• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sunwolfe last won the day on September 22 2015

Sunwolfe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

139 Excellent

About Sunwolfe

  • Rank
    Book Burner

Profile Information

  • Location
    California's drought-ridden Central Valley


  • RPG Biography
    Sigh...same as most: started with DnD, then ADnD, then...Arduin, TFT, TnT, Stormbringer, Gamma World, Traveller, hybred, hybred, hybred using Stormbringer rule set, blah, blah, blah, Warhammer, Ringworld, Hawkmoon, Elfquest, BUT...skipped over all the RQ I, II and landed on III. I'm not sure how that happened being familiar as I was with BRP-mini and playing all the other BRP based games. I was happy, however, to miss all the Glorantha based stuff and ended up in the alternate earth camp which fit my home-brew setting that folks have been playing in for over 30 years now.
  • Current games
    Presently GM's Magic World and plays in a D6 Star Wars game and a 1st Edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game
  • Location
    Damn near smack dab in the middle of California's Central Valley
  • Blurb
    I'm a high school teacher and a bagpiper. I have a gorgeous wife, two grown daughters, a grown son, three amazing granddaughters and a grandson (yeah...the gray ain't make up); I enjoy writing and have a load of killer friends, both here on the boards and abroad!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,359 profile views
  1. Greetings Karask: As I rule it in my games... I don't believe provision has been made in the RAW for splitting magical attacks--for a Divine magic user this would be problematic anyway considering they are "...automatically successful" when they cast as it's really the gods doing it for them. I believe the ruling was making the point that it only takes a short moment to "cast" (call down) a divine spell, emphasizing the point (130). I believe the case might be made for a 100%+ Religion (Own) priest or a 100%+ Mage to split their skill for the casting of multiple attack spells similarly to Close Combat masters who can split their skill and attack twice (63). That would fall into the realm of house-ruling. As far a the B.M. ranged thing goes, notice that the description says, "...allows the target..." (109). Presumably this means that a caster can cast Vomit or Extra Defense on someone up to "...POWx3 in meteres..." away (100). At the INT and DEX you describe, Alice is going to ace Bob and get to take her Combat Action before he gets to take his Combat Action, BUT that being said, Bob will attempt to resist her spell. If he tries to do so with a Dodge, that'll be his Defensive Reaction. If he needs to resist using Persistence or Resilience, a closer look at the Resist trait description suggests such are not counted as a Defensive Reaction--they seem to happen automatically on a metaphysical level. Thus, INT and DEX are for the sake of order only--who goes first, NOT necessarily for counting exactly when things occur in the round. Be careful not to get caught up in the, "Well, her Vomit spell occurred on INT 16 and his attack wouldn't even have started until DEX 12, so he's vomiting because he didn't get a chance to resist...blah-blah-blah." You will go down a rabbit hole so deep your game may not recover. Cheers! _____________ Two things that were helpful to me in wrapping my head round ti were: 1.) Think of it as Alice beginning her casting at the top of the round and then releasing (casts) her spell on her INT rank. What happens after that, well, we'll just have to see. 2.) Think of parries, dodges and resistances as happening whenever they are needed. They don't have to follow strict I-attack:You-attack protocol. Bob will try to resist Alice's Befuddle spell when the time is right, using Persistence. It'll happen without conscious thought.
  2. Hmmm. That's interesting. They're MLA style page references for the OQ 2nd Edition Deluxe hard cover and accompanying .pdf (which though its pages are numbered the same, the .pdf is chronologically off by one because the numbering includes the cover). (16) is referring to the Damage Modifier table in the center of the left hand column. (30) is referring to the right-column box "Game Master's Advice" and specifically the "When to call for a skill test" advice concerning when to call for a skill test. (60) is referring to the "Ready Weapon" ruling at the bottom of the left hand column. Cheers!
  3. Hi, Karask! Bloody Grappling! We wrestled with this so much (pun intended) and finally found a resolution (posted earlier) we felt was in keeping with OQ simplicity but filled in the holes we felt were there: And I'm glad to report that it has worked out so far and no one has been hurt but the bad guys, BUT, my grappler is justifiably wary of how badly things could go south if her opponent decides to parry her grappling attempt with a broadsword. Cheers!
