Jump to content
MOB

RQG Glorantha Bestiary Corrections Thread

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, filkertom said:

P. 8 — flying:  a creature will fall its SIZ in meters each round if conscious? If unconscious... it will fall faster, as determined by the GM? Um... really? Does the physics bear that out? 

(The Falling rules in RQ:G do not mention the time taken to fall.)

It would be nice, if the falling would be near the real world physics, to make things easier for players to understand, which would be about 10 meters per second. Now big creatures (like Crimsonbat) falls 16 meters/second and should do more if unconscious. But windchild falls about 1 meter/second, so how fast they should fall if unconscious? Could it be something like 12 meters per strike rank when unconscious and otherways something less determined by GM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 7Tigers said:

For info, RQ3 rules proposed (Box Set - Glorantha Book page 29):
Loss of one of a scorpion man's multiple legs will not in­capacitate it, though if it loses two on one side, it is slowed and can­not attempt any Agility skill. If it loses all three legs on one side, it is immobilized. Damage to a scorpion man's legs does not subtract from its total hit points.

That would be a useful addition!  (Pretty much how I played their state, too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

It's not gravity. A conscious flier is generally attempting to not fall, such as flapping wings, gliding, etc. vs. an unconscious plummeting without any effort to stay aloft. 

That's fine, but I'm just saying that it has little to do with real world physics, which was the question asked. From a physics standpoint (and as I've said it probably doesn't apply in Glorantha) a bigger creature is going to need larger wings (or magic) in order to fly, and require the same lift to weight ratio (better than 1) to fly as a smaller creature. What would vary would be the wing loading, which would be a factor of how fast it would have to either move forward or beat it's wings to stay aloft. But SIZ should cancel out- it if didn't then large creature wouldn't be able to fly. But again, that's assuming real gravity and doesn't factor in for magic. 

From a physics standpoint would be more sound to to tie the "controlled fall" glide rate to a creatures Move, instead of SIZ. But again, this is Glorantha and real world physics need not apply here. 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Risto Welling said:

It would be nice, if the falling would be near the real world physics, to make things easier for players to understand, which would be about 10 meters per second.

Uh, no. In the real world objects accelerate at approximately 10 meters per second per second, they don't fall at a constant velocity. That's why a 100 meter fall is usually fatal and a 1 meter fall usually isn't. This means that an object (living or otherwise) picks up speed as it falls. An object that falls for 2 seconds is traveling twice as fast as one that drops one second, it doesn't fall twice as far. 

So a flier gliding at a constant rate is better off than someone falling. 

Edited by Atgxtg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Uh, no. In the real world objects accelerate at approximately 10 meters per second per second, they don't fall at a constant velocity. That's why a 100 meter fall is usually fatal and a 1 meter fall usually isn't. This means that an object (living or otherwise) picks up speed as it falls. An object that falls for 2 seconds is traveling twice as fast as one that drops one second, it doesn't fall twice as far. 

So a flier gliding at a constant rate is better off than someone falling. 

very true, but no simulation is needed. But it can bring out some questions, when similar failure brings catastrophic fall (180 meters) to one, and very light (7 meters) fall to other. Thats why a fixed number could be better? Surely thats only me. But ie Gargoule SIZ 36, Fly 35 shall be a falling stone before characters have time to do anything, which doesn’t sound right. Thats why a fixed number when unconscious would serve me better. That would be more helpfull, since then GM could wonder if the failure is causing the flyer to crash, and if not, then how much the flyer descents. Now the rules determine the descent, which shall most often cause a crash.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Risto Welling said:

very true, but no simulation is needed. But it can bring out some questions, when similar failure brings catastrophic fall (180 meters) to one, and very light (7 meters) fall to other. Thats why a fixed number could be better?

I think so. Or tie it to move. That would give you some variation, be closer to real world physics, and  would prevent big creatures from always, going splat before you can do something about it. But that's just my opinion

1 minute ago, Risto Welling said:

Surely thats only me.

No, I'm with you, but then I prefer the game mechanics to be ground in real world physics. I'd love to match up falling damage (1D6 per 10 feet) with collisionon damage (1D6 per 10mph) since it is the same force acting the same way, but that's not the way most people want to go. 

1 minute ago, Risto Welling said:

But ie Gargoule SIZ 36, Fly 35 shall be a falling stone before characters have time to do anything, which doesn’t sound right. Thats why a fixed number when unconscious would serve me better. That would be more helpfull, since then GM could wonder if the failure is causing the flyer to crash, and if not, then how much the flyer descents. Now the rules determine the descent, which shall most often cause a crash.

