Sunwolfe

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!

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!

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:

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!

LOL! No doubt, Simon, no doubt 

Greetings Newt and sundry:

I'd like to ask for some clarification concerning the process of Unarmed Combat and Grappling. The issue concerns the proscribed "...one Combat Action...and one Combat Reaction...per combat round." I offer four scenarios, and while I'm not necessarily seeking comment on all four, I do hope some one can explain step-by-step how a grappling round proceeds. Is it an exception to normal combat procedure?

Thanks in advance,

Scenario one: Wherein Bob the Samurai gets two chances "...to dish out the damage!"

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob too succeeds and with his parry inflicts 1d8 worth of damage because Bob's katana is a "...crafted weapon..." Bummer, Gary.

To add insult to injury Bob now takes his ACTION and swipes at Gary with his katana.

Ninja Gary, however, fast guy that he is, takes his REACTION in the form of a successful dodge.

End of scenario one: all parties got one A & R each and Gary is wondering why he chose to grapple with an unsympathetic samurai in the first place.

Scenario two: Wherein Bob the Samurai objects to the "...injustice of it all!"

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS.

Gary does not do any damage at this point: "Instead [Gary the Ninja] opposes his UCS to [Bob the Samurai's] UCS, in a roll similar to an opposed skill test" (58). Gary succeeds, "...and immediately follows up on this success by Throwing, Inflicting pain or immobilis[ing] the target"(58).

Gary scratches his head, "So I have to roll my Unarmed skill again? Didn't I win?"

"Yeah! It's like he gets another ACTION...where's my ACTION?" demands Bob.

"Right. Sorry" mumbles the GM once again and turning back to his reference sees that Bob may "...attempt to break free or may attempt to turn the tables on..." Gary. "Go ahead and try to Break Free with a UCS. If you succeed and Gary fails then you will have "...succeeded in breaking free--"

"Wait a bloody minute," Gary interjects. "Didn't I win earlier and he fail? Didn't I grapple him?!"

Gary and Bob rise from the table and, on the living room floor, begin acting out the now stalled round while the GM mumbling curses frantically re-reads the grappling rules.

End of scenario two...and the game. All parties didn't seem to get an A & R each.

Scenario three: Wherein Bob the Samurai accepts the situation but thinks "...it were crap."

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS.

Bob and Gary now oppose each other with UCAs; Gary succeeds and Bob again fails.

Gary applies the Inflict Pain option, and Bob takes damage.

Bob asks when he can take his ACTION, and the GM explains he already did in his opposed roll.

With a raised eye-brow, Bob nods and asks politely what he can do to break Gary's hold?

The GM explains politely in return that he may attempt to Break Free once per round, which he already did just after he failed to counter Gary's attack.

"Hmmm..." says Bob as he checks off hit-points. He then turns to his smart-phone and begins checking his messages.

End of scenario three...and Bob's interest. Gary of course, can't wait until next round. Did all parties get an A & R each?

Scenario Four: Wherein Bob the Samurai accepts but makes an observation

Gary the Ninja declares he's making a single Unarmed Combat Attack (UCA) with an intention to grapple. Turns out he has DEX-rank on Bob the Samurai, so Gary takes his ACTION, rolls his attack and hits.

Bob the Samurai then makes his REACTION and tries to parry or dodge Gary's attack. Bob FAILS.

Bob and Gary now oppose each other with UCAs; Gary succeeds and Bob again fails.

Gary applies the Inflict Pain option, and Bob takes damage.

As Bob checks off the damage, the GM offers that, "...you'll be able to attempt to Break Free next round..."

Bob nods, "This grapple thing...it sure isn't like Close Combat: he acts; I react; I act; he reacts..."

End of scenario four. All parties did not get an A & R each nor will they get them next round...Gary still has control, he will inflict damage (an action); Bob will try to Break Free (a reaction) and the round will end free or not.

Dear Newt and sundry,

I'd appreciate some clarification on the Create Charms spell. I may have simply thought myself into a stupor and apologize if what follows seems a dense question, but the term "reusable" in the passage...

"If the caster spends one Improvement Point at the time of creation the spell within the Charm is reusable. Other wise once the spell is cast the Charm is dispelled" (106).

...does it mean "reusable" as in a never-ending lighter versus a single-strike match? In other words, does it mean that once it is made reusable, the charm may be used over and over without limit?