  4. Hey, Karask! Interesting questions. Sounds like you're hosting an active and lively table. Cheers! The following is how I would rule your scenarios at my table. A caveat is in order, however, to avoid repetition: I adopted OQ over other BRP iterations because I was looking for simplicity. Over the years "Rules-Creep" (a common BRP malady) had contributed to less and less roleplaying and more and more simulation at my table. The RPG fun we'd had when I was a teen was in short supply. As adults, we'd evolved into rule-oriented discussioneers as apposed to roleplaying engineers. Thus, though I have tinkered with OQs mechanics (another BRP disease and as mentioned in other posts), I am a hard-core advocate of keeping it simple, believing that less time in dice-rolling means more time for role-playing. With that in we go! :-) 1.a.) In the spirit of the rules (30) if the situation was not critical or performed under stressful conditions, I'd rule that there was no need for a skill roll and that the application was successful. Next, I'd ask the healer to: "...roll 1d6 and see how well you did." 1.b.) Because I don't use hit-locations to keep track of such things, I would only allow the Healer a single roll for the overall HP damage regardless of how many minor wounds the injured took. 2.) Each combat round is about 5 seconds. Considering all that goes on, or could go on, in a combat round, I feel that's a good middle ground for me without going full Youtube-and-a-stop-watch simulationist on my role-playing crew. While the Ready-Weapon rule does say it takes " combat round" to do so; later the paragraph also says it takes "A single Ready-Weapon action..."(60). Thus, I rule readying a weapon takes their Combat Action, but they still get their Defensive Reaction if they need it (60). BRP combat in any of it's iteration is deadly by nature. I try to avoid taking any advantages from my players. 3.) It's all about the Damage Modifier table, baby (16)! That troll has a SIZ and STR of 52 and thus gets a DM +2d6 to his 1d6 claw. The dragon on the other claw, has a SIZ and STR of 135 and thus gets his apocalyptic +7d6 DM adde to his 1d8 claw. Looks like your table has been written for you :-) 4.) I say no as well; indeed, it's the PC who's in trouble. A shield bash is an attack and therefore a Combat Action. What you've described is a Defensive Action. If it was my troll, I'd decide if the 1d6+2d6 claw was a medium, large, or huge weapon (I'm going with medium). Thus, after the PC's successful parry, I'd ask him if his shield was a small, medium, large or huge? If the PC's parrying shield/weapon was medium sized, our hero is good to go as it blocks all the troll's damage. If it was small, however, PC's going to take half of troll boy's damage because he's blocking a medium attacking weapon with a small parrying weapon. Could be Major Wound time. As for that dragon, I'll be conservative and call the claws (plural) large. PC better at least have a large shield (hoplon or sputum) and an amazing plan because in my game, a SIZ 135 dragon really doesn't need to engage a SIZ 14 creature with any seriousness. Enchanted armor or no, if the worm steps on the PC, concussion damage alone is going to break something that would probably have been better left whole. And if the surface beneath the PC is unyielding stone...well, yeah, there it is. Anyway, there's my perspective! YOCMV! Cheers, mate!
  5. I'm pretty sure, it was a Word file :-T
  6. Me too! Me too!
  7. Greetings, Cdr: Caveat before we begin: what follows is how I rule such things for my game. Whatever you feel is right and in keeping with the timbre of the game you right. 1. I use the Fighting Retreat rule on page 60: A character may move their full Movement directly away from an enemy he is fighting. He may only defend at +25% (+50% with a Medium and Large shield). In such a case I give the bad-guy a free shot if the situation warrants it. If the PCs are trying to disengage completely, I ask them to Dodge at the above penalty. If they are successful, they've completely broken off and the foe, for whatever reason, did not pursue them. A lot depends on what they enemy's intentions are. If they want to kill the PCs, they'll attempt to pursue. If they are simply defending, they may not. Lots of role-play here; I just hang the rule on it. 2. Charge into a whole mass of melee-ing, squirming, milling, fighting dudes. The more foolish and heroic the better ;-). Regardless, the PC is going to have to choose and direct their attack (and the +1d6 bonus) against a particular target. 3. As long as the target of the charge is w/in the charger's distance envelop (5 - 10m), the charger gets the bonus: +1d6 AND the "attack from behind' +25% and the penalty: no reaction to return-attacks. 4. I do NOT allow the penalty (no reaction) to roll over (no more than I would the bonus). Even though your PC is waiting to the end of the round (which kinda makes sense with Great Attack's wind-up and all), the target he hits is going to react, and (unless the target receives a major wound from the attack or has already used up their attack on another target) then he's going to attack your PC in turn. I rule, however, that all that happens in the same round as the attack. When it's all finished, we move on to the next round. If your smart PC has had the luxury of waiting until the bottom of the round (DEX rank X) AND is attacking a target already engaged or has used up their combat action on that other target, so much the better for your PC :-). Cheers!
