Kloster

All of the above discussion is why I moved over to using Sandy Petersons sorcery. In some respects it was a bit more cumbersome but the notion of ' presence' did limit the amount of spells in play, especially if you went for a more low scale campaign where schools or guilds of sorcery were quite rare.

But Sandy's rules are limited to Glorantha, and are bringing other problems: Some Saints blessing combined are easy to obtain and are giving effects whose powers are game shattering.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

...

And this got incredibly ugly once you had a sorcery professional who either rolled well or had progressed considerably; Damage Resistance was somewhat tolerable when cast on everyone because of the way it worked, but moderate levels of damage boost running on everyone for weeks was really problematic.

Not more tat a Bladesharp enchantment, with a condition that launches it automatically when, says, the owner of the sword draws it by calling Humakt help (same for Strength or coordination).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

...

I've been in a couple of campaigns where the Wizards were very effective adventurers, and were not bad in combat, though were certainly not the mobile artillery from that other game. I think it has more to spells chosen and creativity on the part of the player than anything else. Palsy or Venom in combat can do wonders. Also, in one campaign we ignored the restrictions weapons training by magic types, so in that game the Wizard could defend themselves if nessesary.

...

Total agreement here. Spells chosen and creativity are the key.

Also agreed on the effects of Palsy and Venom.

...

This was always our groups biggest issue. While Free-INT should be used to limit what a Wizard has available at hand, its somewhat odd as a limiter to manipulation. The usual fix seems to be Spell Skill /10 for manipulation ability, though I have also heard of Spell Skill /5. The 85% Palsy Nick mentioned above could be manipulated by 9 points. I would also suggest that in BRP we might suggest this could be manipulated further, but at a Difficult chance.

SDLeary

We have used Free INT and lower %age used/10. Both are working (and requires different spells and tactics to be efficient).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

...

Harshax: It's interesting that you say that Free Int is the only limit. I have heard it argued that it is TOO limiting, and this makes me wonder how much campaign style factors into it all.

...

It is not, as long as you can produce enchantments.

...

This 'turtling' you describe - was this due in part to the use of Ceremony to boost spell casting chances? Is this only possible if the sorcerer has access to magic point storage? If you had neither, would this still be the way sorcerers would work? Would a few more combat-oriented spells help this? Are the durations too long - leading to this effect?

...

For me (=my characters), the reason was more the high magic point cost, more than the usage of ceremony. Renewing my long (=2 to 4 weeks duration spells) took me 3 days.

...

wbcreighton: I have done, thanks. It's not really a good match for my campaign, though. The various schools of sorcery is not the effect I'm going for, and I'm not sure I want all the minor manipulations. Does he discuss the RAW sorcery in his pre-amble? - I can't remember. For the record, I've also looked at RQ4:AIG, David Cake's version, Pete Maranci's modifications, and at least one or two other versions of sorcery. These are, in part, what alerted me to the idea that people think sorcery needs 'fixing' - because so many have tried. All these revised sorceries make assumptions about setting and play style that might not be appropriate for me, which is why I wanted to step back from those and begin the discussion at the beginning. Before I adopt a variation on sorcery (or make up my own), I want to know why I'm doing it, or even if I need to.

Nick: Thanks for your input. Your last point is quite interesting and especially worth considering.

...

Totally agree on both points.

...

Did sorcery only work this way because the setting provided access to intellect spirits and magic point matrices? If these (and the Ceremony skill) did not exist in the setting, would this situation still exist?

...

Those points are effectively importants.

...

As an aside, the text of the sample of play from the RQ3 deluxe box has the sorceror, Nikolos, casting 8 and 12 point spells. Do these sound very powerful to you, or normally powerful. He is portrayed (in that bit of text) as a combat mage, which is interesting.

Thanks,

Thalaba

For me, this power level is normal (in Glorantha), and yes, it is interesting.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

This is gamer hyperbole. there is nothing broken about RQIII Sorcery, RAW. It is, however, a magic system whose exact features and effects on the game are not immediately obvious, or intuitive, and many people never managed to comfortably reconcile their preconceptions of the system with how it actually works in play.

...

Completely true.

...

It's really not a system for an adventuring mage. It mechanically reinforces the mage as sedentary, spending long periods of time preparing and casting spells: it thus is excellent at producing "evil wizzard in tower with minions", and in the right campaign can work very well. The GM does need to be on top of their time keeping however, as PC or NPC mages who spend a week casting season long spells need careful time keeping.

