Shiningbrow

So, he's the underworld's information desk? :p

But... You only temporarily lose those RPs (bar 1 permanently), so that'll situation is unlikely... Unless you somehow need to do multiple DIs (Or are just down to only 1 RP for that god).

Where are you getting this from? The write-up in RQ:G doesn't support that stance.

D'oh 😣 Well, the specifics were wrong, but the intent is still there...

That's an important question... (how) Does the CA priestess need to sacrifice for multiple uses of Resurrection? Would the spell need to be "chosen" 3 times to get 3 uses?

After re-reading the paragraph on p316, it basically means you have the knowledge of the spell, even without the actual cost in RPs of the spell, until it's finally cast. So, the RPs for a spell you can cast only once still count against your CHA maximum. Compared to previous editions, when you've spent the POW on the spell, it's already gone, whether you use it or not. The POW is spent for that one spell and none other. Just thought I'd point that out. Whether it adds to the discussion or not...???

When mine came back negative, I said "yup!"

This actually makes sense! And is what some people are thinking. However, what's significantly worse for this issue is that it's old RQ hands having this argument, because the book doesn't clarify things. They dedicated an entire section (albeit rather short), without actually making this clear. So, for people new to the game*, this would lead to confusion! All it takes is one sentence.... (*how about those new to RPGs???)

Hårnmaster.... Different damage types, and different armour values for those armour types!

You're aware that the Egregious Munchkinnery thread is one if the longest threads on the board??? So, I'd suggest it's more of a "who let the non-munchkins in here?"

Hmmm - that's actually something worth considering....

Same with weapons against shields... Axes would be much better at decimating a wooden shield than a sword or spear - although maybe a stab through wicker's gaps is easier with a pointy bit.

In a word - no. A Crit is supposed to be superior to a Special. How that's played out at the table is up to the GM and players. E.g., what's a Crit Ride? Or Peaceful Cut??

"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time" (in outraaaageousss French accent) (For the uninitiated - Monty Python and the Holy Trail)

Personally, I didn't take it as a taunt. And, prima facie, the Vingan Fearless spell could be seen as what women warrior's need to do to stand with the men. That's what happens when it's decontextualised... (and when the myth changes from being a woman to just another aspect of Orlanth himself...but in red pigtails).

Actually I like this idea. Do all 3/9 points still count against the CHA limit?

I didn't put those two together til you mentioned it, but I'd rather take it that Vinga has a spell that allows them to stand when others (men) run away... Rather than they need that spell to be just as courageous.

You know that's actually true, right?

I was sort of thinking something similar. But more, honour is supposed to be this big important thing to hold on to - and yet people will break it easily if they think they can either get away with it, or don't like the consequences. They look for a reason - any reason - to not have to abide by a rule or ruling. In another thread, it was asked if 1-1 formal duels would negate any weregild. In theory, not only the compensation, but also the right for revenge. However, I'd say that's regularly broken, and some excuse ("he spat on my brother's corpse as he walked away") would be used to keep the first going, in order to come out on top.

Perhaps this sub-cult says "Violence is always the best option"???

"Shamanic Abilities and Taboos Most shamanic abilities and all taboos are always in effect. If a shaman wishes to gain a new ability or taboo, they must contact a Greater Entity. Greater Entities vary from place to place. In Dragon Pass, the Greater Entities are Horned Man, Daka Fal, Waha, Hykim and Mikyh, Kolat, Kyger Litor, Jakaboom, and the Earth Witch." (P 359) In My Glorantha, I'd allow deals with other spirits as well. E.g., if you want to cross this river safely, the group's shaman has a chat with the local river spirit, who might demand the taboo as payment (possibly unlikely and fairly easy to ignore by the shaman, but I'd see it as possible... ) I'd be inclined to do something similar with Spirit Pacts as well. 1 POW per 10 of the spirit's POW, plus maybe a ban/taboo thrown in while the spirit is still around... If you have a pact with a horse spirit, it might be offensive to (not) eat horse meat while it's looking over your shoulder.. (I'd probably also stress the shaman's Honour passion.. ). While this is my Glorantha, the rules support it...

Confused... I just re-read it, and it says nothing about losing the spell, only the RPs. So, you could keep burning through your RPs with the same spell. (Unless there's another section elsewhere).

Can you perform under pressure? No, but I can hum Bohemian Rhapsody...

I got what you meant. I'm saying that a shaman might deal with a solar spirit for one thing, then an air spirit for another, and an earth spirit for a third... And thus, end up with conflicting taboos.

I'm not sure the spirits that the shamans are dealing with are always so partisan... If part of a shaman's job is getting disease spirits, it seems more likely that they'll deal and contract with whatever gets the job done...