Arcadiagt5

Fair point. I’m not sure how to address it, although I think that there’s precedent for noting that only raw skill affects attack and parry equally. If you look at the wording of Bladesharp it only affects the chance to hit, and Parry only affects the chance to parry. I think a GM would be well within their rights to say that Weapon Trance is an inherently offensive skill - it boosts the Attack chance, but not the parry chance. Although the exact wording does say “skill”, so maybe it is intended to cover both. Which I can kind of see the point of - we are now talking about rune spells, which are intended to be of much greater scope.

One option that I think I’ve used is that if you go full defensive, the penalty for repeated defences is cut from -20% to -10%. I may have given a bonus to the first parry as well.

The battle of Trueford was the hardest part for me the first time I tried this adventure, and this looks like a solid approach. I might have to ste…er… adapt it.

Good suggestions in this thread, thanks all. I’m definitely going to consider these. I will note that RQG characters routinely have very high skills (90+ is routine in my experience as a GM), and can often augment these with things like Axe/Sword Trance, so I’d probably be inclined towards the “if you dodge or parry, you lose the accumulated bonus” approach.

I’ve generally gone with an array that players can distribute: 18/16/16/14/14/12/12. It does create fairly powerful adventurers, but there’s a fair bit of that in the character creation process generally in terms of the large number of skill points that get handed out. Plus I’ve kind of gotten used to balancing fights against higher power adventurers, so it works well enough for me. 🙂

Interesting thread. I do take some issue with the general characterisation of Babeester Gor as psychopaths. My own thoughts are that, yes, the cult does support the more extreme members who are the (in Fate/Grand Order terms) the Avengers of Glorantha but that these form the minority of the cult. I will grant you that they might be the majority of adventurer members of the cult (although I’m currently playing one with a very high Harmony rune who is community minded). But the majority of the cult are the temple guards who need to be organised and disciplined as a matter of course - working in teams, fighting as a unit when the temple is threatened, organising watch/guard rosters (what, you think the Earth priestesses do that?), etc. Admittedly there is perhaps a disconnect between the role of the goddess in the mythology, and the role of her cult in society.

FWIW I don’t adjust the SRs of NPCs for tactical advantage over the PCs: they go when they go, adjusted only for movement & spell casting. Within that framework, the PCs then react in sequence to the incoming strikes & have the option to skip parries of less dangerous* attacks to retain skill for the more serious attacks. The example I gave earlier of PCs fighting multiple ghouls was a real one, and if you’re up against 3 ghouls that’s 9 attacks inbound & saving your skill for the poisoned bites is a serious option. * Noting that this is RuneQuest and even the comedy troupe, er, trollkin with slings, can score critical hits…

I generally require declarations as each attack is coming in. I have had players opt not to parry some attacks to preserve skill for the more important attacks. e.g. an adventurer fighting multiple ghouls may well opt to ignore the claws (which aren’t poisoned) in favour of only parrying the bites (which are). EDIT: In cases where multiple attacks are landing on the same SR, I do allow players to pick the parry order. To extend the previous ghoul example, I would allow the adventurer to parry the bite at the highest skill and then the claws if they wished to do so. Agree with the earlier interpretation of 120% parry vs 3 80% spearmen: the resulting combos are 60/100, 80/100, 80/80.

Thanks Marc. FYI folks I’ve been reviewing earlier versions of this, and it’s a really useful reference for the Roll20 character sheet. Highly recommended.

The Bestiary has previously not dealt with ENC for beasts, treating it as something generally only applicable to adventurers. It was abstracted in the rule on Bestiary p146 as "A horse needs an average STR and SIZ of at least 26 to function as a mount for heavy cavalry." Weapons & Equipment introduces Beast Armor with ENC/10 SIZ. I'm assuming that's one increment per 10 SIZ or part there of? Is it the intention that if the beast qualifies for light cavalry (which I generally take to mean 3pt armour or less on the rider), then it can also (& separately) wear light armor up to its ENC limit & that limit is calculated as normal (Ave of STR & CON, capped by STR)? A heavy cavalry beast can wear heavy armour and the rider? Looking at an average Daron (STR29, CON13, SIZ 29, Max Enc: 21, Armor costs 3 increments of ENC), does this mean that the horse can carry a fully armoured rider and have Heavy Scale armour on Legs/Body/Head for 20ENC?

