Kloster

I would say it is a closing action. I would play it that way.

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Joerg and I continually critique the Skill modifiers in our chats being ol’ RQ3 Grogs (even I, who came from RQ 2 dislike the following). We concur that we dislike that it is a table rather than a very easy formula (I can still recite all of the “formulae" of RQ3 and I dislike math still more) and that the breakpoints are abrupt instead of gradual.

Completely agree here.

25 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

I will include that as a quote in the next JC publication I put out in the NPC appendix.

Please do. No copyright on it.

31 minutes ago, Godlearner said:

Its great, but it makes creating NPC a pain.

Just forget it for NPC. NPCs are whatever the GM needs (or simply wants) them to be.

On 3/7/2021 at 9:47 AM, resurrected duck said:

What do you think of the new character creation mechanism in RQG?

The problem is that it makes difficult creating characters from another time period or from another geographical origin. Except this point, I like it.

The longest weapon is able to attack first, but the target does not matter. If it's owner used his attack against another opponent, too bad for him, the shortest weapon can attack.

10 hours ago, Dissolv said:

I believe it shakes out this way:

1. Warding can be dispelled (clarified in RBoM by removing the "enchantment" label)
2. You can teleport through it (Teleport clearly beats it in points, even if you believe the countermagic would impede it.)  GM choice if you suffer the damage or set off the alarm right now.  I can definitely see both ways being argued. 
3. Enchantments (which warding is not) cannot be dispelled.  This is apparently so commonsense that it was never explicitly stated as it was in previous editions, only implied. 
4. Decision about a "roof", or "floor" to the warding is likely a GM to GM decision.

 

Perfect.

59 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I would have said, before this thread, that it can't be dispelled but that's clearly me carrying over knowledge from an older edition. Interesting, I will have to consider whether it can be dispelled in my game.

Same for me.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm on the side of teleportation triggering it, but I wouldn't rule out the existence of forms of teleportation that do not.

I'm on the side of teleportation not triggering it, but I wouldn't rule out the existence of forms of teleportation that do.

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

Alright, you seem like a RAW kind of guy,

Yes, I am.

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

o I'll ask without any intention of being disrespectful.

You are not. Don't worry.

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

Where does it say that you can't dispel an Enchanting Ritual? 

You are right: Nothing in RQG tells it. My memory was from a previous version. RQ3 Magic book p55: "an enchantment can not be dispelled, dismissed or neutralized". So, for RQG, you are right.

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

I mean clearly, I have always, for decades now, played that you cannot dispel an enchantment.  They are, as the rules state, a permanent change to the world.  Enchant a Bladesharp 4 matrix into an Axe, you must break the axe to break the enchantment.   But darned if I can find that stated anywhere in the RQ:G rules explicitly.  If I were to go full RAW on RQ:G, right now it would look a lot like magic items and bound elementals and such can all be dispelled.  I do not think that is the case.

You are right, the whole paragraph has been omitted.

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

So it isn't the "ritual",

Ritual, for me, are not 'by definition, impossible to dispel.

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

Warding was always previously dispellable, as per the RQ2 quote I put above. 

As I haven't played RQ2 since 85, I don't remember, but I believe you (my copy is 150 klick away and I can't check, but even if I could, I would not: I believe you).

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

It is simply the fact that it is only fueled by Rune Points, not POW.

RQG p250, usually, enchant requires the loss of POW.

48 minutes ago, Dissolv said:

But RBOM is available.  I bought it.  I don't have some type of advance copy. 

As I'm waiting for the physical copy, I have not checked the pdf availability. My mistake.

4 hours ago, Dissolv said:

Why can't the Warding be dispelled?

Because it is an Enchanting ritual.

4 hours ago, Dissolv said:

I have always understood that for a permanent change to the world you have to use POW to fuel the enchantment.  Yet we have always played Warding like a regular Rune spell, using Rune points. 

It is not permanent, it is until someone removes one of the wands.

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

Countermagic (or Shield plus Countermagic) can undo the disrupt. Not sure about the alarm feature.

Logically, countermagic should not counter the alarm, but yes, would avoid the damage.

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

With three sharp angles and an inward pointing corner, you ought to be able to create an L-shaped polygon which may dissect a corridor twice.

Yes. Tricky to do, but very efficient.

4 hours ago, Dissolv said:

In my copy of Red Book of Magic, it is no longer even an enchantment.  It iust "Ritual, Stackable". 

If the RBOM tell it is not anymore an Enchanting ritual, as soon as it is available, it can be dispelled, but now, RAW, it can not.

4 hours ago, resurrected duck said:

So, yes, a cube.

Not a cube: 100 square meters. It can be 100m * 0.1m.

6 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I think the majority opinion (including Word of Steve Perrin) is that Warding creates a roof.

The rules clearly don't tell that. But I don't see why it can not. It's one of the case where Glorantha (in that case RQ) can vary.

1 minute ago, Runeblogger said:

I used to see it that way as well, but when I discussed this in another forum, some people pointed out that Teleport is a spell linked to the Movement rune, and so what it actually would do is to transport you to the other side of the Warding, which would mean you actually do cross the boundary, and therefore must suffer the consequences. From this POV, when using the magic of Mastakos, you are emulating the god, so you are actually moving lightning fast (even if in spirit/air form or whatever), not just disappearing into the ether and then reappearing somewhere else.

