Kloster

2 hours ago, Godlearner said:

No, nothing in Dismiss or Dispel says there is a POW vs POW roll. The target is the spell not the person.

RQG p 244: An adventurer’s POW is used to resist spells cast against them. A target always resists a spell unless that target voluntarily and knowingly accepts the spell. To find out if a spell was successfully cast against a resisting target, compare on the resistance table the caster’s POW vs. the target’s POW.

No need to add it to every spells. If the spell is on a person, you should roll. At least, we always understood it that way.

54 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Unlikely, at least i have not seen it used very often. countermagic once in a blue moon, shield never. The choice is always the character or the sword, and character wins every time.

Except if the sword has a bound spirit (or is an allied spirit), it is protected by the character shield or countermagic.

56 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

For a Fireblade. The best tactic for Fireblade is the one I first seen in the Cradle scenario where the second rankers cast Fireblade on the spears of the Yelmalio templars int he first row.

Agreed. I have also seen a dagger with a fireblade matrix, some MP in a matrix and a condition that it activates automatically when drawn. In that case, no roll (it is an automatic spell). By the way, it was RQ3, but with RQG, you also would get rid of the 'active spell' problem, because you are not the one that casts, so are not the one that has to maintain.

25 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Yes, Bladesharp only affects the weapon its cast on, why would it be different for Shield.

As I have understood, in order to affect an items you have on someone, you need to win POW vs POW except if the object has a spirit bound in it. So, for me, countermagic or shield protects said objects. Protection is a different matter, because it acts as armor and your armor does not (usually) protects the objects you carry. But, for me, you can cast protection specifically on the sword, which would gain AP.

24 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Disruption spam is nice as well, as even one point of damage requires a concentration check.

Also part of the battle of tactics (rarely employed because somebody that uses Fireblade + Truesword is most probably protected by several level of shield or countermagic, but might be worth it).

18 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

Alternatively: The GM makes all the Perception Checks for the players. 

This is what we do (since RQ2).

3 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

By "boring" I mean it becomes a battle of attrition of Rune Points or Magic Points, not necessarily a battle of skills or tactics.

For me, it is part of the battle of tactics.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

At least as far back as a Traveller supplement (or maybe MegaTraveller)

Yes, Megatraveller is also the oldest game I remember having this kind of system fully integrated with the global one.

31 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

and even the old James Bond RPG made some use of it, with accumulating Quality Ratings (think BRP success levels).

Yes.

32 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It is a rule that exists in the core rules, for the horse race, it just not presented as a general rule for other types of tasks. Same with the Battle Intensity rules in the Book of Battle. Either could be turned into a general case rule. 

Yes, but in that case, Mugen is right: it is easy for an experienced GM to see it, but a beginner one will not see what is behind.

6 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Never saw D20s with "+" notation.

I had some: The ones in my AH RQ3 deluxe box.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

From what I've seen fencers sort of slide their blades down each other and tried to angle their weapons while doing so in order to strike their opponent first. 

Correct.

27 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Now we can have all of the whacky Wile E.  Coyote/ Tom and Jerry style, slapstick nonsense we can think up. You can now pretty whip an anvil out of your back pocket it and drop it on someone's head from great height. 

You just discovered why the game I GM'ed most is Toon, and why I dislike GM'ing (but like playing) RQ.

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

If you play weekly adventures with seasonal experience checks, then this changes dramatically, and likely not for the better. In this case, it makes sense to give the PCs experience checks when they manage to get some downtime instead, like several days’ R&R. They probably shouldn’t get any additional experience for profession and cult if they are this busy.

We don't play weekly adventures, but as most adventures are just a few days long, there can be several in 1 season, even when not breaking the 3 weeks per season that cause losses. This is especially easy when characters are deeply inserted in their community, and a lot of the adventures revolve around the clan, the town or hamlet and what is around (Tusk riders raid, stolen cattle, disease spirits,...).

You forget that you also need to get enough rune magic before you are allowed to reach rune level, and the time needed to do this is generally much longer than the time needed to level up the skills. Now, you get only 1 POW check per season, meaning you need at least 7 seasons to have 7 successful roll to have the 10 requested RP.

16 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Oh, were you referring to a new core book pdf?

Yes. If core book rules are superseded by new ones and those changes are planed to enter a new print run, they should also be in the pdf.

14 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm probably be going to go at two or maybe three adventures per season, I don't think the players will miss their occupational skill checks or income if they are getting ticks and loot and rep as clan/tribal troubleshooters. The reason for this is that I don't want the Hero Wars timeline to race past too quickly. I want the chance to involve the adventurers in big events, and not skip past them by accident.

