Kloster

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

or even burning some sausages to make your deity happy.

At the very least, burning the sausages (but not too much) makes the cultists happy.

4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

i'm not and you are fencing expert (or anything you want) but my first reaction was

yes but no.

should a fighter have a good level to learn feint ? I mean you must know the basics before trying complex technics, etc..

that drives me to something like

under x0% (60% ?) you cannot do anything

between x0% et x1% (75% ? 80% ?) you can choose a malus with a maximum of 20% (you have learnt the first "special" technics)

between x1% et x2% (90% ? 100% ?) you can choose a malus with a maximum of 40% (you have learnt more complex technics)

more than x2%, you are a master and you can choose a malus of your choice

same for defense. After all you may choose some postures (hope it is the good word) to reduce your opponent attacks

does it make sense ?

If you want. It does make sense, I just feel it too cumbersome, but feel free to do it, it should work perfectly. I feel my rule simpler (but less good as yours).

4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I m pretty sure that the "over 100% rule" is faster in most of cases (armor, weapon, skills) but that is just feeling, no proof

Yes, of course, it is simpler and faster. But what I wanted to emphasized is the choice. What I don't like wit RAW is that it is automatic: You always reduce the highsest score to 100% and the lowest by the same score, lowering the crit to 5%. With my rule (and also with your proposal), you choose if you want to keep the high crit and special or if you want to reduce your opponent score.

By the way, even if I am (or more properly were) probably the best fencer here (considering the sheer low number of fencers worldwide, it is not very difficult with around 15 years of practice and competitions), that does not make me an expert on the matter, nor an expert in transfering techniques concepts in BRP concepts.

22 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I've mentioned this previously, but I think this should be a choice, justified as -a) doing everything you can to ensure a really good hit (special or crit) and hope the opponent doesn't parry (keep over 100%, parry at normal), or b) do a lot of feinting, dodging, etc to draw the opponent's defences to get in any hit (reduce to 100%, reduce parry %).

I would do it by allowing the attacker to get a malus of his choice, whatever his original score, representing feints and maneuvers, and applying said malus to the defender. Of course, the defender could also do it and final malus is the sum of both. But this is not automatic, and not linked to the 100% score. Of course, you can not do it if you are below 5%, because in that case, any malus would not change your chance of success.

15 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

try to overwhelm your opponent by splitting your attack

RAW, if you split versus someone higher than 100%, you lower more your chances than his.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

As to the permitted minimal mention of house rules: I'm seriously considering throwing out the over-100%-rule. I think I prefer the higher special and critical chances, and it involves less calculating (especially those chances) on the fly.

Completely agree. This is what I do. Players love criticals (so do I), and very much dislike having their critical chances reduced to 5% or less.

48 minutes ago, g33k said:

I (strongly) suspect that when you add up the reasons NOT to do this, Chaosium's best estimate is that they "should not" do it (from a business POV)

Completely agree. If a RQ3 redux is done (like the Rq2 redux), it would most certainly be less expensive (and less impressive) than RQG, and could sell more just because of this. I don't have the official figures of sales here in France, but I can ensure it is far more difficult to get RQG products (either in french or in english) than it was 35 years ago for RQ3, even if the price tag for AH products was hefty, to say the least. I am thus almost sure than current sales are much lower than the previous ones were. I have no idea for other countries.

51 minutes ago, g33k said:

And they're not willing to damage their rep and the Chaosium & RQ brands with a substandard product.

They would not. RQCE is not to the level of current products, but it is not a problem. So, it would not be for an official RQ3 reprint.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

I have to give them credit too. It is certainly nice to see what has come out of their effort.

For sure.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Because you don't have access? If you want to start RQ3 these days, the buy-in is fairly steep. The "monograph" editions mitigated that, though they did lack the Gloranthan information from the fifth book.

Monograph never were easily available in France, and never were available in french, but RQ3 french printing is half the price of the RQG one. I don't know for US or UK, but in France, no kid I know is putting over 50 euros for a gaming book (but their fathers are). Result: I know more kids using RQ3 than RQG, just because of the availability, the price (or the books of their father). My son don't count because I own both editions in english and in french.

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

1) Separation of Attack & Parry skills made shield parry at least as viable as weapon parry.

Even more because base percentage was higher.

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Now in old RQ, where you usually get one defense, shields have other advantages (high AP, can stop missile weapons, avoids risking damage to the weapon,sperate attack and parry skills,  etc.) shields are alright.

