100+ in a combat skill

[Akhôrahil]

36 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Congratulations! Your parry succeeds, and the dagger absorbs 8 of the 115 points of incoming damage. You may check your dagger skill, and apply for resurrection.

What you need for this job is a shield (small one for nicer optics) with the Earth Shield spell on it. Then it's all good.

(Supposedly the "Unbreakable Sword" would also work, if it's properly named.)

Edited January 29, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[French Desperate WindChild]

46 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

What you need for this job is a shield (small one for nicer optics) with the Earth Shield spell on it. Then it's all good.

(Supposedly the "Unbreakable Sword" would also work, if it's properly named.)or

it is better but not enough :  "Knockback attacks still affect the holder of the shield"

my view :

I considere mundane skill only able to manage character referential activity (size, speed, magic, etc..) To manage overpowered activity the character must have super power

 

a mundane olympic fencer  succeed to parry with his sword a tree or a triceratops, or a IRL car, I name this success a "crash test"

a mundane olympic Skjaldmö with the Earth Shield succeed to parry with her shield a tree or a triceratops or a IRL car, I name this success a "first and last flight lesson" (yes earth rune can give you fly power !, only issue she didn't learn how to land)

a hero with heroquest power dedicated to protection (a super sayan Earth Shield power) may survive

 

 

[Jusmak]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

Congratulations! Your parry succeeds, and the dagger absorbs 8 of the 115 points of incoming damage. You may check your dagger skill, and apply for resurrection.

I meant, that with 300 % skill, truck can hit you only at 5 %, no matter what you use to parry with or what is against you. Worst part is not, if parry succeedes always, but the skill over 100 % rule. So, it is that part of the skill, which determines you are nearly untouchable against anything. And with earth shield quite much so. Opponent not only needs to succeed at 5 %, but you have to same time throw over 96.

I noticed that, by my first character - babeester got initiate- having parry streight from start 95 with shield and 90 with axe. It is not very hard to raise over 100%. Earth shield, axe trance both spells at hand. It is even handy to attack with shield and parry with axe to break opponents weapons. She is quite hard opponent to win even from start, much worse if she sometime decides to use those spells....

Edited January 29, 2020 by Jusmak

[Akhôrahil]

7 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

it is better but not enough :  "Knockback attacks still affect the holder of the shield"

Honestly though, did the truck really declare a Knockback attack?

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

What you need for this job is a shield (small one for nicer optics) with the Earth Shield spell on it. Then it's all good.

 

Why does Wiley Coyote spring to mind, holding an umbrella bought from the Acme Catalogue™, of course,  against the falling cliffside?

[Joerg]

4 minutes ago, Jusmak said:

I meant, that with 300 % skill, truck can hit you only at 5 %, no matter what you use to parry with.

Two way to go about this.

1. You treat the oncoming truck as an attack. Your 300% skill allows you to parry in a way that lets you somersault above the truck, like a Minoan bull dancer using the incoming forward momentum for gaining height.

2. You treat the oncoming truck like a rock slide, graciously allowing a parry roll to the automatic hit. My scenario above applies

 

4 minutes ago, Jusmak said:

Worst part is not, if parry succeedes always, but the skill over 100 % rule. So, it is that part of the skill, which determines you are nearly untouchable against anything. And with earth shield quite much so. Opponent not only needs to succeed at 5 %, but you have to same time throw over 96.

There is no short cut to get a shield parry up to several hundred percentiles. If you have a hero with 300% in shield through skill checks, I wouldn't begrudge her the ability to turn the shield into an unmovable geographic feature.

 

4 minutes ago, Jusmak said:

I noticed that, by my first character - babeester got initiate- having parry streight from start 95 with shield and 90 with axe. It is not very hard to raise over 100%. Earth shield, axe trance both spells at hand. It is even handy to attack with shield and parry with axe to break opponents weapons. She is quite hard opponent to win even from start, much worse if she sometime decides to use those spells....

The incoming truck is an area effect attack, as are dinosaur tail swipes or giants with tree clubs. I would give hefty situational modifiers for normal sized opponents parrying such attacks. Probably using multipliers (1/4 or similar) rather than straight reductions.

