d_ns

I do not see the point. In RQ3 Sorcery, you have "action" spells that you cast at the specific spell level, and ritual spells that you cast at your ritual skill. Basically, you learn them at a discount, as your skill is good for several spells at a time.

As for the difference in cost, this is already present in the RQ3 rules. When you summon something, you have to spend MP equal to the entity's MP, or the thing will not come (unless it is some monstrosity who actually wishes to "meet" you). Thus, in order to cast Summon Bad Man, you have to spend 35 Magic Points. Better have some matrices ready.

I guess I just would have preferred a different wording or a different mechanic, but considering now that they also, potentially, impact free INT/max spells/manipulations, it might be valid to say "Your Summoning Ritual is 88%, so you're quite good at it, even though your Summon (Healing Spirit) is only 8%"

In the shower, where I do all my best thinking, I realized why I have issues with the armor reducing damage classes idea - it means that light armor can't ever protect you from taking damage from a heavier weapon. 2 point leather would make a d10 weapon into a d6 weapon, say, meaning that you're taking damage, where if you had 2 point leather on versus a d10 roll, you'd have a 20% chance of avoiding damage altogether.

Not sure which is closer to realistic, but it feels wrong to say that your leather can't ever protect you from damage from a larger weapon, even close blows.

If it makes you that unhappy, just change the damage dice. So, 1D4+2 becomes 1D6, 2D6 becomes 1D12 and so on. Drop all +1s and use 1D12, 1D18, 1D24 and so on for large damage bonuses. It still doesn't help with the giant with a Naginata doing more than 1 point of damage, but this way he would do 1D14 + 1D12, so would do 2 damage as a minimum rather than 6.

If I'm going that route, I'm going balls out, and that giant is going to do a d26 damage. Or maybe I'd start looking at it differently and deal with multiple dice with minuses, to keep the 1 minimum value, but also keep the curve.

So while a 1d4+2 can become 1d6 easily enough, 2d6+2 (3-14) becomes 2d6+1d4-2 (1-14) maybe.

You wouldn't. You'd go thru the initial time to learn it as defined in the Sorcery section, and then leave it. If you haven't gone thru the initial learning phase, then you don't know the specifics to summon a particular type of being/spirit/etc.

That's understandable, it's just surprising that a system that expects one to expand one's skill with individual spells (like Sorcery) would be designed to use the same Ritual Skills at the expense of it's own skill system.

Does lend some validity to the RQII/Legend system (and maybe earlier) by which you gain skill percentages in your Grimoire, which impacts all of the related spells, including summoning spells.

p. 94 (softbound) Common Magical Procedures: Spells: Types of Spells

Learning of the specific spells is essentially learning the differences needed in the various summonings, so I would not require points to be put into the separate skills... unless I was in an evil mood.

SDLeary

Thanks! That does definitely explain a few things. Except why you'd ever "study up" a Summon (Species) spell as a sorcerer. If the skill is always equal to the ritual, why increase the spell percentage?

Well I think the OP's point is that a 1 HP damage roll represents a graze. It is just as possible to be grazed by a .50 cal as it is by a dagger. The 'problem' is that the effect of a successful hit is, random and largely independent of the skill. (Obviously criticals and specials influence the amount of damage.)

Although it seems oddly pedantic, it is hard to know what represents a "graze" in BRP. Is a graze a 'near miss' that does effectively no damage but maybe leaves a cut or a bit of a burn? In that case it is a failed attack. On the other hand, if a graze is defined as 1 HP of damage then the majority or weapons and anyone with a damage bonus, can't actually cause a graze. Personally, I tend to think of grazes as 'near misses' i.e. inconsequential damage. I think of any HP damage as significant.

You're close to where I'm coming from, but I think that my question remains valid in either interpretation. If a graze is a 1HP hit, why can't I do that with a dagger (1d3+2), ever? If it's a near miss that causes no damage, what of the tip slash that causes a tiny bit of damage? I still can't do that with the 1d3+2 dagger. I can't do anything short of 3 points of damage, while a short sword can do 1 or 2 in the right (no db) hands.