  8. Greetings all, Just adding my two cents to this wonderful conversation! Good call Newt. Keep those refresh-cards close until you're ready to pull the trigger . IMHO leave the damn resistance table out. To me, it's a symbol of crunch and munch, and I want squish and swish. Other BRP iterations have plenty of rules-creep and granular bits for those who want depth and distraction; indeed, the chart's absence is one of the reasons I've picked OQ over those variations. Highest roll wins in my games. It's quick, easy and keeps the action moving. You roll; I roll. Mine's higher: I win. Done. No additional steps; no extra calculations; no chart consults; no inner maths...just more immersion and mood to enjoy. Regardless of skill disparities, there is always a chance to roll a critical or a fumble that can change the fate and fortune of the lowest or highest percentage. My players role-play very hard for their Improvement Points and deserve to have as big a chance to nail that skill as their percentage can offer. This is why I shy away from crunchy degrees of success, happily discarding "specials" in favor of Critical, Success, Fail, and Fumble. That's more than enough. Don't get me wrong, I've changed and modified a lot of OQ's rules, particularly where magic is concerned (developing Newt's single magic system idea mentioned in an earlier thread). I say change it until it feels right for your group and style (ah, the beauty of BRP) but for me and my players, storytelling and roleplaying trumps mechanical simulation and thus, OQ's simplicity and a swift problem solving mechanic are the way to go. As far as a refresh goes, IMHO, Newt couldn't go far wrong with a simple clean, correct, and clarify. Art work is wonderful, but I don't play art. Textual clarity is more important to me than illustration. If I need a picture of a lamia that more accurately represents them as they are in my game setting, I'll either verbally draw it myself or use Pinterest to help me out, but that's just me . Cheers, mates!
  9. The section explaining the point distribution in more detail spans pages 19 and 22. The section of it you want says: "Finally, distribute 40 points to one skill and 20 points each to three skills not listed with your occupations. These represent personal interests, hobbies, and learning outside the scope of your Adventurer's occupation, and the points may not be added the previously selected skills" (22). Thus, you're free to add those points to skills of your choice as long as they aren't perviously chosen skills. Cheers!
  10. Nope its a case of Protection offers 1d8, that's it. If you want more than 1d8 you learn different spell say "Bob's Amazing Shield" which gives you an increased amount of protection that overrides the Protection spell. Oh, I see. Interesting...hmmm (Sunwolfe muses). Thanks for the reply, Newt! Cheers!
  11. Absolutely! The, "...PC must face parry damage..." mentioned above is a reference to just such parries. Rather than minimum damage, however, I go with the "...rolled damage of the parrying weapon, with no damage modifier" (58). Great description, by the way: "...8 unarmed but dangerous Adepts of the Yellow Mountain in the dining room of their ape-temple." Awesome. Cheers!
  12. Hey, Newt and sundry: Just an FYI for the interested, here's the Grappling mod we cooked up after consulting the MRQ source document and reviewing BRP & MW. Grappling is employed when a PC intends to make an entangling/grappling attack meant to immobilize, inflict damage or throw an opponent. The PC must declare such an intention during the Statements phase before he rolls his die. Due to its unique particulars, Grappling modifies the typical combat round and follows the steps and modifications outlined below. Establish Grapple PC makes an Unarmed Combat attack roll. If successful, his opponent opposes with an Unarmed [Weapon, or Dodge] skill reaction. If the opponent wins, the grapple attempt will have failed, and PC must face parry damage and an incoming attack (Action). If his opponent fails, the combatants are now engaged in a grappling situation and no longer have access to any Combat Reactions. Apply Grapple The combatants will remain locked together, actively engaged, until one Breaks Free or is Thrown. Both will suffer a -25% penalty to any tests that are not targeted at or directly responding to each other. PC rolls his Unarmed Combat Skill minus DEX + STR for Immobilize minus DEX + CON for Inflict Pain minus DEX + SIZ for a Throw If PC wins, immediately apply one of the following special Unarmed Combat Actions: Immobilize: Target is helpless; may only attempt to Break Free Inflict Pain: 1d4+db; armor does not help Throw: 2m, 1d4 damage; armor does not help; breaks grapple In the case of Immobilize or Inflict Pain, the PC's opponent may attempt to Counter-Grapple or Break Free at round's end. In the later-case, the defender uses his Unarmed Combat skill in an opposed test vs. PC's Unarmed Combat skill. If successful, he Breaks Free from the grapple. Cheers!