As the Warding barrier is only 3m high, you could say that Air magic puts you above the 3m. I frankly don't want to cope with that and consider that teleport does not cross the intervening space (a la Nightcrawler, but without the 'Bamf' sound, nor the sulfur smell)

45 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

 

I don’t think Dispels work on enchantments? (Although a GM ruling that you can temporarily suppress it might make sense.)

You can not dispel the enchants.

13 hours ago, Runeblogger said:

A further question regarding Warding: would you say that you could circunvent it by teleporting into it?

Of course! You don't cross the boundary, so don't suffer the consequences.

11 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

but using logician as a "basis" to obtain spells dedicated to other skills categories seems a little bit.... munchkin, doesn't it ?

Not more than building Enhance CON based on Darkness starting from enhance INT based on Fire/Sky.

12 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

and you have to define the runes to use, not very clear..

You would use Air for all sword usage. Bing, +100% with sword.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

This is simply the difference of combat having an effect on accuracy. Much easier on a range during qualifications than when hiding behind a wall with bullets and shrapnel whizzing about.

Completely agree.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

And that's better than the average person in a gunfight too. I believe real word data shows a 15-20% chance of hitting a man-sized target at 7m or less. 

For me, and with a rifle, 20m is easier than 7m. Frankly, I've never been in a firefight and don't know if my results would have been as good under real combat conditions (but probably not).

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No, they are rated for use under stress.

Yes, which is, for combat skills, the normal use.

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

I don't think this is actually the case.  More likely it is the Aeolian nobles and/or commoners that worship Orlanthi gods (possibly as Ancestors in the case of nobles), and the sorcerers, like other Malkioni, stick to sorcery.

Perhaps they stick to sorcery, but they still worship gods, in their peculiar way.

1 minute ago, Shiningbrow said:

A question though - does LM's Matrix Creation Rune spell allow for implanting sorcery? After all, sorcery is his domain...

RAW, the Matrix Creation Rune spell allow for creating spirit spell matrix and rune spell matrix only, but not sorcery. MGF wise, I would accept it. The question can also be asked for Aeolians (whose sorcerors worship Orlanthi gods) and Lunars (whose sorcerors worship ... Lunar gods). We still don't have the rules, but Arkati are also concerned by the point.

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but that doesn't match up all that well with reality at times. For instance, in real life someone with 50% skill with a firearm can probably hit a target most of the time. 

That is the role of situation modifiers. Easy task (like shooting a non moving target at close range, having enough time to aim) : +20 or +30%, which means your 50% character will hit his target most of the time. The skills value are positioned for normal use. For combat skills, that means having to avoid being hit, on moving targets, and not having time to aim. When in the army, when practicing, we had around 5 second for each shot, which is more than enough for quite careful aim, and I almost always put all my shots on target at 100m. When I went for the first time in a simulator, think time + aim time + fire time was below half a second, and roughly 1 bullet on 3 was on target at 20m.

17 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

 

I play with "if you are sorcerer you don't get the 3 spirit spell from previous experience, but you can learn as anyone spirit magic if you want during the campaign, just manage your free int"

Yes, that's the spirit of the rules. Aeolians have the same position, as Lunars.

36 minutes ago, Mugen said:

But do you let players that only bought Bladesharp 6 to cast it with 1 to 5 MP, or is he restricted to cast it with 6 points only ?

If you know Bladesharp 6, you can cast Bladesharp 1 to 6 at will, provided you have the MP.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Since RQG is based on RQ2, it would be more correct to say "have had their duration maintained at 2mn", as RQ3 extended it from 2 minutes to 5. It's now back to how it was originally.

Yes, and I seem to remember that the authors thought that the change (from 2 to 5mn) increase the usefulness of the spells.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not sure I like it, we will see how it goes when my game resumes (on hold due to COVID), we will probably make it 5.

I surely don't like it, but most probably because of the habit (I played much more RQ3 than RQ2). For the time being, I kept the 2mn, but will probably also go back to 5, because more magic is then used.

14 hours ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

My PC in one RQG campaign had put together a matrix with Coordination, Mobility, and Strength all linked together. So we would cast it as a 5 point spirit magic spell, makes it much easier to get the whole party spelled up.

A little hint for the Munchkinism thread. Those linked spells can have a MP pool linked and an Attack condition that says that when YOU touch the object, the spell is cast. No time, no roll (because the spell is self contained and nobody casts it) and no MP to spend (they are already in the reserve). At least, it worked that way in RQ3, and I see nothing in RQG that contradicts it (RQG p250). A little expensive on the POW, but you get instant buff (very practical to be the first one to have all spells up).

30 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Where does that come from? I'm pretty sure that inscriptions are creator-only and that's it.

Literally, RAW, yes, they are, but, see Richard S's answer (very complete) about what is in the Q&A.

I've just found another difference: P82 (both version), on family heirloom, French release adds an optional rule that allows poor occupations (= not Assistant Shaman, Merchant, Noble, Priest and Warrior) can have a second roll on the Family heirloom table, the Roll twice result being ignored.