Kloster

17 hours ago, g33k said:

Look at modern fencing (foil, epee, saber).  All are 1H, all use parries.

Yes, but all are sufficiently light to allow for low inertia and thus quick recovery after the parry.

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

RQG encourages parrying with your weapon, since, unlike RQ2, it "comes free" with your weapon skill, and, should you augment your weapon skill, or use a Trance spell, it boosts attack and parry.

Yes, this is one of the problems of the attack and parry merged in a single skill.

4 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

(Speaking of, the other thing BRP typically does poorly is weapon reach. I really liked the RQ6/Mythras solution here, where each weapon has a preferred range, and you start off at the longest one and have to make an effort if you want to get in closer. What shields and heavy armor allow is for the attacker to eat a thrust on the way in.)

BRP manages weapon reach with the Strike Ranks. With RQ's round with SR representing elements of time, this works pretty well. Much less with SR representing only an initiative order.

4 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

One possible easy fix here would be to dramatically increase the Base Chance of shields - I don't think 40-50% would be uncalled for.

I think the same, and I also think that base chance should increase with shield size.

According to RQG p278, "God-talkers may not initiate new members of the cult. Although they are provided with food and board by the temple, they typically must maintain another occupation (including being a Rune Priest of another cult)." If God-talkers can be priest of another cult, that means clearly it is possible to be initiated of at least 2 cults, provided, as Soltakss told, that cults restriction are respected.

8 hours ago, Darius West said:

but if you have to spend 90% of your income on 1 cult, and 10% on the other, you have no beer money.

Again according to RQG p278, the aforementioned priest/god-talker pays 90% of income to the cult he is a priest and 50% of the remaining to the cult he is God-talker. In your case, I understand he would pay 90% to 1 cult and 1% (10% of the remaining 10%) to the other, keeping only 9% for himself. This can pay for beer, but not much more.

7 hours ago, soltakss said:

Trolls and Aldryami will often worship multiple cults, Kyger Litor/Aldrya and another cult.

IIRC, according to Trollpack, all trolls are initiated to Kyger Lytor and according to Elder's sercrets, all Aldryamy are initiated to Aldrya, so dual membership seems common for them. But those supplements were written for RQ3, where Lay membership was not described ruleswise, so we perhaps have to understand that as 'all Trolls/Aldryami are lay member (and not initiated) of Kyger Lytor/Aldrya.

11 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Somewhat more relevant to game play, how many experienced adventurer PCs are "expected" to be multicult?  Our group is 3/8.

In our RQ3 group, 100% In RQG, 1/6, but this will increase soon.

1 hour ago, JRE said:

Humakt is by definition the one who stands alone.

Humakt/Other cult (especially Orlanth) is possible. You cut links when become initiated to Humakt, but nothing prevents you to create new links after that.

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Well, yeah, but the point of the thread** was about what cults are good without consideration of rune spells.

No, it was 'after you run out of RP'. If you traded spell before running out of RP, it does count.

33 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

I am sorry to say that, but EDGE belongs to the Asmodee Group, and they aren´t a fellew publisher of the hobby industry, but just a money making machine. 
If their calulations say, that it doesn´t make enough money they will not publish it. 

Which is an economically sound behavior for them, but bad news for us in the short term (in the long term, bad economical decisions make the company crash, so are bad for everybody).

38 minutes ago, Orlanthatemyhamster said:

I like them, but I wouldn't say, 'solved'.

I should have written that 'all OP's described problems are solved'.

As Edge is also the licensee for French language, it is a good thing they sub-licensed it to Studio Deadcrows.

6 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Hey, people are still calling Brian Johnson the new guy in AC DC 42 years later.

But he is not anymore. Too bad.

18 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Sure, but this - that it's super easy to get a ton of additional effective actions through spirits - is a game design problem. It's not really any different than having a bunch of crummy human followers support you with Spirit Magic spells, apart from the spirits normally being less squishy and obtrusive.

Agreed.

