Horsing Around

[seneschal]

Is it just me, or isn't the Horse write-up in Basic Creatures (Page 27) considerably, um, brawnier than the one in the Basic Roleplaying Core Rulebook (Page 336)? I'm not sure which one to use as a baseline. Are RuneQuest equines necessarily more heroic in order to carry their manly, macho riders?

[seneschal]

No friendly advice yet? None of you enjoyed Black Beauty, My Friend Flika, or Saddle Club in your collective youth?

[cjbowser]

I don't have Basic Creatures, so I can't compare. But, is this the difference because one is a warhorse and the other a riding horse?

[pansophy]

Is it just me, or isn't the Horse write-up in Basic Creatures (Page 27) considerably, um, brawnier than the one in the Basic Roleplaying Core Rulebook (Page 336)? I'm not sure which one to use as a baseline. Are RuneQuest equines necessarily more heroic in order to carry their manly, macho riders?

Hm, to me it looks like the Core Book horse is a more gritty version of it and the Basic Creatures one is more the Fantasy genre one. They do not differ that much, so I would not see that as a problem. Depending on your campaign style, use the one or the other.

There is also a line in the description of the Core Rules "Warhorses are usually bred for rugged- ness (add +2 to STR, CON, and SIZ).". So after you add these values to the written numbers, both come very close.

[Atgxtg]

Well, the one in BRP core was weaker/smaller than pre-BRP horses. So I suspect it was more a case of whoever wrote up Basic Creatures not being aware of the change, and using the earlier stats as a baseline.

[seneschal]

Thanks, all. If you have any other horsey thoughts, feel free to contribute them.

[Trifletraxor]

[Neigh!] Give me some carrots. [Neigh!]

SGL.

[Chaot]

So I suspect it was more a case of whoever wrote up Basic Creatures not being aware of the change, and using the earlier stats as a baseline.

Probably not, as I'm pretty sure Basic Creatures is an RQ3 Creatures Catalogue reprint.

I'll say it again, I really wish Chaosium would make this publicly known.

No friendly advice yet? None of you enjoyed Black Beauty, My Friend Flika, or Saddle Club in your collective youth?

I haven't had a chance to take a look yet. I was also going to compare them to CoC horses and Elric! horses just for reference.

This reminds me about a project I wanted to flesh out. It would be generally detailing horse breeds and adapting an old Dragon Magazine article about dog training to give the horses specific skill sets.

[Atgxtg]

Probably not, as I'm pretty sure Basic Creatures is an RQ3 Creatures Catalogue reprint.

I'll say it again, I really wish Chaosium would make this publicly known.

That would prove my point. RQ3 Horse had higher STR and SIZ scores than BRP horses. I think Jason lowered the STR and SIZ to drop the horse's damage bonus from +3D6 to +2D6.

I notice this a long time back when I worked on the power-STR conversion tables. 1 horsepower in RQ3 is slightly more than 1 hp in BRP.

I haven't had a chance to take a look yet. I was also going to compare them to CoC horses and Elric! horses just for reference.

I can save you the trouble, they have the same stat ranges as the did in RQ.

This reminds me about a project I wanted to flesh out. It would be generally detailing horse breeds and adapting an old Dragon Magazine article about dog training to give the horses specific skill sets.

You might make rust happy. He was looking for something along those lines a few months back to adapt to dolphins.

I've considered doing up horse stats by breed, but haven't done so.

[Chaot]

I can save you the trouble, they have the same stat ranges as the did in RQ.

It looks like SB5 and CoC5 actually share the BRP stat range. RQ3 has the 4d6+18 found in the Creatures book. It looks like Jason went with the most updated version of the horse. Still, those stats from RQ3 would make a great fantasy warhorse.

You might make rust happy. He was looking for something along those lines a few months back to adapt to dolphins.

Really? I must have missed that thread. I remember it being a really simple system that would port nicely to BRP. I'll have to dig those old Dragon mags out this weekend.

[Atgxtg]

It looks like SB5 and CoC5 actually share the BRP stat range. RQ3 has the 4d6+18 found in the Creatures book. It looks like Jason went with the most updated version of the horse. Still, those stats from RQ3 would make a great fantasy warhorse.

I think the RQ3 stats, much like the BRP ones are designed to cover a wide range of horse types. For specific breeds or types, I'd consider reducing the varible and using a higher fixed result. If I recall correctly, the RQ number match up better to the real world weight for horses. I might take another look at doing up the breed/types again.

