Kloster

30 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

To me that's CA's concession to realpolitik, they know there's no way that Storm Bull or other like minded allies are going to respect CA's protection of chaotics so they don't try to enforce it.

Interesting. I've not thought to that.

30 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Undead and constructs are not living, but I suspect that they would want the termination of a sentient undead to not involve unnecessary suffering.

So do I, but Jeff's answer was 'Initiates don't fight. At all. ', hence my question.

31 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

A sentient construct would be an interesting case.

Yes, agreed. Good roleplaying opportunities.

14 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

they don't have the Undeath rune

OK, but they are undead nonetheless, meaning not all undead are linked to chaos, unless I don't understand anything to Zorak Zoran's cult (which is fairly possible).

15 hours ago, Dragon said:

While RQ:G is not literally stating vegetarians,

It is (RQG p290: 'An initiate must become a vegetarian').

15 hours ago, Jeff said:

Not even Shield. Just Dodge.

Why not shield? This is a purely self defense skill.

15 hours ago, Jeff said:

Nope. Initiates don't fight. At all.

Does that mean (RQG p290) that the line 'Chaotic foes are exempt from this protection' only means that chaotic creatures incapacitated by a healer's actions can be terminated by others? What about undead, which are by definition not living, or machines (Jolanti or nilmergs or god learner's artifacts)?

19 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

Also great point on javelins vs bows - the Romans conquered pretty much the whole civilised world armed with several different types of throwing spear and very few or no bows.

Alexander's all-conquering army had just two regiments of archers and many more javelineers.

Hannibal's army had IIRC no bows at all - just javelins and a few Baearic slingers.

Wargamers however love having a choice of ranged weapon units and so have long overrated the bow in rules terms and this has been carried over into RPGs.

An 'ancient' RPG should however reflect a world where the javelin was the primary missile weapon of almost every culture rather than a cod-medieval one of longbows and crossbows.

On that point, RQ follows you, because a javelin does 1D10+1 (+1D2 on the average) damage, as the best bows (Composite and Elf) do 1D8+1 damage. The real advantage of bows are range and weight if you carry more than a few shots.

25 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

I'd argue it's because Undead are Chaos, not because they aren't alive.

I kept them separate because of Zorak Zoran's zombies, that are (seemingly) not linked to chaos. And, as stated by OP, CA 'provides quite explicit taboos with regard to life and living things, Chaos excepted' and 'Worshipers of Chalana Arroy practice total non-violence and take an oath never to harm a living creature' (Sourcebook p117).

30 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

The reason I mentioned the "CA aren't Storm Bulls" is because a CA could help a broo redeem themself of Chaos. It's rare but we know it happens.

Fully agreed.

31 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

The Undeath rune is a Chaos rune (although Undead creatures can also have a separate actual Chaos rune as well): it's the Chaos perversion of the Death-Life rune set.

Are Zorak Zoran's zombies linked to chaos? I am sure they are not.

Is Delecti (himself, not his creatures/creations) chaotic? I am not sure. He is described as a God Learner sorcerer.

11 minutes ago, simonh said:

Undead yes perhaps, because they are not creatures,

Undead are creatures, but not living ones.

35 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Can a CA learn combat skills in order to a) defend herself (eg, shield or dodge)

Yes, of course: this does not harm anybody, sentient or not.

36 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

or b) to actually fight undead or Chaos?

Chaos, yes, because they are chaos. Undead, yes, because they are not living.

37 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The question of undead was left a bit open... especially since in RQG, it says "never to harm an intelligent creature" - are zombies or skeletons considered 'intelligent? What's going to be the deal with vampires or similar?

With RQG, intelligent means having an INT stat. Zombies and skeletons don't have INT. Vampires have INT, but are not concerned because not living.

31 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

How about working with exceptions -- you get a checkmark on a success unless the GM says you don't. You don't get a checkmark on a failure unless the GM says you do. So the GM only has to think about it when it matters. That's what I do. I intervened in that way only a couple times so far, and both times it was because the situation was so exceptional that it was hard to miss.

This is also how we do it.

20 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

On the other side, if you fail the augment, what do you do with the -4? Clearly it reduces your chance, but if a successful augment would reduce the POW cost, then this would -4 INCREASE the POW cost.

Yes, of course.

17 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Rune Lords are supposed to be favoured by their gods, so I don't see a problem with it. It just becomes something for the GM to come up with appropriate counters for.

Fully agree here.

29 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

And at rune lord level, when you mix the original 1D10 POW cost with changes that make DI very likely and the likely cost more like 1 POW, you have made the character a cartoon superhero.

In fact, this is already the case, because a Rune Lord uses a D10, and most probably has more than 10RP. The permanent cost is for him the 1st RP, the others being recovered at the next worship(s).

14 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Would I be correct in presuming that for Initiates, that wouldn't be the case? Lost RPs are permanently lost?

No, they also are recovered as usual, but the initiate rolls a D100, which means the possibility of loosing all his RP and some or all his POW (and to fail if the roll is above POW+RP).

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

but your god need energy to open the channel to the mundane world, that's the great compromise, so for me you need at least a match to create a big wildfire or a little firecamp.

Don't forget you start the DI procedure by permanently spending a RP. This is roughly equivalent to spending a POW. In fact, it is equivalent if you spend said POW to compensate for the loss of the RP.

2 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Yes. I can't see that rule being able to increase POW or RP, so any roll brought to zero or less would be treated as 0 and only the original RP is lost.

Another possibility is to treat said 'below 0' roll as 1, because the minimum rollable result is 1, but I prefer 0: Your devotion so much impressed your god that he thinks the original offering is sufficient.

Just now, PhilHibbs said:

So a roll of 30 or under would cost just the original 1 RP?

