Kloster

6 hours ago, gochie said:

What do you mean? RQG has pretty much just as much info as the cults book of RQ3. 

The extra info is the table p311 (that came from RQ2). It gives relationship cult by cult as RQIII is giving the info Pantheon by Pantheon.

4 minutes ago, gochie said:

Also in the past editions (or at least RQ3), the way it was said was that pretty much only enemy/incompatible cults weren't allowed for dual-initiation. 

Right, but RQIII had only inter-pantheon relationship, not the detailed, cult-by-cult infos. I don't remember for RQ2.

27 minutes ago, Crel said:

Could you elaborate on your reading? Having re-read the sections on 275 and 311 this notion of "compatibility" feels ambiguous to me. The way I see it, Friendly is more "oh hey we like each other" and Associated is the close bond needed to share worship. But I feel like there's not really support in the text to prefer one reading to another, so I'm curious to understand your interpretation.

The way I have understood (or, more properly, decided, because as you wrote, there is nothing more precise) the rule p 275 is that Associated and Friendly cults are compatible, Enemy and Hostile are not, and Neutral are on a case-by-case basis. My reasoning is based on the descriptions of the 5 categories p311. In the case that concern us (Friendly), the description is: "Even without formal arrangements these groups find each other supportive and agreeable. Meetings are likely to be pleasant.". The term supportive is for me (I'm not a native english speaker and may be wrong) strong enough to allow cooperation to the point of dual initiation. The next level(Neutral) says: "Such cults act according to present circumstance. Trouble may occur, but the spark must be deliberate, not caused by minor squabbles.". The 'present circumstances' is what drove me to the 'case-by-case'. I will not elaborate on the last 3 categories (Enemy, Hostile and Associated) because they seem obvious.

Another point is that I feel that if the author of the rule wanted to have only associated cults to allow dual initiation, he would have written associated, not compatible.

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

They aren't files as such, they are Google Sheets objects. They may be partially functional if converted to ODS spreadsheets, but the macros would almost certainly not work as I think the macro language is JavaScript with Google's spreadsheet library. Some of the formulae might be a little bit broken as well. I will have a go and see how functional it is, and I might upload a version to the forum at the week-end.

I don't think there is an alternative free online spreadsheet tool out there that can compete with Google's.

I confirm that macros don't work when saved as .ods

28 minutes ago, jps said:

On average a dagger would deal ((1+2+3+4)/4)+2= 4.5 damage. A shortsword would deal ((1+2+3+4+5+6)/6)+1=4.5 damage. Exactly the same but, a shortsword can deal maximum damage of 7 compared to 6 for a dagger. As for the rationale I suspect the difference between a (combat) dagger and a shortsword is minimal.

Right. My mistake on the calculation.

11 minutes ago, Crel said:

So to amend the above, I'd suggest reinforcing wooden only--they're the only ones with enough starting structure to add atop or some such explanation.

I've seen current Indian police wicker shields, and they are very sturdy. The only (modern) trouble I see with them is the non protection vs fluids (e.g.tear gas). But they are up to the jobs to resist fights.

The way we played it (in RQIII), it was both active and passive, but all the rolls were made by the GM. Most of the time, the player told the GM he was trying to sense and the GM rolled and answered. From time to time, the GM rolled and once, told of detected chaos without having a player's request to roll.

I also like Stormbully, but we played in french and the play on word does not work.

26 minutes ago, Crel said:

The way I read it, because Humakt has "None." for Associated Cults listed in its entry on p.297, initiates of Humakt can't be initiates of other cults. Which makes sense, given the whole separation motif running throughout the cult in the stories IIRC.

For belonging to several cults, they have to be 'compatible', not 'associated' (RQG p275). Orlanth and Humakt are friendly (RQG p311).

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Why does a dagger do more damage than a shortsword on average? Don't know

This is historical. The problem was already in RQIII, and if I remember, in RQ2. AS RQG is built on RQ2, it has been ported.

26 minutes ago, g33k said:

It sure the heck isn't!

Statistically speaking, your character is ovewhelmingly likely to be dead.

Not if you have only the occupational experience rolls.

1 hour ago, Oracle said:

1) I would say the length is including blade and hilt, i.e. overall (but I may be wrong here ...)

Thanks.

1 hour ago, Oracle said:

2) that's still a Broadsword. Or why do you think there should be a different name?

There is a 5 cm overlap. The result is that you can have a short sword that is 5 cm longer than your broadsword, although it is supposed to be longer.

Hello,

I have 2 question on RQG swords. Broadswords are 75 to 90 cm long and shortswords are 60 to 80 cm long with same shape.

1) are those length overall or blade length?

2) What are called 75 to 80 cm long blades?

2 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

It was meant for the GM Screen Pack as a special handout, but for some reason between the multiple editors, two layout people, and production handoffs it got overlooked.