It's something of a mixed blessing. On the one hand. the adds prevent some weapons from doing 1 point of damage, and make a dagger just too effective against leather, but on the other hand no adds and a high variable makes it harder to simulate armor. For instance, no real, current armor that can be worn, is going to stop a .50 cal.

I've been working on a Damage Class idea to address this, based in part on the risk system and EABA. Basically as the DC increases the damage dice goes up, but armor takes off the DC before rolling damage, rahter than absorbing points. .

I'd not thought of that, but it does make some sense. I don't want to get too Rolemaster, but it might even make sense for some weapons to have a bonus to Damage Class based on armor type, as well as points. I'd be keen to see what you've come up with, if it's remotely ready to share.

My recollection is that you have to roll once and succeed in both skills, so the higher skill is limited by the lower. The spell I suppose represents the specifics of summoning the species, the summoning ritual your skill/technique in the actual rituals.

That feels logical, but I'll be damned if I can find so much as an example that implies it, let alone an actual rule. Cormac's character sheet has him with "Summon POW Spirit" equal to his skill with the Summoning ritual, instead of POWX5 + Magic Bonus, so I think you're on to something.

So, every game I run into anymore, I find myself asking this question when it comes to weapon damage (or other damage rolls, honestly) - why are there ever situations where it is impossible to only do a single point of damage?

Example: A character is hit by a short spear (1d6+1 damage). The lowest damage roll possible with that spear is 2. It is literally impossible to cause only a single point of damage. It gets worse if the wielder has a +1d4 db, when now that spear can't do any less than 3 damage. Heaven forbid he's got a naginata (2d6+2) and is a giant with +2d6 db!

This sort of thing makes players happy - I have a higher guaranteed damage factor - but it makes me a little twitchy as a "realistic" gamer who wonders "what ever happened to grazes, or flesh wounds?" - I don't care how strong you are with that spear, if you only manage to score me along my fleshy belly with the point of that spear, I shouldn't take as much damage as an average hit from a sword cane or worse, a .22 pistol!

So, has anyone looked into alternative systems for dealing with stacking damage like this? Replace all +1's with a "increase die size" mechanic, maybe?

Okay, so my gut says that some mechanic could be arranged that based damage not on dice, but on weapon damage classes. You divide the d100 roll for your to-hit by the damage class, take the remainder (modulo), and add 1. Great strength leads to a higher damage class, rather than flat adds or additional dice. Its' very math-heavy, but it could probably be handled with a chart as well as a formula.

Since we are hashing out RQ III Sorcery, can anyone tell me how Summoning ritual skill interacts with Summoning (Species) spell skill?

Ah that explains the questions. In MRQ2 and RQ6 you have Combat Styles which incorporate a group of weapons learned from cultural or career backgrounds. Thus it is easier for a character to have a broader range of proficiency depending on how inclusive the GM wants to have each style.

Shields on the other hand offer several bonuses from the ability to block larger, more forceful weapons to being able to parry ranged attacks. Thus they do provide a significant edge in a fight.

Have you gone into any detail anywhere on how you might be changing Combat Styles from the MRQ days? They are one of the more divisive areas of the RQII world. Even just some better notes indicating how they can be used, and how, much like cults and the like, you're expected as the GM to do some work deciding which ones are valid in your world would be helpful.

I'm honestly surprised they gave it a straight dice plus mods damage, when they already have the 'stun' keyword in place for things like tasers and shock whips. Why not just let it be that you roll the damage, subtract armor, and make the target roll a simple resistance with his head (or other location) hitpoints versus the damage? Joe average is going to have what, a 35% chance to avoid being K.O. in one. Make it really cinematic and halve his chances if it's from ambush.

Either way, I'd think it makes sense for anyone who is knocked out with non-lethal damage to wake up with one point of real damage per ten points of non-lethal they took to get them out, in bruises and concussions and the like.