Kloster

17 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

I kept the fusion of attack/parry. I do like that idea, just not how it interacts with other new rules.

I made this handout for my players. It incorporates all of my RQ3-ish revisions to RQG combat. You might find it helpful: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sqmq88ratu5s6go/Newcomer's Guide to Runequest's Strike Rank Combat v0.5.pdf?dl=0

I've read it. Nice work.

11 minutes ago, EpicureanDM said:

I kept the fusion of attack/parry. I do like that idea, just not how it interacts with other new rules.

I made this handout for my players. It incorporates all of my RQ3-ish revisions to RQG combat. You might find it helpful: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sqmq88ratu5s6go/Newcomer's Guide to Runequest's Strike Rank Combat v0.5.pdf?dl=0

Thanks. I can not access dropbox from work. I will check from home later.

16 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

Mostly returning to RQ3's "You can do two things in melee combat" framework (chosen from attack, parry, cast a spell, or dodge), which gets rid of the Pendragon-style multiple-parries-and-dodges change (or is that from Stormbringer?). This isn't quite as limiting as it was in RQ3 since attack and parry skill are combined in RQG. Once a PC's above 100%, they get the ability to split their attack and parry at the same time rather than on a potential delay. We've got one character who started at 100% with her axe and managed well for herself until some bad dice luck.  I removed the skill penalty to opponents when a skill exceeds 100%. Combined with the multiple parries and dodges, it gets ridiculous once the Axe and Sword Trance spells start flying. An increased chance to special or crit is reward enough. Finally, I added RQ3's Knockback rules and the Disarm rules. 

It seems we have the same problems. I am also disturbed by the fusion of attack and parry skills. For me, this is Stormbringer, not Runequest (same thing as the multiple parry rule and the attack result matrix). I also want to go back to the non simultaneous strike ranks of RQIII round (and thus the per SR moves). I am still undecided on the 10 or 12 SR round.

2 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Greatsword 2d8 + Truesword 2d8 + Strength Bonus with Strength spell 2d6 + Boon of Kargan Tor from the LM Philosopher in the party 2d6 + Bladesharp 8 (4 + 4 from Enhancing crystal)

This is power!

7 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

MRQ had this version of the spell basically doing the same as Protection - but you could ramp up (or down) the strength. Each point was worth 1 AP - no resistance roll stuff.

So did Lunar Sorcery at one point - but subject to the Lunar Cycle (down to no manipulations during Dark Moon!)

IIRC, RQIII Lunar magic was Spirit magic manipulated with skills like sorcery, so yes, there was a Lunar Protection spell that could be manipulated to great effects and that was subject t moon cycles

13 minutes ago, Crel said:

On the one hand, historically my tabletop milieu has been pretty heavy on the murder-hobo thing, so that's to be expected. On the other, I am hoping to pull further into the community stuff, to the point that ideally this is "you have a week away from your occupational duties--what do you want to do to help X in New Pavis?" or something like that. I'm hoping to build setting-familiarity which will let me reduce the number of questgivers (which I feel the community-centric perspective increases, since you aren't adventuring for yourself but for someone else), and then move forward into "I care about X, so how can I further its goals?" For example, helping Argrath to conquer Sartar after the death of Kallyr.

I like the way you drive your stuff!

8 minutes ago, Crel said:

My long-term goal is to slowly shift into a freeform sandboxy thing set in Prax and the Big Rubble once my players have learned enough about the region through story stuff that I can go to them and say "Hey, what do your adventurers want to do?" without blank stares, without needing so much use of questgivers.

I like that. This seems not very compatible with the new 'part of community' thing, though.

10 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

Our game is set in Pavis and The Big Rubble. I wanted to present a "classic" RQ experience and the Rubble seemed like the right part of Glorantha to transition D&D players into RQG. I've made a few reversions to RQ3 combat, but I'd say that we're otherwise playing 90% RAW.

Which reversions are you using? I have also some problems with the new combat rules.

49 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

We have been playing it so that all of the Humakti gift multipliers apply if and only if damage penetrates to flesh/body parts.So, we would have it roll on the resistance table with rolled damage versus the strength of the Ward Against Weapons before any multipliers for gifts. If the damage penetrates the Ward then it would perform as normal.

I have the same read as you. This is clearly a port from RQIII.

