Arcadiagt5

15 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think the problem with any solution is how it scales at high skill. Giving a bonus that is meaningful at "starting" skill levels (50-100%) but not utterly nuts at high skill levels (and lets be honest, 200% is not even that ridiculous at starting level with Sword Trance) is super hard

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. 🙂

22 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

While I'm sure there are those players who think they can play a Babs who isn't a psychopath, and thus shouldn't have to play a character like that, they do have to hang around them as a matter of course.

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. 

1 hour ago, Marc said:

I've just updated the help file I created for the Roll20 character sheet.  You can get it in the downloads section, here. Feedback is appreciated

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

2 hours ago, ffilz said:

Are there any previews? What sort of content will be in this? On the one hand it sounds like it could be really useful for my campaign, on the other hand, how many weapon stats do I really need? Also, I understand there have been changes of costs of things between RQ1/2 and RQG, how easy will it be to convert back to RQ1 prices?

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.

2 hours ago, g33k said:

And yet, the Aussies wait patiently... even though they could've had that sweet, sweet RQ goodness months ago!

Never realized what ruddy saints they are!

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. 

3 hours ago, Ryan Kent said:

The map of Miskander's Tower for The Grey Crane adventure from Pegasus Plateau and Other Stories leaves out many described elements.  As a result, it does not make any sense. Does anyone have a better map for that adventure?

Planning to run it at Dundracon in February.

Thanks. 

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. 

6 hours ago, David Scott said:

While a dagger-axe is technically a two-handed polearm, the easiest way to imagine High Llama riders using it is like a polo mallet. When used this way, it's technically a one-handed weapon with a wrist thong. When dismounted it's used two-handed. I imagine that the shaft is much more flexible than a usual spear. Polo is an ancient game (originating with late bronze age horse nomad), so thinking about it this way is a good model in my mind.

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

3 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Heads will roll... 😱

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.

On 10/11/2021 at 3:09 AM, Rick Meints said:

Chaosium very much wants to get VTT content onto Astral, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and the Foundry.

The problem is simple to state, yet hard to solve: Each platform's VTT content has to be created specifically for that platform. We can't just create the content once and then upload it to all of these platforms. We have some in house developers, but many of these VTT platforms mainly use their own developers. Those companies decide what content to prioritize, and while CoC is a fairly high priority item for them, RQ (and any of our other lines) are much lower priority.

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. 

12 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

But it matters

and the situation matters too

for example

<<SNIP>>

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.

1. 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)
2. 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… 

4 minutes ago, Kloster said:

If I were to use Devotion as a modifier for DI, I think I would use the skill as an augment, and use the result of the augment roll as a negative modifier on the DI roll: For example, a Special on the Devotion (Deity) roll would normally give a +30% on the augmented roll. That way, I would apply a -30 on the D100 under POW (or POW+RP for priest) roll. It is thus still possible to loose everything because (for humans) you can not have more than 21 POW and 21 RP, and the max modifier is -50. For Rune Lords, I would probably don't change anything (straight D10), but the augment result divided by 10 is a possibility.

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.