Noting that the full PDF for Weapons and Equipment won't be updated for download until the revised version is ready for print, it would be nice if we could get the shield table as a separate download. I'm noticing new materials & types of shields in the descriptions, and it would be really nice to see the stats for these.

And downloaded, thanks. Absent an official corrections thread: the Shields table on p89 contains a repeat of the armour table

From previous mentions I think it also goes into more detail on training, as well as adventuring equipment (including ENC for such).

Is this immediate PDF then hardcopy when available? Love the cover BTW.

Patient is not exactly the word. I understand why it’s been done this way but it does sting a little right after having had to wait a couple of months for the RBOM after everyone else got that one.

Agreed. I do like The Grey Crane as an adventure, but oh dear lord the map is confusing. I was adjusting stuff on the fly when I loaded it to Roll20.

Well I’m now imagining my Axe Sister Varena using “Tally Ho!” as her battle cry when mounted…

Oh they do. It’s hilarious. Yes, actually, I am playing a High Llama Tribe Axe Sister with a dagger-axe in one game. Why do you ask?

Special case given the sheer height of the High Llamas. The text supporting this is consistent, especially the High Llama write up in the Bestiary p154, and the fact that Dagger-Axe is a cultural skill for the tribe (RQG p64), along with flavour text in the Homelands section (RQG p119). They need SR0 or 1 weapons to reach infantry at all (Bestiary p154 again) which list is limited to Dagger-Axes*, Greatswords, Great Hammers, Mauls, Lances*, Pikes, Long Spears, & Pole-Lassos* (RQG 208-209). EDIT: For added hilarity, they still roll 1D10+10 for hit location against other mounted opponents (except other High Llama) riders, even with the long weapons (Bestiary p154 again). If you do want to apply restrictions, I’d suggest the * marked weapons above, since those are the cultural weapons. An argument could be made that they train to use those mounted and that the other weapons, although technically feasible, are not understood well enough in the tribe to be made workable.

Largely because based on the last several quarterly reports I’ve seen from Roll20 RuneQuest is basically a rounding error in the stats. CoC OTOH runs to about 10% of games, which makes it a major player in the “Not D&D 5E” market segment.

That's true, but not quite what I was getting at. The point I was trying to make was that the expected return from an Augment in terms of average benefit/penalty is independent of the ability being augmented. I was also trying to illustrate where, from that perspective, the break even points are. Yes, the situation matters, and yes depending on the target ability, the tactical effect of an augment can vary wildly.

I've done a similar analysis, but took a different approach. Essentially I only looked at the ability being used to provide the augment. I drew up a table from 1 - 100, and for each value calculated the chance of: A critical success (for a +50 augment) A special success (for a +30) (incidentally an ability has to be >= 8 for there to be separate critical and special success chances) A success (for a +20) A fail (for varying penalties) Fumble (for varying penalties) I then calculated the average return at each augmenting level as equal to: Chance of a Critical x 50 + Chance of a Special x 30 + Chance of a Success x 20 + Chance of a Fail x Penalty + Chance of a Fumble x Penalty (assessed at -100 for Runes/Passions) The breakeven point for augmenting with a skill is about 49, 51 for a Rune, and 60 for a passion. The latter assumes that the -10 to everything is worth about -30 in the calc. The key difference in my analysis is that I don't think the value of the skill being augmented matters - it's the source of the augment that determines the average return (which rises to about 20 across the board when the source ability reaches 100). And here it is as a chart:

Congrats on the lucky rolls. 🙂 It’s a matter of taste. I’ve adopted an array approach - 18-16-16-14-14-12-12 - that my players can distribute as they see fit. It’s possibly at the high power end of the spectrum but it’s consistent across all characters and I do find that it makes it easier for me to balance encounters* if I have that consistency in capability. * Perverse Roll20 dice that make fights way more exciting than they’re supposed to be notwithstanding…

I like this idea better than my own thought.

I would probably pro-rata it. Allow the augment, and divide the final result by the adventurer’s POW. So on POW10 and a normal success on the augment, 1-3 - lose 1 POW, 4-6 - lose 2 POW, etc. Rune Lords continue to roll 1D10 but lose what they roll - that’s the price of guaranteed success. Rune Priests work like Initiates, but use RP + POW as the divisor & spend from RP first.