...

Basically true. To use interestingly an adventuring sorcerer needs a lot of creativity and inventivity, or a lot of downtime and timekeeping (which is not interesting).

...

Specific mechanical stumbling blocks vary with personal taste. My biggest bug bear was free INT: it is fiddly to administer and I prefer to use skill levels to govern casting and manipulation, as it seems more sensible that a skilled caster of Palsy (85%) can manipulate their spell MORE than a less skilled caster who knows fewer spells.

Cheers,

Nick

Matter of preferences. Both system are working.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

...

1. It took a very, very long time to get competent. Many skills, which could only improve through study.

...

Very, very true.

...

2. Sorcerers tended to turtle up every few weeks (see 3), and spend all their Magic Points to throw all their best boost[X]+intensity+duration+multispell, and then have nothing worth casting during an actual adventure (see 4)

...

True for 1st part, but magic point being recovered quite rapidly in RQ III, sorcerers can be active while adventuring (though not often during the days following their spell renewal.

...

3. The only limit to spell casting was free INT, which lead to some very powerful spells (see 2)

...

True, but only after quite a time (about 1 or 2 years of play). At that point, other characters are also powerful, so not a problem.

...

4. Sorcery was almost useless in combat.

...

Although few spells have direct effect on combat and spell casting is usually long, false. You forget enchantments with conditions (casting time becomes instant), spirits that can throw spells for you, and the effect of even small intensity spells (smother comes to mind), not speaking of ambushes.

...

FWIW - I loved RQ3 sorcery, but even I got frustrated with it, and ended up making some strange Sorcerer/Spirit Magician hybrids: dominating magic spirits or ghosts into enchantments, and only using sorcery to command those spirits or boost my stats/armor (as in step 2).

I also loved them and played quite a lot. Player inventivity with magic usage removes some of the disadvantages. And most of my sorcerers were also using spirit magic (and in some cases divine).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

We use the margin of success.

The better quality wins (of course), but in case quality is equal, the roll by the larger margin wins. In case margin are equal, it is a draw (and in case draw are not possible, defender wins).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

...

Well, that particular method is from the James Bond RPG. The rationale behind it is simple, it keeps the big baddies from spending all their points to kill one PC. The group wins the battle, but each adventure or so someone would need to roll up a new character.

I really love the Bond RPG. It actually isn't quite so easy to "just escape" in the RPG. It has my favorite take on Hero Points too. 1 HP adjust the die roll one quality level (think wsuccess level in BRP). This grades of success approach also tones down the Hero Points, making their effects more subtle. Turning a serious injury into a minor wound, as opposed to turning a critical into a miss. The latter is possible, but so costly that even Bond can't do it very often. Since the damage inflicted is based party on the success level, a 1 level shift isn't as severe as in some RPGs.

Also once a point is spent, it is gone for good, so PCs don't waste them as with similar point systems. Instead they are more likely to save most of them until they need them. While characters can earn more points, they can't just get them "refreshed" next week. So PCs don't feel invulnerable when they have a lot of points. And players get worried when the points run low.

This method is great for handling the "series of bad die rolls" thing too, making the RPG my favorite for solo play. Less chance of losing a PC to that eventual fumble.

Hero points from JB007 rpg are quite easy to transpose to BRP (we did it in a modern espionnage game a few years back):

Quality 1 results are critical success

Quality 2 results are special success

Quality 3 results are below half success chance

Quality 4 results are normal success

Quality 5 results (?) are normal failures

Quality 6 results (?) are fumbles

Hero points are gained on Critical/Quality 1 results, and are spent to either:

1/ cause something to occur

2/ change a dice roll result by 1 quality in the direction choosen by the point owner.

Villains had survival points, that were like hero points, but could only be spent on rolls affecting the character, instead of any rolls.

All in all, a very elegant, simple, easy and fast system: Everything that is BRP. Of course, not all setting requires/can accept Hero points.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Considering the amount of time Chaosium takes to publish announced projects maybe their "all rumours are true" motto should be "slow but sure".

Which translates into latin, by way of an online translator, to "tardus tamen certus".

