Kloster

1 hour ago, 7Tigers said:

All printed books (Core reprint, Bestiary, GM Pack, Slipcase) will be in same containers on the 3 boats. They will be available for customers at same time.

Is the RQG core rule 1st printing still available?

Kloster

1 hour ago, Larry Lovecraft said:

???!

Kloster

A bit more than 28mm (at least on my screen), but nice. Perhaps is it a giant ostrich, but this could not be 'stealthy'!

Kloster

5 minutes ago, womble said:

It's similar, but has more Cults' Holy Days included. And has pretty pictures.

Thanks. I will try to get it once we have played all the scenarii.

Kloster

5 hours ago, MOB said:

There's a Gloranthan calendar in the Gamemaster Screen Pack.

As I'm not a GM, I have not (and will not) purchase it (it contains scenarii). Is it the same as the one from RQIII 'Gods of Glorantha' (but nicer, of course)?

Kloster

Aren't scorpions (and thus scorpionmen) arachnids in Glorantha? After all, they have 8 limbs. If yes, they are not insects and not connected to Gorakiki.

Kloster

9 hours ago, jajagappa said:

I was referencing RQ2, not RQ3.  I haven't looked at the RQ3 books in years.

Understood. I haven't checked RQII. Thanks.

Kloster

29 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

I have not noticed them lately, have they become one of the minor tribes, or have they totally disappeared?  Bolo lizards where pain enough to collect, ostrich riders look more challenging

According to Heroes (Avalon Hill official magazine), yes, at least in RQIII. They always (=since that article) have been part of the minor tribes since that time.

Kloster

16 minutes ago, Jeff said:

A Gloranthan season is 8 weeks long. It takes two season to train a characteristic. The idea that Gloranthan characters are going to spend 7+ hours a day doing strength training is just not realistic to me and certainly makes no sense as a rules default.

I completely agree with you on all your point. This is part of the progresses made with RQG.

My question was about the time and cost in RQIII Jajagappa was speaking about. I can' think a way to go to 1000 or 2000 L, even for high stats. For the duration, it was quite the same (15 weeks with part time training as in RQG, compared to 16 in RQG or 10 weeks given by Jajagappa) for going from 15 to 16, but completely off for going from 8 to 9 for example ( 8 weeks compared to .16 for RQG or 10 for Jajagappa).

Kloster

15 hours ago, jajagappa said:

More realistically now 16 weeks (2 seasons) with a cost of 500L vs. 10 weeks at a cost of 1000L (for STR/DEX) or 2000L (for CON). [Yes it can be compressed but if you've got other community duties, 8 hours a day training is just not realistic.]

How do you get those figures (for RQIII)? Char training time was Current value time 25 hours, which means 375 hours for going from 15 to 16. That was 7.5 weeks for a cost of 225L when learning full time (and 75 L if we divide by 3 to compare with RQG) and a duration of 15 to 20 weeks if you train part time.

Kloster

44 minutes ago, Sumath said:

I really like the RQG Rune Point system. In RQ2/3, Rune Magic sometimes felt too precious to use, knowing that you had to sacrifice hard-won POW to get it back again.

With Rune Points, you can still get them back after most sessions, so casting Rune Magic feels usable and practical, but still a significant expenditure of a PCs resources - as it should do.

Yes, this is one of the points where I feel RQG vastly superior to RQIII.

Kloster

3 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Play by Post (aka Play by Forum).  One of the alternatives for those of us without a nearby gaming group.

Thanks for the explanation.

Kloster

11 hours ago, jajagappa said:

As I run PbP, sessions are quite long so would never restrict it per session.

What is PbP?

Kloster

9 minutes ago, boztakang said:

I think this means that you do not have to split both attacks if you do not wish to. So when attacking with sword and dagger both at 120% skill, you can make 4 attacks at 60% (splitting both) - or two attacks at 60% with one weapon and a single attack with the other weapon at full skill.

This is also what I understand.

Kloster

4 minutes ago, Psullie said:

Your point 1 is incorrect. Regardless of negative mods a 1-5 is always a success.

Correct.

I  dislike the RQ3 model as it doesn't benefit 100+ skills in that you always have a 5% of failure. Reducing your opponents skill is a way get that bonus back. I'm happy with the RAW rules, it knocks some of the peaks and troughs you can get with RQG

In RQIII, the benefit of above 100% were the increased special and crit. (that disappears with RQG), and the possibility of splitting (still present in RQG). Not counting the psychological aspect of seeing your hardly won 150% attack brought down to 100%, the improved special and crit. probability can be the only way to wound a highly armored opponents more than 1 time every 20 attacks (which is the crit probability with 100% skill).