Thanks in advance,

Sunwolfe

Thanks, Newt!

The amendment sounds logical to me. I've got one player in love with kusarigama and wants to entangle for control, then close and grapple. What you've got here would make sense concerning Immobilized limbs.

Cheers!

Hey, Newt (and sundry),

Has anyone put an OQ2 errata sheet together?

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

Thanks for the replies! I was thinking the same thing: if magic were very rare, rather than simply the exception in my setting, I might consider following the more conservative route. As it is, I'm going with the: you have it at three...and two and one...for 3 slots.

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

Greetings MW-Users,

My queries concern spell levels and memory.

A 16 INT spell-caster wants to add Sorcerer's Talons (1-4) @ level-three to her repertoire, taking up three slots in her memory "...book shelf...". She now has 13 levels/slots left (16-3=13). All well and good, but then with narrowed eyes she asks, "I'll also be able to cast this spell at level one and two. I mean, I know it at level one and two...right?"

Blink

Can she...or to know all three levels of the spell, does she have to dedicate a slot for ST (1), two slots for ST (2), AND three for ST (3)...meaning she'd have had to dedicate SIX INT slots rather than three?

Cheers, mates, and thanks for the replies.

Greetings all MW loyalists and Chroniclers,

The Entangle spot-rule (86-7). I find the phrase, "A successful entangle prevents movement or attacks by the target, for the rest of this round and all the next round" (86), problematic. I cannot imagine an entangled target passively awaiting his or her or its fate during their turn to act in the round. I would imagine they'd resist at every opportunity or attack with whatever means remains at their disposal. I've done my homework, researching BRP BGB, RQ3, SB/E! versions of the rule. I am leaning hard toward Durall's "...there are few entangling attacks that do not allow for some method of attack, whether a kick or a head butt"(196).

Before I adapt or qualify the rule and drift away from MW RAW, however, I thought I'd query what remains of the once mighty MW cadre (sigh) and ask how you handle this spot rule?

For the sake of full disclosure, the spot rule in question is for a PC who is using a kusarigama with a 3m chain.

Cheers!

For any who were curious, I just got the official word. The MW EG is definitely bye-bye, but when it was available some, particularly myself, greatly appreciated the resource and the work involved. 

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

Hey, Skoll & Hkokko, 

I know the link to the MW enemy generator is no longer valid in light of time and all the changes, but might the MW generator be available via another path...or is it a completely dead project?

Cheers,

Sunwolfe

This is great to hear, Newt! Power on, brother, with what you know and love--the absolute best advice in the world to keep back to the darkness. Long live OQ!

You all certainly saw Smirogan's flow chart: http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/4025-im-with-brp-any-edition/?do=findComment&comment=62421

Interesting to see how the two compare and contrast.

Cheers!

I check here twice a day--after clicking the Glorantha, Call of Cthulhu, and More From Chaosium>HeroQuest forums "mark[ed] as read..."  . And as I'm presently out of the GM loop having been religated to "player" mode (in WH FRP and SW D6), I've got nothing productive to offer.

Sad :-(

8 hours ago, Simlasa said:

...Stormbringer and Magic World don't either.

This is quite true, however, they do/did have the "Luck Rolls" which I use in place of Fate Points with great "by the skin of their teeth" effect :-)

Cheers!

9 hours ago, Pentallion said:

Then the problem with tick boxes IS a myth in other words?

What is the purpose of this comment?

6 hours ago, nDervish said:

...I can also see how BRP could be played in ways that make the complaints more-or-less accurate.

I suppose theoretically this could be, but I haven't seen it manifest in my personal games as player or GM...not in 30+ years of BRP based gaming. Shrug. Of course, each player/GM's BRP may vary.

Cheers!

19 hours ago, g33k said:

I think of this REALLY as a "feature" rather than a "bug."  

This!

And one of the main reasons why I've played this game over the other for nearly 35 years.

Cheers!

Heh, roger that, but if your storage is even remotely like my "storage" that could mean anything from the need to mount an expedition complete with porters and a weeks worth of food or trying to best-guess the lost half of a treasure map blindfolded . Here are the highlights. It might save you a trip or a dreaded case of Whileyeratit-itis.