18 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

It could be solved by ensuring that spirits have to be told to do something using your own SRs,

Also agreed.

18 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

but I think it's fairly clear that the rules aren't intended to work that way.

Unfortunately true.

Another problem I see arriving with the spirit casting the spell (in addition to active spells) is the one of SR. If you cast the spell, you spend the SR casting it, which limits your actions. If the spirits casts them, you can act (attack for example) during the time the spirit is casting (let's say the spell is cast SR5 and your attack is on SR6, you attack with Fireblade on 1st round). Moreover, you are engaged, but the spirit is not, and you can order it to cast second sight, then befuddle or disruption on the perceived targets.

The effects can give interesting tactics, but it is best to be sure what is the rule.

47 minutes ago, Gamesmeister said:

This makes no reference to the binder having to command the bound spirit, it simply gives the binder access to any spells known by the spirit.

I have the same understanding.

20 hours ago, icebrand said:

In RQ2, you can cast+attack or cast an attack spell.

In RQ3 i can't  remember.

In RQ3, you could do pretty much what you wanted as long as you had SR.

33 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

This worked for us for a really long time. In fact, for our next RQG game I think we are going to be lifting the RQ3 combat rules entirely. 

This is exactly what I did. Everything else is almost RQG RAW.

Just use RQ3's combat rules and all your problems are solved ... if your players decide to read the rules and to use them. You will then have pushes, close in, attack to disarm or to destroy weapon or shield, knockback (intentional or not), moves interweaved with attacks to attack from side or back, etc.

10 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I would go one further and only allow reduction of 20% increment, so it's significant and meaningful and prevents people from playing the math. (for players who have their crit and special ranges noted on their sheet, it has the side benefit of neatly reducing your crit by 1% and special by 4% for each increment)

Good idea.

4 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

pas de fausse modestie, voyons

No need. There is only 50 000 fencers in France (one of the largest world federations). That means 1 person in around 1500. With  than 3600 regular users on this forum, that means we are less than 3 fencers and 10 ex fencers here.

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

or even burning some sausages to make your deity happy.

At the very least, burning the sausages (but not too much) makes the cultists happy.

4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

i'm not and you are fencing expert (or anything you want) but my first reaction was

yes but no.

should a fighter have a good level to learn feint ? I mean you must know the basics before trying complex technics, etc..

that drives me to something like

under x0% (60% ?) you cannot do anything

between x0% et x1% (75% ? 80% ?) you can choose a malus with a maximum of 20% (you have learnt the first "special" technics)

between x1% et x2% (90% ? 100% ?) you can choose a malus with a maximum of 40% (you have learnt more complex technics)

more than x2%, you are a master and you can choose a malus of your choice

same for defense. After all you may choose some postures (hope it is the good word) to reduce your opponent attacks

does it make sense ?

If you want. It does make sense, I just feel it too cumbersome, but feel free to do it, it should work perfectly. I feel my rule simpler (but less good as yours).

4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I m pretty sure that the "over 100% rule" is faster in most of cases (armor, weapon, skills) but that is just feeling, no proof

Yes, of course, it is simpler and faster. But what I wanted to emphasized is the choice. What I don't like wit RAW is that it is automatic: You always reduce the highsest score to 100% and the lowest by the same score, lowering the crit to 5%. With my rule (and also with your proposal), you choose if you want to keep the high crit and special or if you want to reduce your opponent score.

By the way, even if I am (or more properly were) probably the best fencer here (considering the sheer low number of fencers worldwide, it is not very difficult with around 15 years of practice and competitions), that does not make me an expert on the matter, nor an expert in transfering techniques concepts in BRP concepts.

22 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I've mentioned this previously, but I think this should be a choice, justified as -a) doing everything you can to ensure a really good hit (special or crit) and hope the opponent doesn't parry (keep over 100%, parry at normal), or b) do a lot of feinting, dodging, etc to draw the opponent's defences to get in any hit (reduce to 100%, reduce parry %).