  13. Hey, Newt: Very interesting! If you would/could/should find the time and the inclination, the spell titles in those three lists would be super. So...if there's no longer a MP economy, casting a more powerful spell version of say, well, "Protection" would simply be a matter of degree; for example, Protection renders a 1d8 variable; Protection 2 offers 2d8; Protection 3, 3d8, etc. ...correct? If you know it/learned it, you can cast it at whatever your casting skill might be at the time. I'd like to explore this "...quick dirty hack..." of yours further ;-). Cheers!
  14. Greetings, OQ2 explorers I thought you all might find a House Rule mod my players and I cooked up concerning shields interesting. Trying to be mindful of OQ2's simplicity, we still felt our game needed some shield tweaks. Weapons including shields are designated light, medium, heavy, and huge in the Close Combat Weapons table on page 45. The term “huge,” however, is only used in relation to shields and can be problematic as it is truly a size designation, in contrast to the light, medium, and heavy designations which seem to describe weight. This dichotomy is further exacerbated by use of the term “Large” in the passage on page 60 which reads: Shields with a size of Large or Huge (i.e. Medium and Large Shields) provide a cover modifier to the ranged attack of the attacker -25% and -50% respectively against arrows, sling shot and cross bow bolts. As there is no “Large” size designation in the table's Size column, “Heavy” is what was obviously meant, which is again more a reference to weight than size. After discussing further shield category concerns and rather than rename the column Weight, my players and I felt a re-designation of shield size was in order. Thus it was decided that, small shields (buckler, targe, etc.) would be sized “Light” rather than Medium; medium shields (heater, round, etc.) sized “Medium” rather than Heavy; large shields (scutum, hoplon, etc.) should be sized “Heavy” rather than Huge; and truly enormous shields, such as the pavise, should be termed “Huge.” Thus the above excerpt was revised in our game version to read: “Medium, Heavy, and Huge shields provide extra protection from arrows, sling shot and crossbow bolts. Archers, crossbowmen and slingers suffer a -25%, -50%, and/or -75% modifier to their attacks against targets armed with Medium, Heavy, or Huge shields respectively.” In addition to the above, it was decided to modify the Ranged Attack Situational Modifiers table and “Cover” section on page 59 to better reflect the House Rule addition and modification. The RAW passage reads: “For missile attacks the defender benefits from the best of the shield modifier in the table above and the cover modifier below,” but there is no “...table above.” Our version reads: “Against missile attacks, the defender benefits from the best of the shield modifiers in the table below...” To the “Target Visibility” section, we then added three rows: Target is armed with a Medium sized shield -25% Target is armed with a Heavy sized shield -50% Target is armed with a Huge sized shield -75% Sorry about the huge table there...something exploded in the translation from word processor to forum :-( A reminder of these penalties was suggested as an additional note under “Range” in the “Ranged Weapon” section on page 47. We also decided an addendum to Newt's excellent “Taking out Life Insurance” advice on page 54 would be in order: On Shields “Your shield is your friend. Regardless of character concept, get a shield and use it. It will prolong your character's life.” For new players, we wrote the following House Rule summary: Small shields sized Light, such as bucklers and targes, will block all incoming damage from Light weapons with a successful parry. Small shields will only block half the incoming damage from a Medium sized weapon and no incoming damage from a Heavy sized weapon.They offer no protection against archers, crossbowmen and slingers. Medium shields sized Medium, such as heater or round shields, will block all incoming damage from Light and Medium sized weapons with a successful parry but only half the incoming damage from Heavy sized weapons. Luckily, there are no Huge sized offensive weapons. Medium shields offer greater protection from arrows, bolts and sling-stones, levying a -25% modification against such missile attacks. Large shields, such as scutum and hoplon shields, sized Heavy will block all incoming damage from Light, Medium and Heavy weapons with a successful parry. They offer even greater protection from arrows, bolts and sling-stones, levying a -50% modification against such missile attacks. Huge shields, such as the pavise, levy a -75% modification against missile attacks. Nearly stationary and deployed for siege or large scale battle purposes (both offense and defense), they cannot be used in the quick of Close Combat situations like the above sized shields can. And don't forget: "Shield-carrying characters may attempt to Parry hand thrown missile weapons (daggers, darts, hatchets, rocks, etc.) if the target is aware of the attack" (58). Cheers!
  15. LOL! No doubt, Simon, no doubt