Perfectly true.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but I don't think it would be worth raising a second skill just so that you can hold out a little better when double or triple teamed. In those types of BRP games, getting ganged up on is to be avoided. It's like shark repellent. If you think you are going to need it, you probably shouldn't get your feet wet to begin with.

Agreed, but it is still worth, just in case. Even if you avoid that situation like the plague, you are not always successful, and it is better to be prepared.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

But it would only give any benefit in situations where a character faces more than 1 attack. If your opponent is only allowed 1 attack per round, 2 parries are useless.

Correct.

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

It depends on how many parries your version of BRP allows without a shield 

If you can only parry once without a shield, then a Shield will be helpful when you're fighting multiple enemies.

Yes, it could be possible to allow multiple parries only with shield. Not very realistic (I came from fencing, not SCA, and multiple parries with foil or epee are possible within 12 seconds), but would give the requested result.

With current combat rules, there is no interest using a shortsword vs a broadsword (except for cost 25L vs 50L): ENC is same, SR is higher, HP are lower, base skill is same. With RQ3, you had same armor for broadsword and gladius (10AP). In addition, you also had a lower ENC (0.5 or 1 vs 2.0) and some interesting maneuvers with a higher SR or that ignore SR, with the added advantage of possible impales (with the gladius).

For armor, light armor is cheaper, lighter and has generally a better modifier for 'Move Silently' as heavier armor often include noisy metal parts. In addition, as told by Soltakss, you may have a problem of social acceptance.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Don't those two words mean the same thing? They combine. They stack. The accumulate. Same thing, surely! Unless you mean "stackable" in purely the game mechanical sense, but since that term only applies to rune magic then I think it's clear that we aren't using it in that context.

Ohhh... 💡 I think I get what you are saying. Do you mean that if someone has Countermagic 2 and Shield 1 on them, then a 4 point spirit spell will blow past both (taking down the CM, leaving the shield in place), because it treats them both as independent 2 point countermagic effects? That's not how I read it at all! "The effects of this spell are cumulative with either Protection or Countermagic" surely means that the effects are cumulative, and not separate and independent! Cumulative means you use addition.

I've never read it that way in over 40 years of RuneQuesting!

I feel the same.

5 hours ago, g33k said:

And "they" is (in fact) the correct word in English to do that ... no need to use the awkward "he/she" (and similar) constructions.

You lucky guys. French language does not have this possibility.

IIRC, the effect (but not the enchantment itself) was in Borderlands. Duke Raus's bodyguard had one.

11 hours ago, PersonOne said:

I truly believe that Chaosium has good intentions and cares about making every gamer welcome.

11 hours ago, PersonOne said:

Despite that, I think that they are still very balanced and cautious not to disrespect anyone, which is the most important thing. I guess, with the political polarization in the US, especially on the internet, they might feel like dancing on the edge of a razor blade. The fact that they publish something that you disagree with is not even close to real discrimination. 

Even if I (politely) disagree with a good part of your post, this part is excellent. Well said.

I've seen Indian police using wicker shields during violent protests. They took a lot of beatings, including by swords. The only problem was that they don't provide cover against tear gas. In Delhi, this is a problem, but in Pavis, much less.

10 hours ago, davecake said:

Actually now I think about, in RQ3 rules the value of Sword Trance is splitting your attack. So you get to hit those trollkin 4.5 times a round. You’ll need more than 10.

(or wait until the end of the round and hit two of them in the head) 

No, because you still need 3 SR between each attack. You can do 2, perhaps 3 attacks per round, but not more. But of course, that would mean 2 225% attacks or 3 150% attacks, but you will still parry only once (max twice).

35 minutes ago, g33k said:

Ambushes, and volleys of ranged-combat (before closing to melee), are usually the winning tactics in RQ combat.

This was always true, but even more now with the multiple parry rule.

36 minutes ago, g33k said:

It is worth noting that shields can often absorb more HP from parrying-damage; and that shields are cheap, so you don't much care if it does get destroyed (unless you're a long way from resupply).

Much true.

2 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

<blink><blink>RQ2: Humakt geases were always D% roll (Cults of Prax [Classic reprint], page 37). My GM of the time used a D10 for the selection of the gift. Yelmalio (page 57) explicitly says "Roll" above the 10 available gifts (so using a roll for Humakt makes things consistent), with the geases, again,  being on a D%

I've never had an Humakti when playing RQ2, so yes, I believe you. With RQ3, gifts were chosen and there was a linked geas.