Kloster

28 minutes ago, styopa said:

Call me a quibbler, but IMO RQG has overcomplicated this.

If you have a 155 vs a 50, in the various interpretations it would be played out as:

1. RQG RAW: 100 vs 0%
2. RQG Amended(better): 110 vs 05 or really 95 (with special of 22/crit of 6) vs 05.
3. RQ3 results in 95 (with special of 31, crit of 8 I think) vs 50

While I agree that #2 is way better than #1, it seems like 3 is simpler, still gives the lower-skill the full 'value' of the skill they have and likewise acknowledges a diminishing return on super-high levels of skill - essentially you're just a) better able to cope with disadvantages, but b) mainly (slowly) increasing your special/crit chances...

Agreed. On that point, I prefer RQIII to RQG, but my point was that #2 was better than #1, not counting #3.

Kloster

21 minutes ago, womble said:

I'd like to think that the original intention of the rule was something similar, but that the framing of it in the Core book simply didn't consider that there would often be occasions where the skill differential would be higher than the lower skill, and so didn't address the issue in its language, but 150 vs 49 isn't going to be that uncommon, with Fanaticism and other buffs going around.

Yes, you're right. At character creation time and including spells, there is a 105% difference between my character and the best fighting character in my group (50% no spells vs 90% pushed to 155% with Fanaticism and Bladesharp 2).

Kloster

55 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Yes.  The Lhankorings even have a special instrument (the Alien Combination machine) that allows them to translate foreign spells into something in their own language.

There are some spells which if known cannot be cast if the caster does not meet the right requirements (like being a Brithini) but there has never been a written example of a spell being impossible to learn due to philosophical differences.

Many thanks.

Kloster

Hello,

In RQG, can (ruleswise, not settingswise) a sorceror from a tradition (let's say a Sartarite LM sage) teach a sorcery spell to a sorceror from another tradition (let's say an Aeolian philosopher from Heortland), provided they have a common language? My opinion is that it is possible, but that a common written language is needed, but my GM is not sure.

Thanks for your opinions.

Kloster

1 hour ago, womble said:

In most cases, yeah, it's just right to reduce both, even if it seems a little counterintuitive at first sight. Where it gets hinky is situations where the higher skill would reduce the lower to below 05%, since the full disadvantage applies to the higher skill, but is capped on the lower. To make this feel right for me, I reduce both skills by the same amount, which is the lesser of "reducing the higher skill to 100" and "reducing the lower skill to 05". Means that the vastly superior practitioner retains higher crit/special chances against the greatly inferior opponent.

Very good. That would remove one of the main problems of the current rules. I have to present that to my GM.

Kloster

57 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I can't find that on p54, but there is this on p52 in the box:

You're right. I should have slept a few hours more. Page 54 allows above 18, not above max species value.

Kloster

21 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Not possible so long as the modifiers are only +/-2, but it does make a difference with rune bonuses. SIZ 18, +2 for Bison Rider, +2 for Darkness Rune, is over normal species maximum.

This is not a problem because +2 for Bison is not above species max and Rune modifiers are described as being able to go above (RQG p54).

Kloster

I understand it as such: An aeolian philosopher starts with 3 (2 for aeolianism and 1 for philosopher) runes and 2 (1 for aeolianism and 1 for philosopher) techniques. This is what I did for my character.

Kloster

3 minutes ago, Sir_Godspeed said:

Sergeant (literally servant),

IIRC, Sergeant comes from french Sergent (same meaning), which was a soldier whose role was to keep the ranks tight. His order was "Serrez les rangs" (tighten the ranks) and his role was of a "Serre gens" (People tightener).

Kloster

37 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Kostaddi is noted specifically all the way back in the original Borderlands.  It's only the specific location of Rone that was added in the HW map.

"Minimal facts are known to the adventurers: Raus is from the Redlands of the Lunar Empire, his ancestors were from Kostaddi, and he served with distinction in the Lunar army."

I didn't remember that. I have played original Borderlands  around 1986, and purchased it around 89. I much liked it (both playing and reading), but didn't remember this detail. Thanks.

Kloster