It will go into the pack for future printings and I'm seeing if Rick can add it to the .pdf version for everyone who's bought that. 

Is a Rune Fix 2 scheduled?

18 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Against weapons, yes, but not spells. Would it protect against spell damage? Probably, if it's physical damage like Finger of Fire.

I would say it protects against Fireblade, because there is a weapon, but not against Finger of Fire, because there is no weapon.

20 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

My players in this week's session managed to completely block a 5d6 attack from a tusker with their sword and 3 points of armor. It rolled 15 damage and they stopped it fully. In a high level campaign I am running, one player has 10 armor before prot and shield spells, which would probably be in force against a sorcerer chanting for two rounds....

10 AP + spells is very high, but I agree with you, defensive spells have a good chance to be active if they perceive someone casting aggressive spells that they can not 'remove' before the end of the casting.

23 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Interpreting the spell as it is described, I see little reason why a shield couldn't be deployed to help protect you. Especially if it is read to do damage every round you are in the area. Basically just holding it over your head while you run...

I would rule that the shield protect the same way it protects vs missile: Select 1, 2 or 3 contiguous locations (depending on size), roll the location hit and pray it will be on one of the protected.

39 minutes ago, jps said:

It's a big spell, demanding the mastery of many Runes: Moon and Fire (so it's not for beginning characters who can pick only one none Technique Rune); it demands Combine and Summon.

I'm not yet well versed into the new sorcery rules but page 384 stipulates  "Unless otherwise specified in the spell description, it costs 1 additional magic point to increase the intensity of a spell by one level; or double the amount of magic points if it uses a Rune or Technique that the sorcerer has not mastered".

Let's suppose I have mastered the Moon and Earth Rune, plus I have the command Technique. What happens?

1. I'm lacking both a Rune and two Techniques so I cannot cast the spell
2. The Earth is minor to the Fire Rune and the Command Technique is minor to all Techniques thus I can cast the spell. So I have three minors (both Runes and Techniques) for a cost of x2 (first minor), x4 (second minor), x8 third minor. Therefore the strength of my spell with only 15 Free INT would considerably be diminished.

 

As I have understood, cost would be x8, for a 32MP cost for an intensity of 1.

It is also possible to understand a cost of 7 (1 for the mastered Rune/Technique and 2 for each of the 3 unmastered).

4 hours ago, klecser said:

There is specific text in Defending Apple Lane that references a use of the Battle skill. I don't have my materials on me right now, but I remember it being there.

Adventure Book p78

It's a way to give information when your player don't have the tactical savvy their characters have.

19 minutes ago, Crel said:

From a balance perspective I like the notion of "take damage one time while you're in the area" but I don't see "realistically" how that works, nor do I feel that's the most accurate reading of the text.

Conflagration spell damage is specifically described as 'per Melee Round', and not MoonFire damage. This is why I guessed that MoonFire is doing damage only once. This has the unfortunate effect of having somebody already affected that can stay, but avoid the 4D6/MR for 25 MR monster.

48 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Can it be parried or dodged?

No, and I don't think you need to remain for 5 full minutes within radius to be affected. The way I read it, If you are in the radius, even for a moment, within that 5 minutes, you take the damage. I see it like falling damage (but location is random): automatic and taken once if you are concerned.

51 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Another reason why every battle isn't won by moonfire. Decent armor and protective spells and you laugh it off.

Few characters (Player or not) have an armor that can protect enough to laugh vs 4D6, not speaking of 5D6, even if counting spells. Mine certainly does not: You need 14 Armor Points (or 17 for 5D6) to shrug off the attack. During a battle, less than 1% of the troops will have 17 AP.

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Would someone please explain why RQ is considered more complicated than D&D? (in terms of mechanics)
 

Because you roll a D100 instead of a D20 and 100 is bigger than 20?😉

23 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

@Kloster Could you try to reupload your avatar Kloster? Looks like the forum software has eaten the previous one. 

Done.

18 minutes ago, metcalph said:

IMO the Magic Rune breaks down into the Six Techniques of Sorcery (Command etc.).

Nice way of reading it. I like it.

46 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Has there been a ruling whether you can simply cast a stronger version of the spell over a weaker one? Or whether the weaker spell stops in the presence of the stronger one? Or is temporarily neutralized by a shorter duration Neutralize Magic?

The way I understand it, if you cast a low strength, (let's say Enhance INT), then a higher strength one (same spell), the higher intensity takes precedence, but the spell don't add. When the high strength ends, if the lower strength is not finished (because of longer duration), the lower strength is again the one in effect.

If you cast a high strength spell, then a lower strength of the same spell, when the high spell finishes, the lower strength will be the one in effect (with Enhance INT, this could be used to have a longer duration effect, but at a high MP cost).

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

If you can crank it up to Strength 20, that's 5D6 to everyone in a 160m radius.

Yes, and WITHOUT a POW vs. POW roll, as the damage is physical (like for Fireblade).