Quite good translator. This one, I buy (the motto, not the translator).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Do you have the author's contact details (for example, listed in the file)?

no mail, but a link that points to : gelweo at aol dot com for giving feedback.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

I would point out the error of his ways. I believe in RQ, language is one of the skills that cannot be raised with experience, only practice. On this, I could be wrong as it has been a while since I played RQ. But I do know that the GM decides when to allow the checking of a skill box. Letting the players decide when they can check a skill box is like letting them decide how many experience points they should get for an orc.

Rod

For RQ, spoken language can get an experience check, and written can not, but as always, the GM has final says of when a character gets a check or not (at least, this is the way we play it ... for the GM part).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Approximately what diameter were these clay balls?

Lead shot, like the ones used by Rhodian slingers, were about half the size of the fist. Stones used for sling were about the size of the fist. I don't know for the clay 'special ammunitions'.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Approximately what diameter were these clay balls?

Lead shot, like the ones used by Rhodian slingers, were about half the size of the fist. Stones used for sling were about the size of the fist. I don(t know for the clay 'special ammunitions'.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

What is shot? A metal ball? :ohwell:

SGL.

A lead ball, about half the size of the fist.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

...

Oh, and Humakti in RQ3 got Bladesharp 6 by default, if they wished. Bladesharp 4 was RQ2.

Bladesharp 4 was the max value for RQ II.

There is no max value for RQ III, but bladesharp 4 is a standard spell for combat oriented cults (like Humakt). Bladesharp 6 is quite common for mid-level members of such cults.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

I think the Armor Enchantment in RQ3 was erratted to 1d3 points for 1 POW.

As far as I remember, correct.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

And entry level Humakti know Bladesharp 4 at least.

...

Same for us. I've even seen Humakti with bladesharp 10. The max case I've seen is a bladesharp 10 matrix on an iron broadsword, with a magic point matrix, 2 linked power spirits with a condition to refuel the 10 point magic point matrix and a condition to activate when the owner wields the sword and says "Humakt, give me power". He thus does not need to wait for 10 SR as enchantments with conditions activate instantly.

With that kind of enchantments, armoring enchantment is both a necessity and a little light with it's high pow cost.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

I suspect many people never saw some of of the synergies advanced RQ characters could generate; even post-RQ3 (where it was a bit harder to pull power out of thin air because it was a little more complex getting bound spirits) it could get pretty thick on the ground just with battle magic, and it was very easy for experienced priests to have an astounding amount of divine magic available.

Absolutely true.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Going back to RQ3 again...

I know there is an 'Armoring Enchantment' that can be used to add armor points to a character's locations, or to objects.

Now, if it's added to an object, that is also a piece of armor, does that make it protect better? It seems like a really gross way (even if you did have to do it per location) of making magic armor. But I don't recall seeing any NPCs from the old modules who went that route, including the disgusting Strangers in Prax.

So anyone know if it could be used that way?

The rules incontestably allowed it, and although it was not the most efficient efficiency to POW ratio (SHIELD was far better), almost all our players were / are using it, especially mine (I tend to play sorcerers).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Is "Les MeCHas pour BaSIC" still available in any form? The mentioned site seems to be unavailable.

I still got it (in french), but the file is copyrighted, so I don't know if I can send it.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Sorry for the confusion... the discussion just had me remembering something I'd read about a French RPG where the PCs played as the god-weapons... like Stormbringer and Mournblade.

But for a moment I couldn't remember the name...

A non-sequitur... off topic... thread digression...

Bloodlust, by Croc, G.E.Rane and Stéphane Bura (currently, by Asmodée Editions).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Tank you Mr Rust nice Links

SFRPG •

Tigres Volants Central I dont understand french but i have an french dictionary.

Tigres Volants is much fun (OK, I am partial because the author is a friend of mine). Older (1.5 and 2.1 in my case) versions are clearly BRP in origin. The current published version has been streamlined, with D20 instead of D100.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

P.S. Don't tell to Alias (the author) that he is french. He is Swiss, proud of it and can be seen from the texts.

IIRC, plate actually became more common BECAUSE of maces. Then the ante was upped with war hammers and picks and estocs. What I can see happening with plate and maces is more of a knock back effect... more energy transfered to the plate rather than absorbed by the spongy mass of the body.

Also, if the head is hit inside a greathelm, I can see some issues from concussive effect rather than direct damage that might KO the occupant.

SDLeary

Correct on both points.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

In a way the RAW BRP system does. The larger the shield, the more strength is needed to use it properly. If the characters strength is below the threshold, they can still use it, but at a disadvantage. They also have a dexterity threshold. In RQ3, iirc (no book handy), each point under these thresholds imposed a 5% penalty. In BRP, under either threshold and the attempt is Difficult.