2 hours ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

RAW the game says (RQG p29)

You may choose the event or roll a D20 to get a random result.

Correct.

2 hours ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

I'd prefer the player roll to avoid having too many grandparents/parents eaten by the Crimson Bat or PCs who fought with great glory in every battle but if a player said "I hate that result, can I reroll?" I'd allow them to, just as I allowed my players to select some evnts that were important to their idea of the character.

Same for me.

2 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

In this case yes that is, for me, too much. but that is more a table issue (I don’t know why so I don’t advice anything) than a rule issue

Agreed.

2 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

when you see the white bull campaign that absolutely not 50/50 and that s fine I think

White Bull campaign is fine, but not RAW.

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

how many times the GM decides player must roll this passion/rune versus player decides to use passion/rune. from my perspective 90% of passions rolls and about 100% of runes rolls are players decision

From what I have seen, most (not all as you described) rune rolls are decided  by the player, not by the GM, but for the passions, my experience would tell about 50% for each.

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I may have some bias ( because my house creation process ) but it seems to me that even as raw players choose themselves the runes and passions of their characters ? They decide what/who they play

If you create RAW, the player choose most of the values of the runes (in fact, they choose everything, but some modifiers are coming from background/history), but choose nothing about the passions (except the default ones that comes from cult and homeland).

2 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Is it a problem to be an humakti or a yelmalian and have geas ?

No, because you choose to be Humakti or Yelmalion. Note that I don't like the fact that you now roll the gifts and geases.

2 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Or a shaman with any taboo ?

Same, you choose.

2 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

That is the same for me with runes or other. That gives advantage (as gifts) but may "force" you to do things (as geas), when the advantage is powerful (aka 80%+ of success)

note that noone say you "must" have runes 80+, you can stay below, can't you ?

No, because you don't choose the Passions rolls (and associated EXP rolls).

18 hours ago, soltakss said:

I love the story that baguettes are the size they are because a soldier in Napoleon's army could store one in each of thigh pockets in their trousers, so carrying a day's rations.

 

I've never heard this story before you told it (it does not mean it is false), but I very much like the idea.

18 hours ago, soltakss said:

Some people hate the very idea of Passions, as they can force the Adventurers to do things that the Players don't want to do.

I'm part of them. This is exactly the reason why I don't like passions.

18 hours ago, soltakss said:

Personally, I think the strength of Passions is exactly that they can force Adventurer to do things, otherwise they are conflicted in some way.

Agreed.

18 hours ago, soltakss said:

If you have Fear Dragons, see a dragon, roll the Passion and succeed then you are afraid of the Dragon and can run away, or can try and face your fear. Either is good to me.

Agreed, but the problem is not in the 'can', it is in the 'must' if you are above 80%.

13 hours ago, svensson said:

building their overnight fortifications at the end of that march.

And for that, they were carrying everything needed to build the camp, including tents, altars and the (wooden) walls.

13 hours ago, svensson said:

The Marian Legion was the first professional, fully paid army in history. By 'fully paid', I mean that their equipment was paid for by the State, their pay was in cash money not tax remittances, as was their food, clothing, and other support. By this time in Roman history [roughly 100 BC], the free Roman farmer was largely a thing of the past. Nobles were buying up farms to build great estates worked by slaves, often forcibly turning out the farmers that held the land with spurious writs of defaulting on taxes. Furthermore, several poor commanders had utterly denuded Italy of manpower just as the German invasions arose. Gaius Marius, seven times Consul of Rome, forced a measure through the Senate allowing the lowest levels of the Roman Citizens to be mobilized for 25 year enlistments in the Legions. These men were wholly professionals and could be placed under military discipline that a Republican legionnaire would have rebelled against.

Yes, the 30 km are for the (Marian) late republic/early empire legions: highly trained, well payed professionals, with good roads, fine tune logistics.

53 minutes ago, svensson said:

The US military [and IIRC the British Army] forbid hoods on jackets being up in combat zones in any weather less than an actual arctic blizzard. They MUCH prefer that you wear a knitted cap or a forehead wrap /headband under your helmet instead.

I've never seen a hood on any french military clothing, even if I was in mountain corps (but I never seen arctic equipment), but this was 30 years ago, so can't say anything for current equipment.