51 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Now I will note that Ward against Weapons is pretty much Garbage versus anything other than newbies or woodland creatures. A new Humakti can hit for 2d8+2+1d6+4 which averages 18.5 or something crazy? you would need an epic Strength Ward against Weapons to matter much past character gen, and I just cannot see it scaling. that same sorcerer probably has Boon of Kargan Tor on his weapon for lets say +2d6, his staff does 1d8+2d6, even the philosopher can get through his own Ward. Weaksauce. 

Agreed, but the low probability to avoid completely the damage is better than nothing: A Ward against weapons with 10 Strength would have 10% chance to avoid said 18 points of damage and 90% of doing nothing. I would not bet my life on it, but I am happy to get it in addition to my armor. In fact, the difference between Sorcery defenses vs Spirit/Rune magic defenses is the same as the one between Dodge and Parry.

The rule (for me) seems clear: First, loose a Rune point (not POW). It is ambiguous if an already spent RP can be sacrified or not. Then roll the dice (1D10 or 1D100), spend a number of unspent RP equal to the dice result. If the number of available unspent RP is lower than the dice result, loose a number of POW equal to the dice result minus the number of available unspent RP. If the power is brought to 0, the character dies. If the result of the dice is greater than the number of available RP + POW, the DI failed because the god did not answer.

The 1st RP is definitively lost. The other are then spent, and have to be regained as if spells had been cast with them. Lost POW points have to be regain by POW gain rolls as usual.

I consider it to be 10cm thick, like darkwall and lightwall. I think it has been forgotten in the spell description.

34 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

You can't make an emphatic claim that the rules say that it is NOT evil. The rules don't say much about what is or is not evil.

The question (in the other thread) was about what the rulebook says. I just wanted to say that no, the rulebook does not say that tapping is evil: I agree with you, the rules don't say anything. I apologize  if my use of uppercase is bad form.

5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Which sort of brings us full circle - is Tapping evil?

(and, FTR, I'm still conflicted... but probably that's because the player inside me wants to say "No!" so it can be used at will 😛 )

According to rules, NO.

According to the guide to Glorantha, it seems to be yes (I don't have it, but from answer here, it seems so).

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I feel that the rules should have made it clear, there's a possibility that someone will make a character built around Steal Breath and then find out after a few scenarios, when more information about sorcery is published, that it's anathema to everyone around them and that they are being hounded out of Sartar. That would be deeply unfair to the player who genuinely didn't know, because they didn't read the Rune Cults section from which it ought to be obvious that Orlanthi are not going to be big fans of Steal Breath.

This is not clear, even in the Rune Cults section.

3 hours ago, Jeff said:

Sorcery is presented in the context of Dragon Pass. None of the Tap spells are on the list of stuff commonly found in the Lhankor Mhy temples, who aren't even Malkioni. So let's imagine a player wants to create a LM Philosopher character and says, "I know Steal Breath isn't on that LM spell list, but I want to have it - as a philosopher I get three sorcery spells, and that's one." I'd say fine! There was a scroll containing Steal Breath hidden in the Jonstown Library and after much study you've figured out how it works. The spell didn't come with commentary - and you don't personally study Malkioni ethics.

So you have a spell. It asphyxiates your foes AND gives you magic points! Hurrah!

But then your High Priest hears about this, and wants to know what strange magic this is. He researches the spell and learns of its other name. Tap Air. He worries that this might be evil God Learner sorcery and the sort of thing that nearly destroyed the world. He doesn't forbid it but discourages it.

And then you meet a traveling Rokari wizard. He is appalled by your use of the evil Tap spell - you've proven yourself to be the stereotype of the amoral or evil Krjalki sorcerer. He demands that you give up the spell or even claims you are a God Learner. 

Meanwhile, the new patron of the Jonstown Library, Prince Argrath, summons you to Boldhome. He asks you to join a group called the Free Philosophers, but you get the feeling that you are not free to refuse him. He expects that you broadly teach this spell to your fellow philosophers....

 

Those information should be in the rules, along with the list of cults that allow sorcery.

21 hours ago, olskool said:

"I would participate in a kickstarter for a re-edition of RQ3."  

WAIT!?  Do you mean an actual REPRINT of the Avalon Hill game or a "reimagining" of RQ3 by Chaosium?  If it's a literal reprint of Avalon Hill's work I'd probably decline.  Aside from the confusion in some of the rules in the base edition, there was artwork in the AH editions that once viewed, one simply cannot "unsee."  The Dwarf, Troll, and Elf in the Elder Races book come to mind immediately.  IF Chaosium did a re-edited version, I might bite.  