Yes. I can't see that rule being able to increase POW or RP, so any roll brought to zero or less would be treated as 0 and only the original RP is lost.

Just now, David Scott said:

This did make me laugh.

My pleasure.

16 minutes ago, simonh said:

and closing was a tactic I favoured back in RQ3

Same for me. I miss it.

16 minutes ago, simonh said:

Protection spells have gaps the way armour does?

Logically, a spell has no gaps, but in that case, a protection spell should apply in case of a critical, and it seems it does not.

If I were to use Devotion as a modifier for DI, I think I would use the skill as an augment, and use the result of the augment roll as a negative modifier on the DI roll: For example, a Special on the Devotion (Deity) roll would normally give a +30% on the augmented roll. That way, I would apply a -30 on the D100 under POW (or POW+RP for priest) roll. It is thus still possible to loose everything because (for humans) you can not have more than 21 POW and 21 RP, and the max modifier is -50. For Rune Lords, I would probably don't change anything (straight D10), but the augment result divided by 10 is a possibility.

12 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Long live the Popular Occluded Front

I like the POF. Long life to the POF!!

12 hours ago, Dr. Device said:

I'm curious if this is supposed to suggest that lay membership with neutral cults is generally acceptable and ok, if a little weird.

For me, this is right on spot.

12 hours ago, Dr. Device said:

Or is it that Yelmalio and Orlanth are closer to friendly with each other than the cult compatibility chart suggests?

No, but if you are a lay member, you are more than just a member of a friendly cult: you are part of the cult, even if not fully initiated.

And, franky, I have problems when I try to imagine a giant, member of Odayla's cult, taking part to a great hunt. For such a creature, Orlanth Thunderous seems easier, if only for size. They are, after all, the perfect living lightning rod, but would have trouble hiding and stalking.

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Unfortunately that amendment didn't make it into RBoM.

So, that means a giant that is a rune master of Orlanth can also cast or receive the casting of Bear's Strength. Ouch.

32 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Also, I can't answer for @Kloster, but my understanding was that his answer wasn't only about when two characters are opposed, either in combat or other situations, but a general remark about the chances for a "master" to get superior success thanks to his very high skill.

Your understanding is correct.

33 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I also personally don't think there's anything inherently silly for two masters to reach a skill level so high they have 95% (remember the automatic failure on 96+ rule in RQ) chance to roll a crit.

Same for me.

33 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Surely not a very exciting situation in play, though.

If the players are just throwing dices, waiting for the better roll, you're right. If they are trying to use all possible tricks the world, the situation and the rules are offering, this can be interesting.

7 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

No, the target explicitly needs to be an Odaylan. There's probably a Q&A correction for Thunderous or anyone else that gets it as an associate.

Ooops, you're right (RQG p319). That means an initiate of Orlanth Thunderous that learns Bear's Strength as a member of an associate cult can only cast it on an Odaylan. Seems strange, and seems a mistake. I can't find any correction on the subject.

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The giant would have to be an initiate or rune master of Odayla, but sure why not? Maybe there are giant bears that are as big to a giant as a bear is to a person...

Or of Orlanth Thunderous (RQG p302), or find an initiate (or better) of Odayla or Orlanth that cast it for him (range is touch). I can see a lot of reason for doing this, either for the giant or for an other caster.

On 8/22/2021 at 1:59 AM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

 

@Kloster  same, just carry two of the same weapon.  My Orlanthi carries two broadswords, not one sword and one something else I want checks for.

There are a lot of reasons: ENC was one, much less now because now, a broadsword and a shortsword have the same ENC, but this was not the case. Because non rigid armor were halved vs crushing weapons. Because of the range (=weapon SR). Because of the usability on a mount. Because some weapons don't affect some creatures. Because some materials affect some creatures and some other don't. Und so weiter.

On 8/22/2021 at 5:50 AM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

This is definitely not what the other two posters were talking about.  They described switching from spear to sword, and another going through weapons in "descending order of proficiency".

Yes and no. What I described was that, when a weapon is unusable (because stuck after a special, been broken or after a disarm), I switch to the weapon I have and am the most proficient with. Currently, if my best weapon (a broadsword) is stuck, I switch to my second best weapon (a battleaxe) if it is handy (it stay on the mount because of the ENC) and to a dagger if not.

23 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

It's always felt like a self-correcting problem in the RQ combat system to me. I've never felt confident enough to change weapons away from my best weapon  in combat voluntarily. If you do, you get a few extra ticks in a secondary weapon, at the cost of not attacking for at least a round and likely leaving yourself exposed to an attack with a reduced parry at best and no parry at worst. The fate of Rurik awaits you in every RQ battle and frequent swapping strikes me as tempting fate.

Completely agree. Except in very rare case, voluntarily changing weapon in the middle of a combat is counter productive (most of the time) and can be very dangerous. What I described are forced changes: Broken weapons, disarmed characters, ...

18 hours ago, soltakss said:

So, starting with a 1H Spear, then dropping it and changing to a sword is iffy, but starting with a 1H Spear, then throwing it at another NPC and drawing a sword is fine.

Yes, agreed.

2 hours ago, Questbird said:

With 45% chance of critical at 100+ skill, confilcts between Masters would probably be short and sharp, instead of "bif-bof-bif".

For skills > 100 you could change the rule to 'ones less than or equal to tens' is a critical.

The problem with this kind of rule is that over 100%, whatever your score, the probability of a crit is constant.

2 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

This was a great rules addition to RQG to help counterbalance check grubbing.

I think it is a great RQG rule, but not because it counterbalance tick hunting: If a player wants to play that way (whether for good or not), he still can. What I think it provides is a rule to augment skills that are used in the everyday life, but that are not used frequently in adventures. They should, in the life of a character, augment yearly (or more).