Kloster

6 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

You could attack and parry with the same one handed weapon in RQ2 and RQ3, but parry followed the same rules as attacks, and was subject to the same split attack rule - only one parry allowed unless you had 100% + and split your parry. 
 

Rq3 wasn’t 100% clear but later had an errata that clarified this. 

Guess we’ll be seeing an errata for RQG at some point. 
 

 

edit: think the boxed set of RQ2 had a supplementary “basic roleplaying” booklet which had the rule that you couldn’t both attack & parry with a one handed weapon, but that was contradicted in the main RQ2 rule book. 

RQIII was very clear (Player book p48): "... he may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two handed weapons however, can be used to attack once and parry once."

5 hours ago, Zit said:

many years ago a French guy invented food boxes with 2 compartments containing some chemical stuff. You just had to fold it, it broke the separation between these two compartments and both products mixed and reacted together, producing enough heat to warm up the food at about 70° (Joerg can probably give some details as a chemister). Get your warm cassoulet in space ! It had to be invented by a French. But I'm not sure it has been at last implemented.

Yes, I used that while in the army 30 years ago. Having a hot meal readily available while a mountain trek was really enjoyable. And the food was correct. For army food, it was exceptionally good. At least, this is what our foreign students told me.

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

Not sure about the process actually used in that product, but many kinds of calcinated (dehydrated) salt will heat up when coming into contact with water again. For presenting this effect I would probably use water-free calcium chloride as that has no toxic or even noxious components. You'll just have to adjust the amount of salt to the amount of heat you want.

That was this: Water that once the compartments were broken, was mixed with calcium-something.

18 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

True true..

But I think most going sorcery (or, given the +5% to most category modifiers, ironically excluding Magic), it's well worth it!

Yes, and I'm part of those that think it (and I created a Sorcery user).

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Given Rune Lords can DI for stats at 1D10 (T??? 😜) renewable Rune Points, it's quite possible. 🤑

(And I can't get rid of that emoji at the end.... )

Only up to the normal max (21 for humans), and you first loose a permanent rune point, to gain 1 INT (or other stat) point.

23 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

There's nothing in the rules to suggest that splitting your attack should affect your shield parry or dodge skill. And it makes no sense - you're splitting your attack because you're good enough to do it. The penalty is the half chance to hit. There should be no further penalty, and there never has been in any previous iteration of the rules.

This is exactly what Akhorahil said, or at least what I understood he said.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

Although splitting attack with the weapon and defending with a high shield skill should still produce a penalty when you're being attacked, correct?

Yes, sure.

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Although I wonder about the mechanics of mastering something, and then losing the INT later...

For me, if you enhance INT for sufficient time to learn a rune or technique (1 season if my reasoning is correct), you can use the INT points to learn that. As (RQG p384) you never unmaster a rune or technique you have mastered. My understanding is that you can't learn more rune or technique before enhancing INT again, but higher than previously. I am still undecided if you can still use the rune or technique after the enhance INT stops, and before you recast it.

10 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

True... But that's full Mastery. If you Under a lot, it seriously brings that down... Strictly, you only need 1 Technique. 3 Elements (Moon +2 others), 4 Power... And the whole arsenal of Forms ( 5 - although I'd imagine not many would take Chaos, and very few Plant). Plus Magic, now that the rules have changed.

That means a 27 INT. Hard to manage.

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes agreed, after revisiting Jason’s reply it doesn’t seem to make much sense. The multiple parry rule already covers this. And as you say what would happen if a third person attacks, which parry would you use? 
i accepted it at the time but rereading what Jason wrote, it doesn’t seem to fit.  

This is part of the reason I don't like having a weapon roll instead of an attack and a parry roll for each weapon. I also don't like the way roll above 100% are managed. But Sword trance (and other like spells) are not broken. They give the intended result of a death god servant cutting through a number of mooks.

10 hours ago, Pentallion said:

The rules on spirit trapping crystals are pretty clear:  you can ONLY use the spirit to draw upon its magic points.  You can't use a spirit trapped in a crystal to cast spells.

RQG p 366:

Spirits may be bound into a magic crystal, or into a specially prepared object or animal as described in the Binding Enchantment section (page 249). The binder of a spirit can use any spirit magic the spirit possesses and the magic points of the spirit to fuel spells.

1 minute ago, Pentallion said:

I disagree.  It explicity comes with a condition, that condition that only you can use the spirits mps and it also has the condition that the spirit can only be commanded to give its magic points, not cast spells.  These conditions prevent a shaman from doing anything but seeing the spirit.

Only you can use the MP, this is true, and only you can cast the spell known by the spirit, but anybody that can perceive it can target it with a control spell that automatically succeed (p250).

20 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

You're right, it doesn't say you attune the crystal, my bad.  However, it DOES say:

So no one else can use the spirit you trapped in the crystal but you.  For spending mps that regenerate.

The danger is not there: Anybody that can see the spirit, either by being a shaman, or by using a spell like second sight, can target it with a control spell that automatically succeed. The following order is in most of the case to attack the owner of the crystal, that is thus attacked by his own spirits.

