GAZZA

That's certainly an interesting idea. I realise that the whole "CHA makes more sense for spirit magic because it's not an intellectual exercise" paradigm is now upon us, but ... how then does one justify "forgetting" spirit magic spells? When it was INT based, that was fairly straightforward to justify, but it's harder to explain how you can just decide to chip out bits of your personality. But deciding to exert your personality to erase things that were imposed upon it - like what the teaching spirit does in your example - might be one way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but only straight success/failure matters for Rune spells and Spirit Magic spells, right?

I must confess that I've never really understood why anyone enchants MP storage matrices; in every version of the game that I am familiar with, there is an equivalent method of storing a spirit in such a way that you can use its MPs, and it will regain them on its own; typically you can get far more MPs per point of POW this way. Is it some sort of "don't abuse spirits" thing? I realise that technically spirits are subject to (e.g.) Control spells, but I believe only if you don't have appropriate conditions. I do realise that MP storage items are not uncommon as treasures in published adventures or even as family heirlooms in the new RQG rules, but I've rarely seen any PCs enchant one.

Since my campaign started in 1615 rather than 1625, in a sense Chaosium have already done this for me.

(snip!) I mean, sure, but none of that is in the spell description (shrug). Even in RQ3 there was nothing in the Tap spell that said it was evil - there was a brief mention of the sorcerer in Rurik's party having been told that Tapping was evil, and in Sandy's Sorcery there were various Malkioni groups that did or did not allow Tapping (and it's generally true that the ones that did were bad guys) - but it's still mechanically broken if the only downside to it is the old standby of ancient red dragons swooping down from the sky to express their displeasure. What might a balanced Tap spell look like? I would suggest one that came with some sort of disadvantage - let's say, a cumulative chance of getting a Chaos Feature from the Curse of Thed table every time you Tap. That would seem to fit both thematically and mechanically. Or something like the old D&D Potions of Longevity, with a cumulative chance every time you Tap that this next Tap will be the one that eats your soul. Or to fit your description, a cumulative chance that "something bad" will happen - perhaps a random Chaos creature will be summoned, or even created. (That still wouldn't bother a lot of Brithini, of course).

I would imagine, in theory, that a shaman could discorporate and initiate spirit combat, exorcising the spirit if he reduced its magic points to zero. I'd say that if there were any conditions on the enchantment, that the shaman would have to meet them in order to be able to do this, which in some cases (e.g. "Only I can use this enchantement" followed by my subsequent demise) would indeed mean that killing the animal was the only way.

Would this prevent "coming back from the dead"? (As opposed to "being resurrected"; that is, I'm talking about something like the Lightbringer Quest, or the Pharoah's self resurrection deal, or some other Heroic means of coming back to life). If so it looks a lot easier than the Grisly Portions.

Thanks a lot for this!

I wouldn't necessarily say they make up their mind quickly by choice but peer pressure is a very effective tool. Thanks for the link to the runes, that looks very handy.

Oh no, I do. By "I just call out..." I didn't mean to imply I skipped Statement of Intent, merely that I don't use the Roll 20 turn tracker for Strike Ranks.

There is a Strike Rank table in Roll20, but I'm not using it personally. While there is a lot of discussion on how complex Strike Ranks can get in RQG, I must confess that in play it hasn't tended to be that much of a problem for me to need a table (indeed, I've found less need for it than a turn tracker for D&D). I just call out "Strike rank 1, 2, 3..." and see who says "That's me"; I would be far less than astonished to find that we're doing some things "wrong" but I don't think we're making any gross errors. That said I can see the appeal of a tool if you'd like it. As far as I know the one in Roll 20 works.

Come for the RQ stuff, stay for the schooling - very interesting stuff there.

What about Duke, as in Duke Raus? I always assumed that was a higher rank than "Count" but the above table makes that somewhat ambiguous? (BTW thanks for this, this is good stuff!)

I see one possible problem with saying that all sailors use Shiphandling: Shiphandling is a base 0 skill. That means the classic case where thugs bash drunk blokes over the head and they wake up chained to an oar at sea is futile, since they would require (in RQG) a season's worth of instruction before they could help at all. (Though I'd freely admit that's probably taking game-mechanics-as-simulation to an extreme). I wouldn't think it takes any particular skill to row; champion rower teams are usually about coordination and physical prowess rather than masters of an arcane skill. (I've never rowed for Oxford, feel free to correct me on this). The old stand by of some dude drumming while another cracks a whip ought to be enough to get even Joe Dimwit rowing, if not optimally, then at least sufficiently well. Similarly I think you could probably swab the deck without any particular knowledge of Shiphandling, and there are probably other mindless drudgery tasks too. Of course Shiphandling is going to be the right skill for something like trimming sails, or navigating, or figuring out the best way to tack into the wind. (I watched the America's cup back when the Aussies briefly won it, I haven't really followed sailing since). There are also plenty of other skills you'd need on board a ship I'd think. Lore skills to know where you're going, Climbing skills to get up to the crow's nest, Scan skills for ye olde "Ship Ahoy!" checks, and of course combat skills for when the pirates board - but while I agree professional sailors doubtless have Shiphandling, not everyone on board would necessarily have or need it. I'm not sure the same can be said about Boating; presumably if Boating includes rowing (which I imagine it does; as far as I know the distinction between "boat" and "ship" is that a ship can carry boats, but I don't think that's the usual distinction; I think RQ in particular assumes that small waterborne vessels are boats, and large ones are ships), then it wouldn't necessarily be unreasonable to require those on board a ship to make Boating rolls occasionally.

