Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'rq2'.
Found 8 results
-
-
I converted the scenario "Temple at Feroda" from the Gloranthan Classics PDF Pavis & Big Rubble from RQ2 to RQG to practice the math & formatting, and (hopefully) use in my own game. Figure since I've got a clean and tidy version I'd share with y'all . You'll still need a copy of Big Rubble in some form to run the scenario. As an aside, I found that in RQG baboons have a hit point distribution not provided in "Creature Hit Locations" on pages 10 and 11 of the Glorantha Bestiary. Based on the baboon entry, here's what I determined is the chart for 13–15 hit points. As usual, for each additional 3 hit points, add 1 to each location. Subtract 1 per 3 points below 13. Baboon Hit Locations Location D20 Hit Points Right Hind Leg 01–02 4 Left Hind Leg 03–04 4 Abdomen 05–07 6 Chest 08–10 6 Right Foreleg 11–13 4 Left Foreleg 14–16 4 Head 17–20 5 RQG Temple at Feroda Conversion.pdf
-
So when an encounter of trollkin, which are all identical as the GM is busy and doesn't have time for details, all attack the same person (well 4-5 of them), all at the same SR, the first guy sucks up your parry and the rest hack into you? Doesn't that imply that SR are a static measure of exact time? The 20% penalty is bad enough, and pretty much takes care of this for you. Sometimes you can't avoid these sort of situations, and being taken down by a swarm is realistic I suppose. :). However, it is another piece of book-keeping you have to deal with.
-
Just for opinions sake: does roll weapon damage twice for a special success include your damage bonus twice or not. And does it include any +1 (Broadsword) doubled or not? And, an Attacking weapon cannot take damage from a Parry anymore (for now anyway with the QS rules).
-
Had a game last night where I noticed something I had never noticed before, which is that if your total HPs drops to 0 you die at the end of the round unless healed, same in the QS. The problem is with how on earth you would get healed by the end of the round if you use statements of intent? You would need to be sitting behind the lines with a statement of "I heal anyone who gets hurt". With statements of intent + die in the same round at the end of the turn it is not possible to save anyone? So either you say 'you die if you go to 0 hps' or you delay death one round to allow characters to make a last ditch effort to save them (which is what we have done). Myself, I have become pretty disenchanted with statements of intent, they are too rigid for a free form game, and they are too hard to recall the more players you have. There can be 20 mins between your statement and actually doing your turn (in my games). It has become increasingly difficult to use them (with 6 players) due to the mental attitude of the group (they are there to relax and have fun bashing things). YGMV.
-
Version 1.0.0
37 downloads
This is a Character Training worksheet in excel, although I call it a training minigame because it's damn fun. (OK maybe not damn fun. But more fun than calculating training.) A few comments: Sadly, it does NOT run in Google docs, and I don't know GD's feature set well enough to know if it ever could. Costs are generally based on the estimable Kim Englund's excellent training costs table- listed on the 3rd tab. 2nd tab explains the various matrices used to generate the results. Having made too much training time available to my players early on, and them having lots of cash to blow, I spent a lot of time thinking about the cost/benefits of training. I couldn't argue much with the costs in Kim's table (far better than canon), I thought about "what are the other possible drawbacks of training hard constantly?" Injury: the consequence of training is, of course, the omnipresent chance of injury - strains, sprains, or worse. So I built this sheet based on risk levels for various skills. The odds of being injured are lower with a MUCH better skilled trainer, or training slowly. Of course, trying to train hastily, or self-train (for skills where that's possible) increase the risk of mishap. (Self training significantly reduces but doesn't eliminate the costs as well.) The second consequence is uncertainty: in real life, you never know of course when you're going to "get better"...just that you eventually, probably will. Thus this table. Select the skill to be trained (there are also generic categories like "Other, risky, cheap" for skills not listed) and enter your current skill, relevant skill category bonus, INT (makes training easier if you're smart), APP (makes training cheaper if you're pretty). It will tell you if you can train it by yourself, and you decide if you will do so, as well as if you are taking it slow & careful, normal, or hasty. It then tells you the risk level as a result. Yes, training high levels of climb all alone is damned risky. Finally, I didn't like the determinism and predictability of the RQ canonical method of "ok I have 40 hours to train, so I can train that for 37.8 hours and get a check, woo." Thus, this table turns the mechanism on its head. A player recognizes that "oh, I have some free time, I'd like to train" and tells their DM what they'd like to train in - the DM fills in the details, and gets a result like "After 16.5 hours, and a cost of 45p, you get a skill check." The DM has to tell them "ok after about a half week, you get a check." or "you've trained for a couple of days but haven't gotten a check when the Fire Nation attacks..." It also gives the result, if the DM wants to use it. The sheet will give a result based on the final risk level, and the consequences of a fumbled check. (Screenshot above.) These can be severe...my suggestion is that when training highly dangerous things, serious thought be given to training slowly. Ultimately, the player has to make realistic decisions, recognizing if they're extremely skilled in something, it can take WEEKS of training to get a check. Will they really have weeks to spend? Only their DM knows... Let me know if you have questions. -
I posted this in the Facebook RQ page, but there was not a lot of feedback, so any help appreciated:- RuneQuest 2 (c1980 GW under license from Chaosium) A question for the Rule Lawyers: The spell Fireblade, on the inside cover of the rule book there are a set of clarifications, corrections and Additions which state: Page 38 " Fireblade - An impaling blow with a Firebladed weapon does the full damage of the weapon (11 points for a 2 H spear, for instance) plus the normal 3D6 damage of the Fireblade. The damage from a Fireblade replaces only the weapon damage. If the character using the weapon has a damage bonus, that damage bonus is still effective. If the weapon impales or slashes the damage is based on the Fireblade damage, not the weapons regular damage." The last sentence seems to counter the example of the 2H spear, logically the damage should be 18 rather than 11 (The same info appears in the RQ Companion as well) Runemasters (1980):- Page 10, section 6: "Inverting spells - a number of spells can be used to good effect when used in a manner opposite to normal use. If you are faced, for example with a giant using a great sword (who does 2D8 +5D6 damage), then cast Fireblade upon his great sword. Now he only does 3D6 and furthermore he cannot slash with a Fireblade." This counters the whole impale or slash issue and negates the damage bonus specified above. Just to confuse the matter further in issue 14 of Wyrms Footnotes (April1982) Advice from Rurik (edited by Steve Perrin), feedback to letters from players etc "If a flaming weapon impales or slashes the extra damage is based on the fire damage for Fireblade and weapon damage for FireArrow (which is, after all a lower cost spell)." Is there any further official clarification on this issue? Thanks Byrom
-
I've re-uploaded the D100II SRD (version 1.3) to the downloads section, so everything should be fine and dandy. And I see it's up to 1,500+ downloads! And it's the highest rated file in there! So it occurs to me to wonder, what are you doing with it? I originally created it so people could have something to play the Gloranthan Classics with. Now that it looks like maybe possibly hopefully one day Chaosium will re-issue RQ2 in some form or other that prime purpose will (I hope) fade away, but that still leaves the main point of a System Reference Document - to write adventures and supplements for the mother system. So, where are your Gateway adventures, fellow BRPers?
