune owners).  This means that worshippers of Daka Fal, Orlanth, Humakt, Ernalda and Yelm cannot learn sorcery.  This doesn't explain why other gods might prohibit the use of sorcery (ie Waha or Yelmalio)

 

So, you're actually suggesting that Lhankor Mhy sages are unifying their minds with the Invisible God (that, I presume, they believe doesn't exist) ???

You're actually supporting an argument I was making above that there are actually different types of sorcery, but have essentially the same effects. One is theistic, the other not. Clearly, I think, Mostali sorcery is not exactly the same.

My view would be more that Orlanth and others feel that (as per current sorcery rules), sorcerers are "messing" with their runes. And, if you can mess with the big boys' and girls' runes, then you're messing with all of them. LM, CA, Issaries, etc don't feel so protective or worried.

9 hours ago, Crel said:

<snip stuff>

"...learned 10+ spells,... " - if the GM takes sorcery spells to be skills (and personally, I do), then your starting sorcery can have that...

Summary - Philosopher gets  one Rune and one Technique - plus 3 spells of varying skill.

Lhankor Mhy gets Command Technique and Truth Rune

Malkioni get 3 Runes and 2 Techniques at start (no specifics).

Aeolians get 2 Runes and one Technique.

Lunars are unspecified.

So, I'm at a loss as to why you'd go the LM way at character creation. Malkioni would be way better (as it currently stands), unless you're really desperate for the Trickster stuff.And, I'm sure there will be versions of Malkionism that will allow initiations into theistic cults (as the Aeolians do). But, we shall see...

Why POW over INT? Power is much easier to get than INT... unless you're desperately hoping the GM will allow for unlimited upgrades of Enhance INT. And, don't forget... INT-12 worth of Techniques and Runes.... so, realistically, minimum INT of 14 or 15 starting. So, you're possibly better off going Fire/Sky first, then Moon (those 2 points in INT are invaluable, while the 2 points to POW are only a couple of seasons away... unless you're smart! A smart sorcerer can get that POWer in 3 days!)

" Given the Flight discussion earlier, I figure you can get that effect by casting Hallucinate "

I can't see a single GM allowing that, considering the "The hallucination is perceived only by the spell’s caster ...is completely undetectable to anyone else". (my emphasis)

RE: cult options.... RAW, you could join Eurmal, Issaries, and Lhankor Mhy (and also Chalana Arroy... but pacificism... meh), as they're all part of the Lightbringer gang.

BTW, Humakt was illuminated, so having sorcery may not be an issue...

8 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I don't see any evidence of RQ3 sorcery being copy-pasted, or any indication that that is likely to happen.

One area which looks decidedly not C&P.

8 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'd love to play a crazy old firebug librarian trickster.

Isn't that called a sociopath?

8 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yep, pretty sure that RQ3 familiars are not coming back.

So, as per my (facetious) comment above - what's the distinction between "apprentice" and "journeyman" in sorcery? Will there be one? Or doesn't it matter? (or, is the actual distinction between basic student and apprentice who, I presume, will be apprentice-bonded? We shall see...)

Is Orlanth's issue with sorcery, or sorcerers? (in the same way that there are spirit magicians and shamans... which is hugely different. And lay members and initiates) By the looks of things, the issue is the type of magic itself, rather than the person casting it.