Kloster

11 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

And could a Lhankor Mhy sorcerer pay, say, a Lunar magician to teach them a spell that they could then use within their current paradigm, or would they have to completely re-acquire their techniques etc (ie, the sorcery is incompatible).

For me, yes. Sorcery is the same, source of power is the same, and mental constructs are the same. The would need to have a written common language, though. But once you have access to the rune(s) and technique(s), you can use them.

28 minutes ago, icebrand said:

In RQG, with a 20% modifier, you need 286 experience rolls, which means yeah, that's not happening legit RAW.

With RQG, you have sword trance. With RQ3 and RQG, you have arrow trance. Both can drive you way above 300%.

5 minutes ago, Kränted Powers said:

I think the Fatigue rule is another tactical option for players, so I would not want to lose it. Making heavily armoured knight (with too much experience on beer) run around the combat field until he is exhausted is not a bad strategy.

Agreed, it might work, is logical and coherent. But my experience is different: I tried several time to use this strategy, but the time needed to have the malus really count is way too long to get any chance of survival versus said armored tank, er, knight. with said experience and accompanying sword.

22 minutes ago, David Scott said:

None of the RQ3 GMs I played with, ever used it.

One of mine used it, and it never changed the result of a single roll, because combat were sufficiently short to avoid the -1% per fatigue below 0 to have any effect. The next GM (a player in the game we used it) decided to discard it completely.

14 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I only use english material to not have any more this issue

I can not. My son and another of my players don't speak english.

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

You know Kallyr Starbrow right ?

In french, her name is "Kallyr Sourcils d'étoile"

The current translation is better regarding 'canon' as she is now 'Front Etoilé'. Both are lexically correct, but only the current one goes with current description.

11 minutes ago, Rob Darvall said:

Cheaper too. 6MP that restore overnight vs full on resurrection costs. 

Correct, but I didn't added that because I prefer not being dead, even if resurrection is available: 75% of being dead is a bit risky, and I just prefer 60% of loosing even my right arm.

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

So, you are power gaming mini-maxing over 15% differences, and then complain about the rules.

No, but my character has only base chance on those 2 skills and I prefer having 40% success and risking to loose my arm than having 25% and risking loosing my life. This is not power gaming but survival matters, and I am not complaining on those specific rules: In fact, they have not changed since years (identical rules in RQ3) and I like them since I play RQ3 (RQ2 had no dodge, so does not count).

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

No need for me to continue this discussion.

Your choice.

22 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Again, Dodge.  Or parry with the weapon / shield in the other arm.

Ditto for dodge. The parry with shield/2nd weapon is what I do usually (meaning when I can), but does not remove the remarks on baths, escaped prisoners, weapon stuck in shields, disarmed characters, broken weapons, ... .

28 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Why not just use the Dodge skill here?  Seems the perfect fit??

Just because Dodge default is DEXx2% + agility (which is not often above +5%) - 1% per ENC (up to carrying capacity) - 5% per ENC (above carrying capacity),  and fist is 25 % + manipulation (which is often +10%), because attack and parry are same skill. In my character's case, that means 25% dodge (2*14+10-13) and 40% fist (25+15), and the 15% difference is life saving. In addition, if the attack is a special, the dodge must also be a special to succeed, not the parry.

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

Whenever they cllimb, swim, or move in social circumstances that require them to show up unarmed, like in a public bath

 

Not speaking of the disarm and broken weapons, shields with a weapon stucked in, escaped prisoners, and a lot of other circumstances.

51 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Personally, IDK that keeping somebody bound up for one day a week is that much of a curse. 

The problem I see is simple: Who would bind the cursed if the tribe is, as it seems, composed entirely of Telmori? The last that has bound all his clan would be alone and can not be bound, so will go to rampage.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

It might be tricky to coordinate, but the Maboder can testify that it can work. Or would, if they weren't dead.

Yes, but as all battle plan, it can fail because most of the time, your ultimate weapon is behind your own lines, and you have a problem with a band of marauding bloodthirsty killers.

13 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

When it comes to parrying a weapon with one of your body part, I can definitively see how it would be harder to acheive without getting hurt. In a sense, only you acheive a better level of success, you are really chosing where the blow will land. If you have better level of success, you are deflecting the blow, moving aside the weapon and side stepping the blow, stopping the limb, etc. Unless you are a trained martial artist (term used loosely here), what would happen in the real word is an unarmed combattant would try to avoid the blow altogether; dodge.

