Kloster

32 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

As for many, there are 2 parents,

what name do you use ? the father ? the mother ? depending on social position, fame , clan tradition, your own gender ?

 

As far as I have understood, in matrilineal clans, the name of the mother, in patrilineal clans, the name of the father, and in the other clans, the name of the parent with the higher status.

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

There have been two "Rune Fixes" documents so far, available here (but nothing on the topic of this thread AFAIR).

The Well of Daliath's RQ Q&A is also as close to an official errata as we get after the Rune Fixes.

No. Runefixe 1 is some clarifications and part of the RQ3 non lethal combat ported to RQG. Runefixe 2 is clarifications. Both were needed and are useful. The Well of Daliath is a very useful compilation of explanations and clarifications. But none of them are an errata.

3 hours ago, GAZZA said:

In RQ3, and I believe also in RQ2, there was a very good reason to carry a shield as well as a 1H weapon - a 1H weapon can't attack and parry in the same round.

IIRC, since the errata, it is the same SR, not anymore in the same round, but the problem remain the same. We had tactics to destroy the shield of our opponents, and then were waiting for the SR of his attack to attack just after him.

6 hours ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Would connecting prisoners with lengths of unenchanted iron provide enough antimagic potential to keep them relatively seperated from their magical resources? At least applicable to Mostali prisoner keeping. 

It could work, but would be very expensive, if you can even find enough iron.

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

I understand that there is real-world/simulationist reasons to do it, but it's not for me, and a game designer has to draw the line somewhere.

Completely right. This is why I concluded my disagreement with Jeff by, roughly, "You are the author, and don't need other reason".

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

I'm tempted to only use categories as skills (1H Sword, 2H Sword, 1H Axe, 2H Axe, etc.)

This is one of the reason I prefer RQ3's combat rules, in addition to

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

adding optional maneuvers and movement in melee

5 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I wrote "efficiently", not "as efficiently as he is at attacking with it. That is, he should not have base chance of success.

I was NOT efficient in parrying. Using RQ terms, I was about 75% to 80% attack and 40%to 50%  parry. Better than base, but lower than attack. And I knew opponents that were a real wall to attack, but real slow, and thus inefficient attackers. Hence my taste for different skills.

8 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Later in my post, I say I consider a fighter used to parry with his shield should have a better parry chance with his shield than his sword.

And in this; you are right, just because the shield is designed for parry. Yhis can be simulated by a higher parrying base. Another reason to separate the skills: You should not be able to attack and parry with your shield with the same efficiency. A real bronze age shield (the one used by the greek hoplites) is a very effective weapon, but very difficult to use offensively.

10 minutes ago, Julian Lord said:

Personally, I would always rule that a weapon that is easily usable either one- or two- handed, such as some axes or spears etc, share the same skill % either way (but not necessarily the same stat requirements).

I like that.

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

I agree that a character used to fight with a sword ought to be able to parry with it efficiently.

I don't. In my fencing days (some 35 years ago), I of course, to use Jeff's words, learned to attack and parry with my foil or my sabre. But I was a far better attacker than defender, so I had to finish the fight quite quickly to avoid losing due to my lack of good defense. This is why I could take part to but never win a french championship.

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

I also agree attack and parry split is not a good idea.

I don't, exactly for the reason above.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Shields base % probably should have been a bit higher, I generally agree on that.

Agreed.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

The reason for parrying with a shield rather than a weapon is you dont really want your weapon getting damaged, which will happen if you're parrying with it.

Also agreed. And the weapon is far more expensive to repair or replace.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Using a sword and shield also allows you to parry twice without any penalties (as the cumulative penalty is per weapon not per overall parry attempts) 

No, penalty is per parry, not per weapon.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Shields also allow you to parry thrown projectiles which weapons do not, and to protect areas without actively rolling vs other ranged attacks too.

Large shields are also more durable so less likely to break and protect from more damage than any weapon can.

Yes, but

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

I personally think the shield hp should be based on material but that's a different issue.

I think RQ is complicated enough, even if, basically, you are right. The material could also, but this is an extra layer of complexity, affect the way the shield interact with weapons: Wicker is ideal against swords slash, but as persians learned it the hard way versus macedonians, is useless against pikes.

55 minutes ago, Minlister said:

Maybe you could settle for a reference to blood "Lothgar du sang de Kangbran". Eventuellement en particule attachée: I used in another game -blatt, for exemple Lothgar Kangbranblatt", but "Kangbranblood" ou "Sang-Kangbran" also has a nice ring to it. Or use only "de" as the Italians did at the end of the 19th cent. "Lothgar de Kangbgran"

Thanks. Good ideas. I like them.

58 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Agree fully. Also keep in mind that we don't speak Heortling. I don't know if it has grammatical gender (I presume it does, but don't know), whether it is grammatical genders are male, female, neuter - or something else like male, female, neuter, both, etc. I don't know enough about the Bugis language to be able to draw on that as a source of ideas. It could well be that the Heortlings use "Child of" or "scion of" rather than son or daughter of. But that's how I have chosen to translate it in English.

Thanks for your answer, Jeff. Fortunately for me, I need to write it in a more known language: french. My son settled for filsfille, which in english would be sondaughter (I prefer the sound of daughterson).

2 hours ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

This is mostly based on what I seem to recall about Orlanthi viewing sex and gender as separate concepts, though I might be wrong.

I agree with this. But if this (partly) answer the question about naming, it opens another one with the helerings.

And I believe the cults restrictions are about sex, not gender.

Thanks. I like your answers. Very helpful.

RQG says p81 that Heortling people recognize 4 sexes (female, male, neuter and hermaphrodite).

I have 2 questions to submit:

- Heortlings are named by their ascendancy (son of ... or daughter of ...). What would neuter and hermaphrodite heortlings be called?