I would prefer a "reimagining" of RQ3 but I'm sure I will not got it because it would be too expensive to do. That's why yes, I would participate in a kickstarter for a re-edition of RQ3. This is better than nothing, my Avalon Hill print is in a bad shape (too much use) and my french printings are in a slightly better shape. In addition, that would be a searchable PDF.

10 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

(ETA: Note that it's only the Rune Lords that get the 1D10 rolls for a DI to increase a stat... they're still going to lose 1 POW though. Priests and God-Talkers aren't likely to do this, because of the D100 hit)

Rune Lords don't lose a POW but a Rune Point (that can be replaced by spending a POW, gaining a spell at the same time). You can even do it several times in  a season if the D10 is sufficiently low. The loss is the same for the others, but you're right, the D100 loss means a low probability of trying.

1 hour ago, Crel said:

That definitely feels reasonable to me. However, RAW, "Any Rune points spent in divine intervention are replenished normally." This is only explicitly noted for the priest, but some portion of the priest's text seems implicit in the RL's text as well. The full DI text for RL's reads:

Nvm, it's noted explicitly on p.273 that RL's get RP back too:

I feel like this is a design choice so that Rune levels don't suddenly "un-initiate" by perma-losing all their RP in a divine intervention, even if it does open up some exploitable space for RLs to raise their characteristics. Still, I don't feel overall that exploit's too vicious, and it's not something I'm personally super worried about.

I have the same read as you. And I don't think it a problem because you began your DI by sacrificing a permanent RP (RQG p272) and you can't raise a char above racial max that way.

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

Except Str, Con, and Siz which are linked to not rising above the highest natural of the three (or is this rule gone in RQG?).

It is gone. This one is from RQIII.

4 hours ago, gochie said:

Wait what? There's a duration to your increased stat? Since when? 

No, there is a duration of 1 season on the training.

Just now, gochie said:

You can also train an characteristic (except INT) to species max for 500L a pop. 

except INT and SIZ, and duration is 1 season now, so not easy, but the max is important.

5 minutes ago, Crel said:

I don't think that's right. I think "raiseable characteristic" means any characteristic which is able to be raised by normal means. So raising SIZ or INT would require 3 geese. I feel like there's no issues with the geese raising characteristics above species max, though.

I have the same read as you.

18 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Does anyone else think that the existence of Bless Pregnancy is a good enough reason to throw out the 18 limit for the 3 points distributed if you rolled low?

I'm not sure. What I'm sure is that there will be arguing between players that want to go above 18 and GMs.

2 hours ago, Crel said:

Back on the subject of characteristics...

On p.53, the book notes that if an adventurer's rolled characteristics (before Elemental Rune bonuses) equal 92 or less, that adventurer gains +3 points spread where they wish with a max of 18. Minus 12 from the racial bonuses to SIZ and INT, that's assuming 80 points over 19D6, for an average of 4.21 rolled per die, whereas the usual D6 average is 3.5. 

Another way to look at this is taking that 92, subtract 26 (for average SIZ and INT of 13 each), then divide the resulting 66 among the five 3D6 characteristics, for an average across them of 13.2.

Further, in the "Perfectly All Right" sidebar on the same page, it notes that players may want to throw away adventurers which don't have average characteristics of 12 or greater.

So I think the obvious conclusion is that yeah, adventurers should absolutely have better characteristics than those generated by the RAW roll generation. Interestingly, the average on the classic D&D 3.5 and forward roll of "4D6 drop lowest" comes out to 13! So I'd say that method of characteristic generation is well suited for rolling STR, CON, DEX, POW, and CHA. Maybe even re-rolling ones atop that, or keeping the ">92? add 3" rule; it seems to me that the text implies a total of 92 points across the characteristics is an "average" or "slightly weak" adventurer.

I completely agree here. I will just consider a 92 pointer as an average character, not slightly weak. He is sufficiently above the cut to be at least average.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

None of these are humans. The SIZ dice roll was changed to leave more "room at the bottom" below the human scale, for example the smallest trollkin should be smaller than the smallest human.

My mistake for the size, but superior and elite trollkins have 2D6+6 INT in RQIII (from memory) and RQG.

According to RQG p 433, INT and SIZ should be upped a little because of 3D6 that becomes 2D6+6: SIZ 7 is now SIZ 10.

For the rest, good work.

23 minutes ago, Oracle said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but doesn't incompatible just mean, that it is not possible to cast both spells at the same time? I do not see, that you cannot learn both of them ...

I read it the same way you do.