Some Italian medieval and renaissance fencing school were teaching parrying sword attacks with the hand, by slapping the flat of the blade with your palm to deflect the hit..

13 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Not only it could be seen as such but I am 99% the extra 6 pts of damage blocked is all about positioning and deflecting and not really about toughening up. You only get the benefit if you succeed at your martial art skill so it does represent a martial parry. 

I totally agree here.

5 hours ago, Alex said:

But very clearly and explicitly, a SR is neither a second, nor an instant.  (Nor is what's true of a fencing foil necessarily also the case for, say, a 2H Battleaxe.)

It is a elemnt of time for RQ3 annd, as far as I remember, for BRP BGB. For RQ2, CoC and Superworld, it is not. For other BRP games I have played, I don't remember.

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

In my experience, shields are unimpressive in RQG already, and doing this much damage on defence tilts it even further towards defending with weapons. Greatswords are just amazingly good.

Even if I agree with your comment on RQG's shields, parrying with a sword on a natural weapon attack has always been a favorite tactic in any RQ iteration I played, just because of this possibility to damage (in that case, wound) the attacking weapon.

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Anyway, I was talking about BGB. Is my interpretation of the wording correct? A "parrying weapon" is a weapon that is used exclusively for parrying in that round. Makes sense to me, I think I'm going to run it that way.

If I remember well what I understood from the BGB (looong time ago), it was like RQ3's errata rule (if you use SR, of course), and I would have played it the same. Additionally, my personal experience with fencing makes me think this is correct: you can parry and attack with the same weapon in the same 12 second timeframe, but not at the same time, meaning not the same SR.

32 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

RQ3 is a bit different, there 2H weapons can both attack and parry in the same round (one handed weapons can’t).

With errata, they can, but not on same SR.

32 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

And also damage is rolled against a blocking weapon, unlike BGB where all damage is blocked on a successful parry.

This, I didn't remember.

33 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Besides, in BGB weapon and shield AP is about twice of what they are in RQ3 so they are virtually indestructible.

This, I remember.

8 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

A somewhat related question: on page 191 under "Parry" it says "A character armed with a parrying weapon or shield can block the damage from an attack." I've taken that to mean that any weapon that is usable for parrying can be used for parrying, regardless of whether you've also used it to attack that round. I've always found this a bit problematic since it makes shields redundant in melee combat. But on closer reading it struck me that "parrying weapon" seems to imply a weapon that is used specifically for parrying, in contrast to an "attacking weapon". That is, a weapon that is used for attacking in a given round is not a "parrying weapon", though you could use it to parry if you don't use it to attack that particular round. In my opinion, this plays much better than my first assumption. Thoughts?

According to RQ3 (including errata)(I'm sorry, my BGB is 200km away, so I can not check), you can parry with any weapon, including one that attacks this specific round, but you can not parry and attack with the same weapon in the same SR. And what makes shields not redundant is 1) that they have globally more AP/HP than weapons and 2) that they provide cover for missile weapons.

Santa Post Office was on time, so I got mine yesterday.

13 minutes ago, icebrand said:

Well, prax is basically a wild west movie setting!!! (At least mine is) You have pol-joni cowboys and nomad natives and all!!! 🤪

Yes. With assorted Spartans, but yes.

JB007 was handling difficulties the same way, by adding or substracting to 'ease factor', that were going from 0.5 to 10.

53 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Sorry, super off-topic! Well, maybe, it is still relevant to the "cost" of making a magic item.

I think it is still relevant, because, whether POW is a measure of your soul or of your spiritual might, it is still a part of yourself. This is why I think the POW part of the cost of an enchant should be the largest, even if what you know (the spell) or the physical value of the item being enchanted should count.

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

The maker has had to incur the cost of learning the spell - which can be very expensive.  Is the maker creating this enchantment once?  In that case, the maker wants a return on the investment that covers POW + learning cost + some margin.  If the maker knows they will create the same enchantment multiple times, then they could spread the cost of learning the spell across multiple enchantments/buyers. 

At the end of the day, it's really on the maker of the enchantment to set the price - and on the buyer to try to Bargain the price down.  Optionally, the maker might set a task for the buyer to complete before delivery of the enchanted item.

Fully agreed, but I think the original question was more 'what if the maker already knows the spell?'. At least, this is how I understood his question. I know this is not RAW, but I think I would use half spell cost in that case, subject to bargain of course.

2 hours ago, D said:

thank you.

that's definitely something I'd like to hear.

He did one for Doom.