Same for me.

14 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

2) The chance to improve is usually much greater in RQG, because your appropriate Skills Modifier helps you improve the skill.  For example, a "fighter" with STR 17 and DEX 13, pretty reasonable stats, is +15% to improve in all their weapons skills.  My Vinga worshipper is STR 17, DEX 17 and, for a brief time 😞, was POW 17, so she was an impressive +25% to improve her weapons skills, even those above 100%.

The rule is exactly the same as RQ3's rules. I agree the modifiers are a bit higher, but not by much, so the chance to increase is not much higher.

13 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That depends, did you actually get 40 increases (time x) per year in the old way of playing RQ?

Probably much over 100. We had about 2 to 3 adventures per season (so 10 to 15 per year), with between 10 and 30 checks per adventure. Counting an average of 20, that means an average of 200 to 300 checks per year, and 100 if you adventure only once per season. Current rate of progress is much slower than previously.

13 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I believe there have always been mods added to a skill tick check. INT in RQ 2 was the Mod I think, and Category Mods in RQ 3 added to the chance of an experience check.

Correct.

6 minutes ago, Scotty said:

This is a clarification that will go into a new printing of the core rules (whenever that is).

See Illusory Substance in the Q&A

When can we hope to get a new pdf version?

15 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Nobody in my games has wanted to play an Eurmali, in nearly 40 years of Gloranthan RuneQuest.

Same for me. We had humans, ducks, trolls and 1 dwarf. We had characters from Prax, Sartar, Heortland, Lunar Empire, Esrolia and 1 Kralorelan. We had a whole bunch of Cults, but no Eurmali.

2 hours ago, Dragon said:

With that interpretation, the corollary is a character cannot cast Disrupt on a living body who went unconscious due to spirit combat. They also have no magic points - currently.

Correct, but they have POW, and the default roll is POW vs POW, so possible.

2 hours ago, ffilz said:

I would say no gain if you have a 95% chance of success, or maybe have a mathematical 100% or better chance (which pegs at 95%).

IIRC, this is already the official rule, at least since RQ3.

34 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Maybe this? Someone will have to testify under Truth magic or an Oath, and now he can truthfully say that he saw whatever he hallucinated…

Yes, for me, this should work.

53 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

the schools would teach a "philosophy".

Yes, obviously.

53 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The Lhankor Mhy school would teach that sorcerous magic comes from Lhankor Mhy himself, as he learned the ways the Runes interact with each other, and found the Techniques (mystical manipulations) to use those Runes (aka, spells).

This, I don't think. For me LM (and the other cults that teach or merely allow sorcery) know that they are using things (runes/techniques/spells) that don't come from the god itself but from something completely different.

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Meanwhile, a Malkioni would say that the Invisible God created the universe, and the Runes, and by extension, all the Techniques as well.

For me, a Malkioni say that the Invisible God created the life, the universe and everything (including the runes), but Malkion, as the first sorceror, discovered (and not created) the sorcerous runes and techniques.

54 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I think the question really is - what gets disrupted?

In the case of a skeleton, bones, obviously.

54 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

But, if that's not the case, then I don't see how any Pow v anything is relevant.

This is exactly my point when I said 'No POW, No MP, so no target'.

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

In any case, having to roll to overcome 0 MPs is great, as it means Adventurers could fail and be ridiculed for years to come.

I like this solution: They are animated, so are a valid target, because they don't have no MP but 0MP: Attack with POW vs 0MP on the resistance table and no possible POW check. I will use it.

4 hours ago, Godlearner said:

You are trying to twist things which are pretty simple here. Sorcery give you a way to access power and cast magic magic without gods or spirits, period. It does not mtter if you learn the spell from a Lhankar Mhy grimore or are taught the spell by a Chalana Arroy healer, or you get it from a Lunar magician, or even if you get it somehow on a HeroQuest. 

4 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I'm with your interpretation on this. The only real restrictions are corporate (Cult/Organization) or social (cultural taboos).

I completely agree with both of you.

For me, no POW nor MP means no disruption possible, because you have no target. The problem, as Anunnaki described, is that skeleton and zombies had and have not anymore.

25 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

just they need to split their tongue to have more than 25% in Auld Wirmish

Correct.

25 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

Not sure if I failed or succeed (clearly not critical success) my lore, but I think dragons have the same tongues than serpents

Logical, but as I said, I failed my roll.

3 hours ago, Bren said:

Do dragons in Glorantha have split tongues?

I don't know for dragon (just failed my 'draconic lore' test), but humans need to have their tongue split to speak Auld Wirmish, so I suppose dragonewts have.

You have Rolemaster.