Otherwise, imagine a Gorakiki shaman controlling a swarm of wasps, rdering every individual to attempt to parry. Some of them are bound to roll a 01, critically succeeding.

 

[Jusmak]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

Congratulations! Your parry succeeds, and the dagger absorbs 8 of the 115 points of incoming damage. You may check your dagger skill, and apply for resurrection.

Argh, fumbling with tablet. Thanks Joerg with examples.

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Jusmak

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

11 minutes ago, Jusmak said:

I meant, that with 300 % skill, truck can hit you only at 5 %, no matter what you use to parry with

As a GM I’d be ruling that parry is impossible in this circumstance ( much like you can’t parry arrows with a melee weapon). Dodge would be the only realistic option. 

[French Desperate WindChild]

47 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Honestly though, did the truck really declare a Knockback attack?

the truck driver yes

but "Honestly though, can the shield really parry a truck percussion ?"

ok it is not in the rules

Something else is not in the rules :

- the rules describe that you need at least one hand to drive a chariot in combat (with penalty)

- the rules describe nothing about hands to play luth for example. Can I honestly conclude that a person with no hands / feets can play luth (without penalty) ?

The play may vary, the GM may vary, the level of simulation may vary

 

[Lordabdul]

Having the GM use common sense and make up penalties/rolls/whatever on the spot is of course always possible (and that seems to be very much the RQG authors' philosophy) but the problem for me is that it's not a black and white thing. Various characters will be facing various opponents of various sizes and shapes, especially when you consider dinosaurs/Chaos/Terrors/etc. I can make a spot ruling when someone throws a tree or a train at someone, but there's a whole gradient, from SIZ 15 all the way up to SIZ 500, and somewhere in the middle is where people might argue -- or worse, where I realize there's a logical problem but I'm unable as the GM to figure out what needs to be ruled because we're in the middle of a combat and I'm getting old. With such a world as Glorantha, it's weird to me that there aren't actual rules for this -- spot rulings are not enough IMHO. Which is why I'm making house rules in the absence of real ones, as that's something that's more dependable in the middle of an action scene.

Edited January 29, 2020 by lordabdul

[PhilHibbs]

*removing dupe*

Edited January 29, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Jusmak]

10 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

As a GM I’d be ruling that parry is impossible in this circumstance ( much like you can’t parry arrows with a melee weapon). Dodge would be the only realistic option. 

Dodge, acrobatics or leap... would do I think. Joerg's minoan bull dancer example was good for describing acrobatic action, which for my liking has nothing to do with weapon skills.

A lordabdul mentioned, I like to have too some situational modifier table ready to keep game flow going. For example I tried to find those area effect attacks mentioned, but could not find them in new ruleset. It's years I last time played RQ, so I rather had those rules also in new edition mentioned instead of trying to seek for them from previous editions.

I am also missing, what is intensity cap of spirit magic spells in this edition? Can I buy from cult bladesharp 15, if I have enough money and charisma? 

[Joerg]

1 hour ago, Jusmak said:

Dodge, acrobatics or leap... would do I think. Joerg's minoan bull dancer example was good for describing acrobatic action, which for my liking has nothing to do with weapon skills.

Taking my inspiration from "dramatic" weapon skills at unreasonable levels of skill.

And I think you under-estimate the acrobatics required for a 300% weapons skill. Footwork, shift of center of gravity, economy of movement...

In this case, using the force of the attacker for the evasive action.

1 hour ago, Jusmak said:

A lordabdul mentioned, I like to have too some situational modifier table ready to keep game flow going. For example I tried to find those area effect attacks mentioned, but could not find them in new ruleset. It's years I last time played RQ, so I rather had those rules also in new edition mentioned instead of trying to seek for them from previous editions.

I have to admit that I don't grab the rules every time I make a decision at the gaming table.

Area effect attacks are not something players usually enact, but they are a useful tool for the GM to cause the players some concern. As the GM, I would find excuses why a 300% weapon skill doesn't prevent one of Cwim's feet from stamping down on the character and his two neighbors. That large a weapon might be treated as multiple attacks all resolved with the same die roll, applying any useful number of -20 modifiers to the single die roll parry on the low range of that effect.