It doesn't sound right to me either, but it might be right for Glorantha. We don't know if real world physics apply, or if rock falls faster that wood. Remember, it's not even a planet.  Me, I'd tie the distance to creatures move rate, but that's just me. That said, even falling at SIZ per round is pretty generous. In the real world a large object like a SIZ 70 dragon could fall up 700 meters in a 12 second round, so 70 is pretty generous. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a mod here, but finding the physics-vs-mythic simulation of falling (& rules about all that) REALLY off-track for the Bestiary Corrections thread.

NormallyI'd consider this WELL within the bounds of "reasonable" thread-drift, but (a) we aren't gonna see the Bestiary promulgate a new RQG Falling Rule, & (b) we're trying to keep THIS thread serving the specific purpose of correcting the Bestiary within a (very limited) pre-printing timeframe...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jongjom said:

Page 72. owes one's existence is no importance

Nope, it's correct as written. "Is of no import" is a valid construct.

Edited by Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK with PC's for different races it is unclear what to do about passions and runes, I can put something together based off the rules but i'm guessing and it seems inconsistent. 
Clearer consistent direction would be helpful.

The cultural and professional skills seems better, except for the dwarves where I assume  they are combined for each caste, however this is an assumption and clearer signposting would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 87 and 88

Telmori Special Rune Magic is listed in a different sequence  on these two pages. Change the order on page 87 so Wolf's Head is in the correct place 

Edited by jongjom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 82 Create Zombie

This does not end up "applying the equivalent of Strength and Vigor spells" because on page 129 it's x1.5 of the original STR and CON. 

This appears to be a holdover from earlier editions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The back cover has ducks as one of the "unique Gloranthan creatures" 

Really?! 

They've already been mentioned once on the back cover. Surely that's enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jongjom said:

The back cover has ducks as one of the "unique Gloranthan creatures" 

Really?! 

They've already been mentioned once on the back cover. Surely that's enough!

Tree times would be better ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

OK, weird one this - but why the latin names in the bestiary. Is Latin used in Glorantha? 

 

You could also ask, if any English is used in Glorantha ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, g33k said:

Not a mod here, but finding the physics-vs-mythic simulation of falling (& rules about all that) REALLY off-track for the Bestiary Corrections thread.

NormallyI'd consider this WELL within the bounds of "reasonable" thread-drift, but (a) we aren't gonna see the Bestiary promulgate a new RQG Falling Rule, & (b) we're trying to keep THIS thread serving the specific purpose of correcting the Bestiary within a (very limited) pre-printing timeframe...

Thank you. 

Please take any discussion of falling damage rules in RQ (and RPGs in general) to another thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

OK with PC's for different races it is unclear what to do about passions and runes, I can put something together based off the rules but i'm guessing and it seems inconsistent. 
Clearer consistent direction would be helpful.

The cultural and professional skills seems better, except for the dwarves where I assume  they are combined for each caste, however this is an assumption and clearer signposting would help.

I've clarified the bit about new Runes in the rules. 

Skills follow the same procedure as in the core rulebook... the "(XX)" value replaces the skill's base chance, and the "+XX%" is added to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boxed text in page 177 seems to make reference to some other piece of text that is missing. I can't find any reference to windhags, pale maidens, bridgekeepers and well spirits anywere in the book.

Very nice books by the way...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maikel said:

The boxed text in page 177 seems to make reference to some other piece of text that is missing. I can't find any reference to windhags, pale maidens, bridgekeepers and well spirits anywere in the book.

From "Local Spirits and Sylphs" by Michael Raaterova:
http://www.pensee.com/dunham/se/spirits.html

Quote

 

Windhags: Hang some bells in a tree to keep the windhag occupied, playing with them and listening to the sounds they make, so she won't suck the breath out of your children, cattle, sheep or horses.

Pale maidens: Sacrifice something valuable, like a newborn horse, calf or sheep to the pale maidens of the river (or the river itself) so they won't drown your children. The pale maidens can't bear children themselves, and so they jealously steal/drown mortal children.

Bridgekeepers: Always pay the toll to the monster under the bridge for safe passage (this wasn't originally a toll, but a lure to fool the bridgekeeper from eating you).

Wellspirits: To keep the water of your well fresh, keep the earthwater spirits happy. The first taste of your wine or beer should do the trick.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

I've clarified the bit about new Runes in the rules. 

Skills follow the same procedure as in the core rulebook... the "(XX)" value replaces the skill's base chance, and the "+XX%" is added to that. 

Does the Bestiary mention if  Runes are already factored into the Creatures. For example, trolls don't get an extra +2 SIZ for having the Darkness Rune?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...