RQG p250:

Control spells automatically work against creatures while they are bound in items.
Also, a control spell supersedes the innate control held over an entity bound into an item. An enchanter who does not use conditions (see below) to restrict the use of their items may find their bound entities stolen or turned against them
by crafty opponents using the proper control spells. Anyone
that can use the item can also cast spells on the entity trapped
inside: they do not need to be in physical contact with the
item to affect the entity with spells, although they must use
magical means of seeing (such as Pierce Veil, Second Sight, or
Soul Sight) to target spells against a bound entity in this way.

37 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

No, the crystals are now attuned.  Only the attuned person could snatch the spirit out of the crystal.  However, if the attuned owner of the crystal was foolish enough to command the spirit out, then, yes, someone else could wrest command away from him.  However, the initial thought is valid:  put powerful spirits in your crystals so they regenerate magic points. 

Dead crystals are not attuned, they can't be. And I can't find anything that forbid to take control of a spirit bound in an attuned crystal. The only restrictions are with enchantments.

1 hour ago, Bohemond said:

There are lots of naked women, especially woman showing their breasts, and yet very little with naked men.

Another problem is the publishing laws. You can't always show what you want.

13 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Why have a crystal with 6MP, when you can bind a spirit into it that has 20? And you get two added benefits - 1), no need to recharge yourself, 2) you can sic them on people. Maybe a third if they can also cast spells... 

Because a spirit bound in a crystal can be controlled by ANYONE that can see it. If it is bound in a binding enchantment, there can be conditions, but not with a crystal, and having your own spirits turned against you is very dangerous.

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

I don't know, didn't we establish that a Humakti with Truesword simply tears through spirits, far moreso than any shaman?

Yes, rules are quite clear on this.

24 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Cave troll in a lab coat, strumming a guitar, right?

Well, I don't regenerate damage...

I didn't knew for the guitar.

9 minutes ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

Who in Glorantha has crossbows other than dwarves?

Westerners?

4 minutes ago, Joerg said:

42 points of Dispel, which is not impossible for a shaman who has taken the extra Charisma gift a couple of times. Plus an additional MP to overcome its CM effect.

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Joerg said:

But I disagree with your doubling of the MP cost when it comes to applying the resistance table. 33 points of intensity gives a Neutralize a 5% chance on the resistance table, 51 points a 95% chance.

Maybe.

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Let me try again then. Neutralize 42 indeed has 50%, but 51 has 95%.

It can also be read that way.

23 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

That's not how the resistance table works, 30 points has a 95% chance of neutralising 21.

Shield 21 counts as 42 points for dispelling or neutralizing with Sorcery. You need 42 points to get 50% of neutralizing, half this to even get a chance and double this to automatically neutralize (see spell description). For 95%, you need 60 (42+9*2).

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Shield 21 with full Extension and maybe 100 points of Boost is well within what’s doable for a higher-level character. This isn’t even Hero-level stuff, just advanced Rune level.

Would anyone like to check on the amount of Sorcery you need to take it down? I’m assuming it’s just a question of time and numbers (because everything in Sorcery is just a question of time and numbers).

I would say a 'Neutralize Magic' 21 can, a 'Neutralize Magic' 42 has a 50% chance and a 'Neutralize Magic' 84 automatically removes the shield 21.

27 minutes ago, Manu said:

If I read it well, the ENC if (STR + CON) /2 (but not more than STR). meaning that for a normal PC it could be around 14

Yes.

27 minutes ago, Manu said:

If this PC wants to wear a chain mail (ENC 4), it is 4x7=28 ENC

No, it's 4 ENC.

12 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Perhaps both have had a vision that they must reform Black Arkat's Lost Band to keep the World from Ending. Or maybe drawing on the 13th Age One Unique Thing concept, they are the last living "Children" of Arkat despite their cult affiliations and different species.

Good. Very good.

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

Humakt hates Yanafal Tarnils, who is a heretic and a traitor. By extension, he hates the Seven Mothers, who include Yanafal Tarnils in their number.

Yes. This I remember. Yanafal, but not Lunars.

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

Cults of Prax doesn't have Primal Chaos, but Cults of Terror does.

In Cults of Prax, Humakt is Hostile (1) towards the Seven Mothers, mainly, I think, because of Yanafal Tarnils. The Seven Mothers, however, are Neutral (2) to Humakt, as Yanafal Tarnils still respects his old master.

In Cults of Terror, Humakt is Hostile (1) to Seven Mothers and Neutral (2) to Primal Chaos. Seven Mothers is Neutral (2) to Humakt, as is Primal Chaos.

My memories are not so detailed. I defer to your texts (mine are too far away).

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

In our RQ2 Campaign, one GM loved to bring out a Chaotic Rune Lord of Humakt, just to rub Humakti PCs' noses in the fact that Humakt has no problem with Chaos.

Nice idea. I love it.

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

I can't see that stated anywhere in Gods of Glorantha. There is no Cult compatibility Chart, except for Pantheons and that is unreliable for individual deities. The writeup for Humakt does not mention a hatred of anyone.

You're right. My mistake. I should have checked before (I have part of my RQIII books closer).