In short - when a rule doesn't make much sense in a given situation, look out for a better way to simulate that interaction. The hobby is role-playing, not rule-playing.

1 hour ago, Jusmak said:

I am also missing, what is intensity cap of spirit magic spells in this edition? Can I buy from cult bladesharp 15, if I have enough money and charisma? 

Rarity of spirits with that high knowledge of the spell. In RQ2, cults provided battle magic up to 4 points. RQ3 had spell spirits as cult spirits, with the Spellteaching magic of the priest summoning one such spirit and ordering it to initiate spirit combat with the recipient. On average, the spirit had 2 POW for each point of spell knowledge. And I treated spirit screen or spirit block as incompatible with the desire to learn the spell - basically ending the spirit's attack.

And I'd probably inflict weapon damage if the magical damage from Bladesharp exceeds the hit points of the weapon, on each hit.

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, Jusmak said:

I am also missing, what is intensity cap of spirit magic spells in this edition? Can I buy from cult bladesharp 15, if I have enough money and charisma? 

That sort of thing is scenario fodder. You want Bladesharp 15? Well, there are rumours of an ancient sword master who is now a hermit living in the Rockwoods who knew it. When you get there, turns out they died. But you get a shaman to talk to their ghost, and it wants you to help finish some task that they never completed in life...

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

That sort of thing is scenario fodder. You want Bladesharp 15? Well, there are rumours of an ancient sword master who is now a hermit living in the Rockwoods who knew it. When you get there, turns out they died. But you get a shaman to talk to their ghost, and it wants you to help finish some task that they never completed in life...

Yes, I was thinking something like this. But it necessitates that you let the PCs know in advance (or just monitor all spell acquisition), because if you have some kind of informal "shopping downtime" and they just go by the rules, it's perfectly fine there to just spend the money and get their redonkulous Bladesharp.

[Akhôrahil]

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

RQ3 had spell spirits as cult spirits, with the Spellteaching magic of the priest summoning one such spirit and ordering it to initiate spirit combat with the recipient. On average, the spirit had 2 POW for each point of spell knowledge. And I treated spirit screen or spirit block as incompatible with the desire to learn the spell - basically ending the spirit's attack.

This seems like it would be beautifully abusable for POW gain rolls, at least for low-POW characters.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Kloster]

55 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This seems like it would be beautifully abusable for POW gain rolls, at least for low-POW characters.

Why abusable? It was so easy having a POW gain roll without looking for them.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

Why abusable? It was so easy having a POW gain roll without looking for them.

This allows you to do it even during complete downtime.

[Godweyn]

The skill check only happens in downtime, soo 1 check per season, no matter how hard you try to kick high POW spirits buddy

[Kloster]

Even when we allowed 1 roll per session (not season or adventure), downtime was occurring during the session, and so you couldn't have a second roll.  The only case that I can see a player can use the trick is when a downtime is done in a full session, with no adventuring at all during the session. This is very unlikely, but possible with RQG, but Joerg spoke of RQIII, and I can't think of a full RQIII session that contain only downtime and no adventuring.

[Lordabdul]

7 hours ago, Joerg said:

I have to admit that I don't grab the rules every time I make a decision at the gaming table.

You don't have to grab the rules if you remember the rules   (or if they're written on the inside of the GM screen).

The point for me is to have a rule to rely on. For instance, the cumulative -20% to subsequent parries is a rule I know is useful in combat. Imagine if that rule didn't exist, and someone started a thread saying they got in a bit of a silly situation where a character successfully and easily fended off 12 enemies at once. I wouldn't say "oh well, this is a pretty rare occurrence, so I would just use common sense...after the 3rd or 4th enemy I would say they can't parry anymore, or they have -50%, or whatever". Fighting multiple enemies is very likely to happen again and again, and whatever spot ruling I made last time will be suddenly elevated to a house rule: "but, dear GM, 3 weeks ago when we fought those trollkins, you only applied -50% after the 4th attack!".