...

You're correct in your RQ memories.

...

Actually, the use and design of shields depends on tactics. The Hoplites Aspis (Hoplon) was strapped on because the goal was to impose a regimentation that discouraged individual combat. Strapped on it does an excellent job in a disciplined shield wall. Thus it is more of a piece of armor than proper shield. Scutii, Celtic, Germanic,Viking, and even early Kite type shields used a hand hold behind a central boss, and were used to push opponents away and punch them when the opportunity arose. This also means that they are much easier to use in single combat because they are much more nimble devices.

[pedantic]Oh, also, bucklers are not necessarily metal. The Iberians used small wood and leather shields with a metal boss, about the size of the buckler, as apparently did Roman Gladiators! [/pedantic]

...

Your correct in your historical memories, although the hand held kite were quite rare because of weight of the metal used to reinforce the perimeter.

...

IMO, a metal weapon like a sword should have fewer HP, or more precisely AP (Armour Points) like in RQ. A successful parry at the same level of success should still deflect all the damage of the attack, but if the rolled damage exceeds the AP of the weapon in a single blow, then it has been damaged and the AP should be reduced by one point.

If the level of success is one higher, then the parry would only stop the amount of damage equivalent to the AP of the weapon; if AP exceeded, then reduced by one. If two levels of success higher, as above, but AP reduced by half the value that makes it through. A critical attack vs. a fumbled parry results in the weapon breaking.

You will note that I said metal weapons. Hafted weapons, while they can parry, are not designed to. They should always take one point of damage if they successfully parry an equal attack, half the excess on an attack one level higher, and break if they parry an attack two higher.

Shields absorb more, but once damaged tend to degrade faster.

On a normal success, if the HP of the shield are exceeded in a single blow, then the shield takes half the excess damage directly to its HP. If one level of success higher, the shields HP are reduced by the full excess amount of of the blow. Two levels higher, twice the excess of the blow.

This is just off the top, and does complicate things quite a bit for what could be little "realism" in return.

...

I like your ideas, but would add (in my mind) too much complexity for the realism gain.

...

And, just for reference, I do prefer the RQ III methods for figuring all this out.

SDLeary

Same for me. More intuitive, no table/matrix. As simple in it's resolution.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

I'm not convinced that you are actually getting any more realism. Your example of the Hoplon is a good one, you are correct that it is not used for deflecting blows as much as it is for blocking them. However, a Hoplon is terrible in single combat; it's just too heavy and unwieldy to move quick enough to block blows. Sure, it will block more of the blows damage when it does intercept than a small shield or sword block, but will intercept fewer of them. So unless your system addresses this kind of thing, all your doing is factoring in a plus without factoring in its minuses.

...

This is because the Hoplon was designed to be used in mass phalanx combat.

In the Macedonian phalanx, the shield was not maneuverable because it was fixed to the left arm AND to the shoulder, in order to leave the left hand help to hold the Sarissa (long pike). Any shield, whateve it's size, is unwieldy, but it is a matter of usage, not of shape nor weight.

The hoplitic phalanx was using the shield as an almost offensive weapon, with ranks pushing toward the ennemy to crush them an break their line, which means it does not need to be very maneuverable.

...

This is a good observation, but not all shields would fall into the weapon like category. A Buckler (very small metal shield) would for sure but a large shield would not. The difference comes from both size and how the shield is held, if it is strapped to the forearm like a Hoplon, Roman Scutum (the big rectangle ones) or heavy medieval knights shield, it's more of a blocking shield used in formation like a wall or as added defense against arrows. These shields are heaver and are not optimized for single combat. If it's held in your fist in the middle so that it can be thrust about then it's more weapon like because it is intended more for single combat. These shields necessarily have to be smaller and lighter or you wouldn't be able to move them around for very long.

...

IIRC, the scutum, wether oval or rectangular, has never been strapped, but was held in the left hand by an horizontal handle, placed at the middle height of the semi-circular shield, just behind the metal boss. It was not very heavy, although large, and quite easy to maneuver.

It was used both in mass combat (by the legions) and in individual combat (by some gladiators), offensively and defensively, to block ant to parry (and also to protect versus ranged weapons).

Runequestement votre,

Kloster