I would do it by allowing the attacker to get a malus of his choice, whatever his original score, representing feints and maneuvers, and applying said malus to the defender. Of course, the defender could also do it and final malus is the sum of both. But this is not automatic, and not linked to the 100% score. Of course, you can not do it if you are below 5%, because in that case, any malus would not change your chance of success.

15 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

try to overwhelm your opponent by splitting your attack

RAW, if you split versus someone higher than 100%, you lower more your chances than his.

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

As to the permitted minimal mention of house rules: I'm seriously considering throwing out the over-100%-rule. I think I prefer the higher special and critical chances, and it involves less calculating (especially those chances) on the fly.

Completely agree. This is what I do. Players love criticals (so do I), and very much dislike having their critical chances reduced to 5% or less.

48 minutes ago, g33k said:

I (strongly) suspect that when you add up the reasons NOT to do this, Chaosium's best estimate is that they "should not" do it (from a business POV)

Completely agree. If a RQ3 redux is done (like the Rq2 redux), it would most certainly be less expensive (and less impressive) than RQG, and could sell more just because of this. I don't have the official figures of sales here in France, but I can ensure it is far more difficult to get RQG products (either in french or in english) than it was 35 years ago for RQ3, even if the price tag for AH products was hefty, to say the least. I am thus almost sure than current sales are much lower than the previous ones were. I have no idea for other countries.

51 minutes ago, g33k said:

And they're not willing to damage their rep and the Chaosium & RQ brands with a substandard product.

They would not. RQCE is not to the level of current products, but it is not a problem. So, it would not be for an official RQ3 reprint.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

I have to give them credit too. It is certainly nice to see what has come out of their effort.

For sure.

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Because you don't have access? If you want to start RQ3 these days, the buy-in is fairly steep. The "monograph" editions mitigated that, though they did lack the Gloranthan information from the fifth book.

Monograph never were easily available in France, and never were available in french, but RQ3 french printing is half the price of the RQG one. I don't know for US or UK, but in France, no kid I know is putting over 50 euros for a gaming book (but their fathers are). Result: I know more kids using RQ3 than RQG, just because of the availability, the price (or the books of their father). My son don't count because I own both editions in english and in french.

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

1) Separation of Attack & Parry skills made shield parry at least as viable as weapon parry.

Even more because base percentage was higher.

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Now in old RQ, where you usually get one defense, shields have other advantages (high AP, can stop missile weapons, avoids risking damage to the weapon,sperate attack and parry skills,  etc.) shields are alright.

Perfectly true.

2 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but I don't think it would be worth raising a second skill just so that you can hold out a little better when double or triple teamed. In those types of BRP games, getting ganged up on is to be avoided. It's like shark repellent. If you think you are going to need it, you probably shouldn't get your feet wet to begin with.

Agreed, but it is still worth, just in case. Even if you avoid that situation like the plague, you are not always successful, and it is better to be prepared.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

But it would only give any benefit in situations where a character faces more than 1 attack. If your opponent is only allowed 1 attack per round, 2 parries are useless.

Correct.

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

It depends on how many parries your version of BRP allows without a shield 

If you can only parry once without a shield, then a Shield will be helpful when you're fighting multiple enemies.

Yes, it could be possible to allow multiple parries only with shield. Not very realistic (I came from fencing, not SCA, and multiple parries with foil or epee are possible within 12 seconds), but would give the requested result.

With current combat rules, there is no interest using a shortsword vs a broadsword (except for cost 25L vs 50L): ENC is same, SR is higher, HP are lower, base skill is same. With RQ3, you had same armor for broadsword and gladius (10AP). In addition, you also had a lower ENC (0.5 or 1 vs 2.0) and some interesting maneuvers with a higher SR or that ignore SR, with the added advantage of possible impales (with the gladius).

For armor, light armor is cheaper, lighter and has generally a better modifier for 'Move Silently' as heavier armor often include noisy metal parts. In addition, as told by Soltakss, you may have a problem of social acceptance.