I don't want to end up with house rules that were invented in a half-assed way in the heat of the battle. Such spot rulings are good (and necessary) for truly rare occurrences, like 2 characters fighting while being tied together, or an action scene in a grain pit, or whatever. Parrying multiple enemies, or fighting big enemies, isn't a "rare occurrence" IMHO, so it requires a rule of some kind (house or not)... especially when, like me, you have your campaign location squeezed between Chaos creatures, Giants, and all the crazy big stuff in Dagori Inkarth.

3 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

But it necessitates that you let the PCs know in advance (or just monitor all spell acquisition), because if you have some kind of informal "shopping downtime" and they just go by the rules, it's perfectly fine there to just spend the money and get their redonkulous Bladesharp.

Did you mean "let the players know in advance"? Because you let the players do their downtime shopping between sessions or something? Otherwise, if it's all done at the table, you can obviously keep an eye on it. But it's a very good point that, past a certain level of munchkinery, the GM needs to step in and say that if they want this, it will cost more than just money... gotta remember that more often!

I think some of the old RQ supplements had indirect guidelines for this... maybe the Pavis box set? There was some stuff where it would give the probability of a merchant having this or that kind of goods. That was a great way to remind the GM that not everything in the rulebook's equipment/spell/etc. tables are always up for grabs. Especially when some things require you to, say, go see a Troll or Dwarf person instead of the friendly neighbourhood human merchant.

[Akhôrahil]

6 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Did you mean "let the players know in advance"? Because you let the players do their downtime shopping between sessions or something?

Yes to the first. To the second, I don't do it between adventures, but in Seasonal Downtime I might tell them "right, you can do the shopping you like here" without going into any details, especially if they're in a city where most everything on the equipment list is probably available (otherwise, they might have to go to the trader to check). I prefer it if they tell me "I sacrifice for an Orlanth Rune Point", but it's not really played out, and I'm not sure that anyone would raise it if they went and got a low-level Spirit Magic spell (they might, but it's not something I have enforced).

Hopefully, they will raise it if they intend to get something insane like a 15-point Bladesharp. 🙂

[Mugen]

On 1/29/2020 at 9:42 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

As a GM I’d be ruling that parry is impossible in this circumstance ( much like you can’t parry arrows with a melee weapon). Dodge would be the only realistic option

But how do you decide when it is realistic to parry something or not ? Remember the original question was about a duck parrying a giant, not a truck.

Without the rule for skils above 100%, the answer is easy : you don't parry a giant because it's useless. I mean, even if your opponent is "just" an Uz wielding a Great Maul, you'd consider dodging instead of parrying.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mugen

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

11 hours ago, Mugen said:

But how do you decide when it is realistic to parry something or not ? Remember the original question was about a duck parrying a giant, not a truck.

Though I'm very fond of RQ and BRP game mechanics, personally I would make a GM call in these situations. For me the best starting point would be asking what would be the most satisfying outcome for the story. If its a hulking 10m giant with arms the size of trees, then for dramatic purposes I'd be inclined to house rule for story purposes that:

• This isn't a standard combat situation whereby a 100% + parry skill can negate the effectiveness of the Giants attack. Blows from the Giant that hit their target will hit at their normal chance, and will do large amounts of damage, probably killing you if you attempt to parry -  so dodging is your only realistic defence option. No matter how skilled the swordsman, s/he isn't going to do too much by successfully putting the weapon in front of the giant maul. The Giants at a different scale and doesn't need to play by the same rules. Dodge is the only sensible option.
• I would however allow dodge at 100%+ to work as written in the rules.

Then again If there is some kind of divine intervention, or power gained from a Heroquest, then I might allow 100% + parries against Giant opposition using the rules as written. Some sort of god given gift.

Basically I'd follow rules as written until it seems at odds with the story, then make a GM call.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 1/3/2020 at 12:39 AM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Rereading Jason’s reply, I don’t think it’s as complicated as that. We’re not “splitting parries” as characters can already parry multiple attacks from different sources in RQG. We’re just applying a starting penalty to the parry % because the character has stretched themselves in splitting their attacks. 

The only question remaining is which starting parry % value should you apply if attacks are split unequally? Do you go with the higher or lower % value? 

@Scotty I wrote this question as part of the core rules questions thread, but it appears to have been deleted. I'd understand if someone else had duplicated the question, but this doesn't appear to be the case. What's the reason for deleting, am I missing something? Thanks