Honor

• Honor is a characteristic (HON) and is, in a very real sense, analogous to reputation
• Every character starts at ‘0’
• It may not be trained or researched

 Positive HON

• + or positive honor represents the esteem of society
• Positive honor is won/awarded by/for personal success, that is something a character does that is particularly worthy: e.g. upholding his lord’s reputation in dire circumstances, completing a vendetta, defeating multiple opponents, etc., not for good rolls or mechanical or minor accomplishment.
• NPC’s respond to positive honor with, “…good will and respect…” (44).

 Negative HON

• - or negative honor represent the disdain of society
• Negative honor is awarded for stupidity, public displays of rudeness, excessive violence/cruelty, failed vows, obvious abrogation of the honor code, etc.
• NPC’s respond to negative honor with, “…fear and intimidation…            (44).

 Acquisition

• HON is gained or lost due to actions that would change the way another PC/NPC views the character
• No witnesses need see a PC act to gain negative or positive HON
• When a PC does something significant either way, they roll a D20
• If the results exceed the character’s present HON or is a ‘20’, HON is altered
• It is important to note that in the above operation, “+” and “-“ are ignored and a simple HON score is considered, i.e. if the character has a +10 honor, for the sake of the roll it is considered only as a “10”.
• If the experience was honorable, the character adds a point of honor; if the experience was dishonorable a point is subtracted.

 Recognition

• HON is used for social interaction between NPCs and PCs.
• Characters from the same caste/rank multiply HON by 5 and roll on D100, success means the NPC has heard of the PC
• Characters of different castes multiply HON by 3, etc.

 Influence

• HON may be use to gain favor or consideration
• The HON multiplier varies according to whom or for what influence is being exerted: the skills of a master craftsman: x5; acceptance by a master teacher: x4, etc.
• A Social Influence Table from Emperor to Untouchables is included. Each step above the petitioner is –1 from their HON modifier, dealing with anyone below them is a +1.

Cheers!

Nick, I don't want to assume anything here, so do you have a copy of RQ3's Land of Ninja? There is an interesting section therein on Honor as a characteristic which might offer some insights.

Cheers

On 12/10/2015 at 7:27 AM, K Peterson said:

That's a pretty conservative approach. Did your players leverage training rules during their characters' downtime? And if so, was training house-ruled to slow its rate of progression, too?

I have read various posts and game-reports relating players given down-time wherein they trained or worked for income as a regular part of game play. Our games rarely had that. When it was time for a session to end, we'd stop the session where ever we were in the continuum--freeze frame--and pick-up at that spot when we got back together again.

We did have a few "training session games,"  at the end or beginning of a new story-arch wherein we actully roleplayed the training as a mini-advenure. As I recall we used the rules from the book (RQ3) fairly straight forwardly. I did/do, however, HR rule that training must involve a "teacher/coach" whose skill is at least 90% or higher in the particular skill being taught. The results of skills training conducted by fellow adventurer's was reduced by halfish.

In retrospect, I skill training sessions were pretty lively. Some players joked that they deserved expereince checks on top of the rolls for the experience session due to intensity--I'm specifically thinking of a player who was a smith and was trying to improve his crafting skills by forging a quality sword under the guidance of a master-weapon's smith. Challenging materials to gather and lots of breakage :-). I think this route may have made those sessions feel a bit more important and therefore deserving of the attention given them, but, as mentioned, I seem to recall only a few such times.

A stray thought across the bow...I know you are looking for less historical troupes, however, I can't help but consider samurai type bushido. Now, I am no expert so forgive me if I err and don't hesitate to set me right, but doesn't a lot depend on the definition of honor used in the game? 

For a samurai, honor was in the complete and utter service to his or her lord which in turn was a reflection on one's family and ancestors.. Which is why being a ronin was considered a less than desireable state. Service to a daimyo was all. It seems to me, however, that a samurai couln't not also have a sense of personal honor that embraced his prowes, acumen, and status.

With that in mind, could honor then be set in place of neutrality as the ultimate desired state with service to a lord (law) on one side and service to the self (chaos) on the other. A perfect balance between the two would reflect both faithful service to a lord/kingdom/cause/ideal and a healthy regard for one's self in terms of reputation/status/living/ambition. This of course, would only have meaning if the concept of honor embraced this balancing act as a definition.

Mindless speculation...it's been a long day; I dosed off twice while writing...LOL!