Kloster

12 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

RAW herring, you must be french!

I am!

20 cows is 400L (20L per cow), but the ROI depends more on raids (done or received) than anything else.

5 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Random rolls for gifts and geases are one reason why I (and my players) avoid such cults.

Thanks. This is exactly why I never created a Yelmalion, and will not create anymore an Humakti.

6 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Turning those randomly rolled gifts and geases into a story worth telling is a big bid, but IMO a much better way than the Rules As Written. A narrative mechanic similar to the clan generation sub-game of King of Dragon Pass and some of the HeroQuest supplements would do a better trick. But creating that for each initiatory experience is an amount of work that surpasses reasonable use of resources.

Yes. How much true.

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Experience??? With a herring?????

Why not? If you start with sufficiently small trunks, you may get a skill check.

6 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Since we've gotten to this point, I can legitimately ask - what should be the % chance of cutting down a tree with a herring?

RAW, Base skill+Category modifier (should be manipulation)+Experience. 😉

Seems ok to me.

2 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I think this is from RQ 3, does it still work this way in RQ G?

Cheers

RQG p249

12 minutes ago, Gallowglass said:

So if this player of mine wanted to bind the spirit (which is a wraith), all they would need to do is cast Spirit Binding? And once the spirit is “bound,” my understanding is that you can use it’s mp, spells if it has any, and release it to follow your commands. But that last option requires something like “Command Cult Spirit.” Do I have all that right?

For me, almost. In fact, you don't need a spell to give a command, but if you do so, you can give only one command, and then, the spirit is free. You need a spell, like "Command Cult Spirit", to be able to give several orders, the las one being usually "Go back into the Matrix/Crystal". For the rest, you are right on spot.

4 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

My intention for my hypothetical was for a child that can't even pick up the sword (or barely be able to manage it).

Would you still give them that skill?

I would not, even for a 10 years child. I said "RAW, the answer is ..." . But RQ (whatever version) rules are not made to represent children. And what you describe now seems to me not a problem of skill, but a problem of minimum STR and DEX.

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

If a character (e.g., young child) picked up a sword for the first time, and somebody cast Bladesharp, what would their skill be like?

RAW, base value + STAT modifier + 5% per Bladesharp level. You can argue that the base value is less than the one written in the rules, but watching my younger son playing, I can ensure you the base is not 00%, so magical bonus would apply.

Agreed. That's why I wrote 'As far as I have understood'. But I am ready to accept any contrary arguments.

54 minutes ago, gochie said:

We always played that as soon as you had 1% in a skill (before modifiers), you immediately had at least a 05% chance of success.

We played that your score was 01%, but you need 05% or less to succeed.

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

My obvious question is - where does your understanding come from? There's nothing written in the RQG about it... Has there been a "Rune Fix" for this? Or some other official statement on the subject? I brought the Logician topic up in the Munchkinnery thread, and it wasn't mentioned there...

It is just (for me) because you can not attempt to use a skill if your base value is not at least 01%. At 00%, even category modifier does not apply, so it seems logical to not apply situational modifiers.

22 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

With studying and training being done in seasons rather than in hours this is major.

Yes, exactly.

1 hour ago, Dan Z said:

This used to not be the case, at least in RQ3 when it states: when you have once used a skills category modifier to revalue a skill, you will not use it again for that skill.

In fact, with RQIII, the problem was worse because 1) of the formulas used to calculate the modifiers, ensuring that each stat point was counting. 2) the spirit magic spells that are altering spells were not including the modifiers in the spell description (and most, if not all, of them were variable) and 3) Stat increase studying or training was easier.

26 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Some people prefer to write down the skill excluding category modifier, and add in the category modifier before rolling. That still only means adding the category modifier once. The main reason for doing this is if your DEX changes it means you don't have to rub out half your character sheet.

In fact, it is the case with all stats. Spirit magic stat altering spells are now including the modifiers, but sorcery don't. It is very easy to have a lot of modifiers that change with enhance INT, and I find easier to have the skill level written without counting modifiers. You can then write several value of the modifiers. In addition, if a stat changes permanently (mainly POW), you have to change only the value of the modifiers.

47 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

As for the language issue - it's a bit of a non-issue with Logician, as Read/Write is a Knowledge skill that can be enhanced by it.

It is still, because as far as I have understood, Logician does not apply to 00% skills. You still need at least 01% to be able to apply logician bonus (my character has Logician but does not know anything in dwarven ideograms, to stay with David's example).

31 minutes ago, David Scott said:

In RQG & HQG this is just background colour, it's the same % roll or Keyword.

This I like.

2 hours ago, The God Learner said:

I haven't kept up to date with how things are structured nowadays, so take this question for what it's worth, but we may ask what sort of heroquest results in godless atheist sorcery spells?

Why would heroquest be limited to theists? As far as I have understood, Malkioni are able to heroquest.

21 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Theoretically, a DI should also grant one the instant knowledge of a sorcery spell...

If the god knows the spell, yes. Otherwise, I would say no.

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

But the combination of both rules and the fact you can freely chose which hand you chose for parrying, produce very unfortunate results

Agreed, but this is another point. I spoke of feelings about gameplay, not about rules problems.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'm not ganging up on you with the rest,...

Thanks.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Multiple parries actually make a lot of sense! They do reflect real life.... (unlike single attacks, and the concept of a 'melee round').

True. I used (over 30 years ago) to practice a lot of fencing (foil and sabre). I never told the multiple parry is a bad rule, nor that it does not better describe real world, as the possibility to parry and attack with the same weapon. I said that for me, it does not feel like Runequest. It removes part of the tactical reflection in the combats. And I have the same problem with the single skill. I agree it is simpler, not that it better describe real world (at least not with my experience), but I can accept that the authors prefers it that way. It just does not feel right for me.

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

The single skill for Attack and Parry comes from everyone - Greg, myself, Steve, Sandy, Jason - and everyone I know who has ever done martial training, and even my own limited experience in Chinese staff and straight sword training. 

My mistake. I thought they came from Stormbringer. This is the only BRP game I've played where I have seen them. But the question was about what I felt 'less Runequest', and those 2 rules are part of it: Even RQ2, that has been proclamed to be the basis for building RQG has separate attack and parry skills, and allow a single parry per round.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

I don't think those are bad ideas in absolute, quite the opposite.

Different persons, different feelings.

4 minutes ago, Kloster said:

For the rules coming from Pendragon, I feel some are good imports, some are bad imports and I have mixed feelings on some, but none are make me feel the game as 'less Runequest'.

Oh, yes, there is one: The 1 adventure per season rule (Argh)

Just now, DreadDomain said:

Ok, that's interesting. Out of curiosity, is your RQ closer to RQ2 or closer to RQ3?

I would like it to be closer to RQIII, even if I feel some that some RQG evolutions are very good. I would have prefered a RQIII basis to a RQ2 basis.