Really? I must have missed that thread. I remember it being a really simple system that would port nicely to BRP. I'll have to dig those old Dragon mags out this weekend.

See http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/1742-Animals-and-Training

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Okay, comparison time again:

Characteristic   RQ2       RQ3       BRP

------------------------------------------------

STR              3D6+18    4D6+18    3D6+18 (+2)

CON              2D6+6     3D6       2D6+6  (+2)

SIZ              4D6+12    4D6+18    4D6+12 (+2)

INT              -         4         4

POW              3D6       3D6       3D6

DEX              3D6       2D6+6     3D6

Another thing is that RQ2 and BRP horses have 1-point skin while RQ3 equines were beefed up to 2-point hide. Bite damage is downhill all the way - RQ2 1D10, RQ3 1D8 and BRP 1D3; but then BRP adds half damage bonus for horse bites, which RQ never did.

Interesting, ne? So it looks like BRP, along with CoC and Stormbringer, follow in the footsteps of RQ2, while RQ3 with its monster horses is the odd one out. All the rules mention the horse being generic and that the GM might wish to tweak characteristics for different breeds, but AFAIK only BRP goes so far as to provide the +2 to STR, CON and SIZ rule.

I do believe I also remember Jason saying something during the playtest about 3D6 being a bit too much of a damage bonus to hand over to psychotic warhorse-riding PCs. I agree, actually, this was something everybody abused the hell out of when we first switched from second to third edition. Suddenly everybody was galloping about on horseback, lance in hand! I really think we need an "Ask Jason" thread like wot they've got over there on the Dragonsfoot forums, then we can bug the hell out of him with these questions and he'll never finish Interplanetary.

Now, does anyone else remember one of my favourite Runerites, from issue #42 of White Dwarf? That had RQ2 stats for a whole bunch of breeds detailed for different regions of Glorantha.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Vile

[Atgxtg]

Interesting.

Considering that a lance charge has roughly the same (or more) energy than a .50 MG round, and that a "Sniper rifle" in BRP does 2D10+4, I think that the 1D10+3D6 damage is probably the better result. But then, I generally prefer RQ3 mechanics to BRP right down the line. RQ3 is much more internally consistent than anything Chaosium has released since.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Another thing I never worked out while playing RQ2 was why everything from rubble runners to dream dragons had a CON of 3D6 (okay, a few had 2D6+6). It made much more sense when RQ3 introduced CON rolls which varied with the size and/or toughness of the creature (although RQ3 halflings are insane).

[Atgxtg]

Another thing I never worked out while playing RQ2 was why everything from rubble runners to dream dragons had a CON of 3D6 (okay, a few had 2D6+6). It made much more sense when RQ3 introduced CON rolls which varied with the size and/or toughness of the creature (although RQ3 halflings are insane).

I disagree. I think the 3D6 CON made sense. If you look a real world animals, there is noting to indicate that a horse or bear is any healthier than a man. In fact, horses are, in some ways, much more frial than a human.

The problem is that CON reallly should play a bit factor in a creatures ability to soak punishment. That is mostly a factor of SIZ and physical structure. Personally, I think the reverse of the RQ2 method with SIZ being primary is more accurate. It should work that was for poisons, too.

One thing that CON should play a factor in, but doesn't is in Healing Rate. In RQ/BRP a guy with a higher CON takes longer to heal from a broken arm, becuase he has a higher CON (and thus more HP). Frankly I think the healing rate should vary with CON.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Well, yes, if you swap the effect of SIZ and CON on hit points in RQ2, then it makes sense, but as the rules stood it didn't. It made just about everything resistant to the same dose of poison, for example. CON as the rules were written in RQ/BRP has always been more biased towards damage absorbtion than health.

[Atgxtg]

Well, yes, if you swap the effect of SIZ and CON on hit points in RQ2, then it makes sense, but as the rules stood it didn't. It made just about everything resistant to the same dose of poison, for example. CON as the rules were written in RQ/BRP has always been more biased towards damage absorbtion than health.

Yeah. The CON thing stemmed from the fact that in the old days of RPGing CON was the only stat that affected hit points, damage capacity or poison resistance in any way. RQ sort of set a new standard by adding SIZ in, even if it was only a minor adjustment (unless you were dealing with big creatures).

Personally I'd like to see CON evolve more into health and recovery, SIZ into damage capacity, and POW into the ability to function while injured (the ability to keep fighting after being hurt is far more mental than physical.)