Jump to content

PhilHibbs

Members
  • Content count

    619
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

About PhilHibbs

  • Rank
    Codesmith

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    RQ player since 1981
  • Current games
    RQ, L5R
  • Location
    UK
  • Blurb
    Gamer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. PhilHibbs

    That Charming Sword...

    I don't know 5e, so maybe AD&D has been simplified since I last played it (so long that I still instinctively put the "A" in front) but when we started, there were only fighters, thieves, clerics, magic users, and elves as classes so who-can-do-what was pretty simple. And you could only go up to level 3, you had to buy an expansion for levels 4-6. The RQ2 rule book was huge in comparison to the blue D&D book! From that perspective, D&D was a great introduction, and RuneQuest gave us something more complex to move on to. I suspect it's the other way around now.
  2. PhilHibbs

    That Charming Sword...

    I think that's a really good point. I don't. Well, in and of itself it's a good point, but not in the context of this thread. RQ has always been unbalanced, and in 1979 it was not aimed at an already-dedicated long-time fan base. It was aimed at kids. We loved it because of its gritty, realistic unfairness. Mercenaries were better adventurers than militia, and those were the only options. Sure, you can make a case that RQG is difficult to approach due to the Gloranthan heritage that it is built on, and a few of the game mechanics are a little muddled due to the history of the various version (e.g. MP or POW for overcoming spells, new mechanics such as CHA not quite meshing well with the low CHA for certain races that are horrific to humans, and SR being a slightly wonky meld of order-of-action vs impulse). But being inherently unbalanced is not one of these factors, it's a deliberate design decision that dates back to the very first edition of the game. I loved it for that as a teenager, so unless you are making an argument about the different tastes of millennials, I don't accept it. Thinking about it a little more, I think the imbalance is greater in RQG. In RQ 2 & 3, Orlanthi had access to a much larger range of divine magic, but hardly ever used it because it was one-use. Rune Power makes this small advantage into a much larger one. So maybe it is a fair point. Foundchild should at least get Pathway, and True Spear.
  3. PhilHibbs

    Who can sell the cows?

    Well, if the owner of the sword is a member of your clan, you aren't really stealing from the clan if you trade a cow for the sword. I think you would be expected to offer your best loot to the chief, he might well say "Thank you, look after it for me and use it well while you have it."
  4. PhilHibbs

    Character Sheet Fillable

    I've added this to the wiki, alongside @styopa's version. https://runequest-glorantha.wikia.com/wiki/Character_Sheets_and_Forms The files section of the forum needs some work, I think, because I could not find styopa's character sheet even though I know it's here somewhere. I can't find yours in the files section either. Looks like you have duplicated a lot of work, I guess you didn't know about the existing one.
  5. PhilHibbs

    That Charming Sword...

    Creating a set of rules and playing by them is not cheating.
  6. PhilHibbs

    That Charming Sword...

    Yeah, that's a tough one to approach in a sensitive way! The more reasonable example is Great Troll Death Lord. Playable race, playable cult, should be possible, but seems not to be (unless the long writeup in Gods overrides the CHA requirement). Should be in the short writeup, really.
  7. PhilHibbs

    That Charming Sword...

    Charisma isn't all about being nice. Darth Vader would have 18+ CHA in RuneQuest, he's a powerful leader and people do what he says. The Conversion Guide should mention something about converting Rune Lords who don't have 18 CHA/APP though!
  8. PhilHibbs

    Rules Clarification Question, Sleep, Attacks 100%+

    I agree, since the defender's decision to parry or not may legitimately depend on situational modifiers.
  9. PhilHibbs

    RuneQuest High Resolution Map PDFs

    I particularly like the way you can click on the image labelled "click to enlarge" to see a smaller version of it.
  10. PhilHibbs

    Rules Clarification Question, Sleep, Attacks 100%+

    It has to be at the end. The situation might have changed by the time you actually get to attack, and if it were applied before the split, a negative modifier might make it impossible to have done a split of which you've already made the first attack.
  11. PhilHibbs

    Rules Clarification Question, Sleep, Attacks 100%+

    What do you mean, "drop to 100% first"? At the point that you decide to split your attacks, you don't have an opponent. They might decide not to parry, and that decision is made after you have declared your split. So no, you can't, unless I am misunderstanding you.
  12. PhilHibbs

    Rules Clarification Question, Sleep, Attacks 100%+

    Split first, then adjust. At the point that you decide to split your attack, you have no opponent because you haven't declared targets yet. So if you split your 120% attack evenly to try and hit two targets, and the first one has (and uses) 150% parry, then your 60% is reduced by 50. But if that target has already had to make three parries, then he is down to 90% so it's just your 60% vs their 90%.
  13. PhilHibbs

    Rules Clarification Question, Sleep, Attacks 100%+

    Even if that is the offical rule, I think I will houserule that critical and special chances don't need to be re-calculated. If you already know what your crit and special chances are for your 133% skill, what is the advantage of both you and the GM having to figure out the crit and special chances for two reduced skills (although one will by definition be simple, 01-05 and 01-20), especially if they might be changing every round due to different order of parrying? There's zero advantage to making this extra step of changing the critical and special chances, unless both sides have 1900% skill in which case 01-95 is a critical for them both. And right now I'm not going to worry about that!
  14. PhilHibbs

    Tying myself in knots over character creation skills

    I'd go with 50, 75, 90, 100. Simple. All weapons: cap at 50 Same style, e.g. Shalshing: cap at 75. Same category (e.g. 1H Axes): cap at 90. Same weapon (e.g. 1H Battle Axe): cap at 100. Above that, it needs to be your personal weapon, or a specific weapon that you have used a few times. Practice with a similar-skill partner should be ok for this, so if your sword breaks, you have to take some time out to spar before being able to use a replacement at full skill. Maybe 10% per hour of practice or something like that.
  15. PhilHibbs

    Rules Clarification Question, Sleep, Attacks 100%+

    Hmmm, I'm finding it hard to believe that that is correct. I'll have to read the rules carefully this evening. I guess that would be ok... two high-skilled fighters keeping their un-modified critical chances... actually, I rather like it! I hope you are right! It does lead to the rather odd case of a fight with 200% vs 100%, where the participant with 100% is reduced to 5%, all of which are criticals! But... why not?
×