Yep, that's fair.

Err... I never mentioned Cults of Terror, you brought that up. The assymmetric table I was referring to is in the current RQG core rulebook, page 311. It may or may not be identical to that in Cults of Terror - I haven't checked, since I don't really regard that as particularly relevant. The rest of your post basically admits you weren't even talking about the same thing as me, so I'm not sure I have anything to add to that.

I'm wondering where "donated money" or even "money" was something I mentioned? My point is that if one cult is hostile to the other, but the other is not hostile to the first, then as far as the current rules are concerned it is unclear whether you can join them both if you do it in the right order. This would not be the case if the table was symmetrical (as the existing rule covers the case where you want to join a second cult hostile to your first cult; a symmetrical table would mean that switching the first and second cults around couldn't change the hostility). Hence, the assymmetrical table is "problematic" since we have to dig into supplemental material for a product that is decades old to find any rules here. You appear to arguing against points I am not making.

Sure, but you can't reasonably expect players of RQG to have to refer to RQ2 supplements for the current rules. As I say I have most of the old RQ2 stuff in print, some of it in better condition than others, and I'm running River of Cradles converted to RQG - so sure, I personally could have done that, but RQG is supposed to be usable as a stand alone product (or at least not requiring any other products from older releases of RQ; it's probably fine to say you need the Bestiary, for example). Go too far down that path and you quickly start to wonder why you're not just flat out playing RQ2 instead.

But neither of them are hostile, so really, an example wasn't even needed. The corner case is for something like Orlanth/Daka Fal. If we were to extrapolate the example: If you're currently an Orlanth initiate, and you ask if you're allowed to join Daka Fal, your priest would be all, "Sure dude, go for it. Say hello to your dead Mom for me." You'd then go to the Daka Fal priest, who would spit on your Orlanth loving feet and have you ejected from the temple grounds by bouncer ancestors. If you're currently a Daka Fal initiate, she'd probably assign you the equivalent of latrine cleaning duties for a month for even having the temerity to ask. In any case I am not sure I am 100% on board with this rule. I believe that initiates form a connection to a god, not any particular temple. This has two implications: First, you can't shop around for a more chill Daka Fal priest that has Orlanthi drinking buddies. The gods themselves are opposed, even if their human representatives are not. Secondly, you don't necessarily need permission if the god wouldn't have a problem with it, and if you meet all cult requirements for both cults. I mean, otherwise if you find yourself far from any temples to your god - a not entirely unknown circumstance for many published adventures - then you can't join any other cults for that sweet, sweet divine magic even if the gods themselves are best buddies, because you can't contact your home temple (again, even if you know for a fact that your original temple would be cool with it). Happy to believe that's a case of YGMV though; PCs in my games would often find it rare to worship at the same temple twice.

Which makes the assymmetrical nature of the table ... problematic.

Right, which is why I said apparently you can be Daka Fal/Orlanth if you join Daka Fal first (since Orlanth priests won't mind). Although I'm honestly not sure when you head back to your Daka Fal priest she'll be all that happy with you.

But this is an excellent answer - kudos!

Yeah this is my understanding as well, hence the question.

While I do in fact have Cults of Prax (didn't think to check it), I don't think that can be regarded as a commonly available resource any more. Still, cheers, good to know that the Sables are "Storm Bull Lite" as it does explain how so many adopted the Lunar Way.

Nah I'm with you, I dislike the randomness of RQ combat, especially since so many otherwise evenly matched combats come down to a lucky die roll. But I also don't have any ideas on how to fix it; the reason evenly matched combats come down to a lucky die roll is often because normal success/parry results in nothing happening, and even an unparried attack can bounce with decent armour and magic. Specials and especially criticals are often the only way to break that deadlock; throwing out criticals and specials means having to potentially change a lot more. (Which is not to say that I advocate for a more D&D style pile-o-hit-points option either; I like D&D just fine but I don't think all RPGs have to be D&D). I always thought that Strengthening Enchantment from RQ3 helped; part of the issue with RQ combat is that compared parry armour and armour points, your hit points are a small fraction, so anything strong enough to even occasionally get through your armour will be an instajib if it is able to bypass your armour. Strengthening Enchantment allowed you to increase your number of hit points so this was no longer as big a discrepancy, so you could occasionally take a special without going instantly negative, and even take the odd critical without going instantly double negative. But I believe a lot of players feel that the lethality of RQ combat is a feature, not a bug, and I cannot honestly say that I am entirely opposed to that either.