- Would sex-restricted cults accept an hermaphrodite? I think that for serial hermaphrodites (those who alternate between male and female), the answer will be yes when the are in the right configuration, but what would occur when they change? Are they expelled, or merely suspended of their status, or can they continue their (cult) business as usual? And for those who have both sex simultaneously, can they, for example, be Ernalda priestess (if of course they have given birth to a child) or Babeester Gor?

22 hours ago, Loïc said:

I remember of Daredevils, a fine one, and I've heard about Justice Inc., but never looked at it.

Daredevils was a good game. It used the same system as Bushido and is fine for pulp adventures.

Justice Inc uses the Hero system V3. It is correct, but a bit heavy. I think the system is better for supers than for pulps.

52 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

But if you don't pick the Air Rune at character creation (and don't get any bonus on it from your homeland upbringing), wouldn't you have no affinity with that Rune to begin with? So a 0% score?

Right.

15 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Or not having the rune in the first place. I know that paired Runes have two scores, but I might not even want a score with the other Rune. For, me, the other Rune score is just a maximum amount that I can have with the Rune.

So, if I am a devout, zealot Humakti and have Death at 70%, why should I want Life/Fertility at 30%? Why should I even want the Life rune? I have Death 70% and that is it. If I wanted to start the Life/Fertility rune, I could get it at basic and increase it, but the maximum it could reach is 30%.

Similarly, a devout Chalana Arroy cultists has Life/Fertility Rune and would not want to touch a Death Rune with a ten foot bargepole.

Never having a Rune (instead of losing one) is a completely different matter. RAW, you can't do as you explain, but it is (for me) correct.

4 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Also, can't Gods, and therefore cultists, lose Runes? Like Yelmalio and the Hill of Gold?

Gods, yes, for sure. Humans (or trolls, or ducks, or ...), I don't know.

7 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Why not 100% and 0%?

That means that the right answer is: Because Jeff or Jason (or somebody else in the creation team) decided it. This seems to me logical because going to 0 would mean loosing a rune, which I can't see possible.

7 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Why not 100% and 0%?

RQG p416:

"In the case of opposed Runes, the opposing Rune’s value must be decreased accordingly. Because the opposed Rune must have some value, 99% is the highest any opposed Rune can be rated, with the opposing Rune at 1%."

55 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

But a non-critical situation should not necessarily allow you to get an experience check.

Given the scarcity of Rune Points, I think the cost warrant the experience check, even if the spell is cast in a non critical situation. After all, when casting, you impersonate your god, and the risks are there (in case of fumble).

As I understand, paired runes can not go above 99%, leaving the 2nd part at 01%.

For the runes that are not paired, I still don't have made my mind.

12 hours ago, Diana Probst said:

I think that's in Rune Fixes 2.  I'm pretty sure I saw it as an expansion to the rules, rather than within the core rules.

Runefix 1 contains part of the RQ3 rules for non lethal combat.

8 minutes ago, Brootse said:

I've found it to be a very slippery issue and subject to much interpretation, and looks like that so have others.

Yep. To stay with common cults, an Humakti (for whom killing somebody unarmed from behind would be dishonorable, whomever it is) would have (for me) a very different opinion of what is honorable or not than an Uroxi (for whom NOT killing a chaos creature would be dishonorable, whatever the conditions, even if unarmed and from behind). If I GM RQG, I would have Honor a relative thing, but honestly don't know exactly how I would manage that.

38 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Cult prohibitions shouldn't be rules prohibitions in a setting where all kinds of illumination are pursued by the protagonists and their allies and opponents. Becoming one of the Warlocks of the Sartar Magical Union may lead individuals from cults normally forbidden to go the shamanistic way into doing just that.

Agreed.

30 minutes ago, soltakss said:

In theory, anyone can become a Shaman, if you have POW.

If you belong to certain cults, you are forbidden to become a Shaman. presumably, becoming a Shaman means you get thrown out of the Cult.

 

Also agreed.

3 hours ago, claycle said:

I presume that Truesword (RQG p. 347) and Humakt's Blessed Weapon (Sword) Gift (p. 296) stack.

I am assuming that successful strikes with Truesword active roll double damage (plus damage bonus), then any damage that gets past armor is doubled again.

Correct?

For me, yes.

9 hours ago, allenowen said:

Can anyone, regardless of cult, become a shaman? I know some cults, like Daka Fal and Waha,  have shaman in place of priests. But can an initiate of Orlanth become a shaman? There's nothing of what I've read in the Shaman chapter that says otherwise.

I was asking myself the same question, and I have reread the rules especially for this. The answer, for me, is that nothing in the rules forbids it, contrary to RQ3, where rune levels were explicitly forbidden to be shaman except where explicitly authorized (or even required). I think this is a good point that the rules don't prohibit it.

8 hours ago, jajagappa said:

No, there are cults that prohibit shaman (or at least prohibit some level such as Rune Priest or Rune Lord from being shaman).  Most of that will be spelled out in the full cult writeups though that will be coming in the Gods of Glorantha work.

Of course. The rules should not forbid it, but the world has to give guidelines and rules, absolute or relative. It is logical that most cults restrict the activities of their members, especially the high ranking officials as rune priests and rune lords. This makes the cult book mandatory to know the details.

8 hours ago, allenowen said:

Which I am looking forward to getting..

Same for me.

14 hours ago, dumuzid said:

My group does a bit of a mix of those approaches.  We mostly handwave spirit magic casting rolls outside of combat, since you can just re-attempt with no ill effect, but we always roll rune magic since a fumble can have such drastic effects

Same for me. For sorcery, we also always roll (whatever RQ version), because Criticals and Fumbles have effects.