Sunwolfe

Members
  • Content count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Sunwolfe last won the day on September 22 2015

Sunwolfe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

About Sunwolfe

  • Rank
    Book Burner

Profile Information

  • Location
    California's drought-ridden Central Valley

Converted

  • 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--moved on to BRP-BGB, then RQ VI (now Mythras), then MW and finally OpenQuest. I am not, nor ever have been, a Gloranthaphile (though I respect those who are) preferring the alternate earth camp which fits my home-brew setting that folks have been playing in for nearly 40 years now.
  • Current games
    Presently GM's an OpenQuest variant 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

1,364 profile views
  1. I see where you're coming from on this and agree. It takes a round to ready a weapon. In my game, however, that only represents their combat action; they still get a Reactive Action (dodge or parry) in response to an incoming attack during the round they ready the weapon. That's what shields on the off hand are for ;-))) That's a good question. Presumably you could house-rule that archers with ranged skills of >100% could split their attacks and launch multiple arrows. It might have something to do with limitations on rate-of-fire and physically loading the weapon.
  2. Heya, Karask! "You can cast Avoidance up to POWx3 meters as well, right?" Well, that's for you as the GM to call. In my game, Avoidance is a Touch range spell and cannot be cast at distance. There is no reference to it being "Ranged" in the description and it just felt right to me (no pun intended). Another question. When starting Sorcerers or Priests the rules say +40 to the appropriate skill but it doesn't say what to remove to "pay" for that extra 40 (which other PCs won't benefit from). How to you balance that? (Just asking... probably I won't allow sorcery/divine spells at the beginning) In a way you answered your own question :-) I assume you're talking about the "Start with a Religion (Chosen Cult) of INT+40" and "Start with a Sorcery Casting INT+40" on page 20. These are Advance Magic (Optional) rules for players who want to start out with more experienced casters who have gone beyond Battle Magic. That +40 points reflects a more experienced character. Nothing needs to be removed from the other points pools to balance things out. Usually players start out with Battle Magic, "...at the beginning..." and later advance to Divine or Sorcery based on game play and history. BTW, if you have a Close Combat oriented character who grouses a bit about the casters getting a +40% break, toss 'em an extra 40 points to divide up amongst their melee skills (close, ranged, unarmed, dodge). Cheers!
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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!
  6. 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 mind...off 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 "...one 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!
  7. I'm pretty sure, it was a Word file :-T
  8. Me too! Me too!
  9. 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 want...is 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!
  10. 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!
  11. 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!
  12. 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!
  13. 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!
  14. 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!
  15. 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!