CHA requirement for Rune Lords

[PhilHibbs]

Does the CHA 18 requirement only apply if the requirements say "Standard"? Sword of Humakt does not say "Standard", and does say "CHA 18". Odayla, Orlanth, Seven Mothers, Storm Bull, Waha, Yelm, and Yelmalio also do not say "Standard" but do not say "CHA 18", so it seems inconsistent as I'd assume that most of those cults do have the basic CHA 18 requirement.

I think there is justification for some cults not having this requiement. Cult of the Bloody Tusk is an obvious one, as Tusk Riders only get 1D6 CHA. Zorak Zoran is another, since I suspect there are Great Troll Death Lords. This probably should be stated in the cult writeup, the default being that it applies even if "Standard" is not explicitly stated.

[styopa]

10 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Does the CHA 18 requirement only apply if the requirements say "Standard"? Sword of Humakt does not say "Standard", and does say "CHA 18". Odayla, Orlanth, Seven Mothers, Storm Bull, Waha, Yelm, and Yelmalio also do not say "Standard" but do not say "CHA 18", so it seems inconsistent as I'd assume that most of those cults do have the basic CHA 18 requirement.

I think there is justification for some cults not having this requiement. Cult of the Bloody Tusk is an obvious one, as Tusk Riders only get 1D6 CHA. Zorak Zoran is another, since I suspect there are Great Troll Death Lords. This probably should be stated in the cult writeup, the default being that it applies even if "Standard" is not explicitly stated.

While we're at it, it would be nice if it was specified about what "Rune Lord" status *specifically* means across other contexts: for example, is an Adept sorcerer a "rune lord" equivalent?  How about Blueface the Shaman?  (It's relevant for things like the Peace spell.) 

Re Phil's point, the 18CHA requirement is fine if all you're talking about are a very narrow band of Orlanthi (and a few other) cults, but I agree that it's utterly out of place in say, Malia's cult.  Pochango?  I really believe the requirements for what is a Rune Lord are going to be as varied as the cults themselves.

 

[PhilHibbs]

7 minutes ago, styopa said:

While we're at it, it would be nice if it was specified about what "Rune Lord" status *specifically* means across other contexts: for example, is an Adept sorcerer a "rune lord" equivalent?  How about Blueface the Shaman?  (It's relevant for things like the Peace spell.)

I think fully qualified shamans with a fetch have always been considered rune-level.

Edited July 30, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[styopa]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think fully qualified shamans with a fetch have always been considered rune-level.

So a shaman with a Fetch with 5POW and a handful of spirit magic would be equivalent to a Rune Lord?  I'm not just doing this because I enjoy splitting hairs, but when spell effects - pretty bloody potent ones - rely on the binary yes/no answer to that question, the boundary line should be very clear?

[PhilHibbs]

They have developed their connection to the otherworld, so yes I think it counts. Would a priest with an Allied Spirit of only 5 POW not count?

[Scott A]

I think the CHA requirement is meant to be the rule. Any cult that doesn't specifically mention a different CHA requirement is meant to require the 18 CHA.

Remember that one of the way for CHA to increase is to lead a successful battle. Successful warlords are practically rolling in CHA.

On 7/30/2018 at 9:31 AM, styopa said:

While we're at it, it would be nice if it was specified about what "Rune Lord" status *specifically* means across other contexts: for example, is an Adept sorcerer a "rune lord" equivalent?  How about Blueface the Shaman?  (It's relevant for things like the Peace spell.)

My opinion is that Rune Lords means Rune Priest or Rune Lord (or actual bonified Heroes, which is its own kettle of fish). After all, it's the god that makes a Rune Lord what they are, not the person.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Scott A

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Scott A said:

My opinion is that Rune Lords means Rune Priest or Rune Lord (or actual bonified Heroes, which is its own kettle of fish). After all, it's the god that makes a Rune Lord what they are, not the person.

 

Specifically, I was wondering about Sorcerers.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

Specifically, I was wondering about Sorcerers.

In RQ3, you could (and indeed Greg did) say that creating a familiar was equivalent to acquiring a fetch or an allied spirit, it was the extension of the soul beyond the self, an important stage in the development of your spiritual organ. But familiars are not a thing in RQG (or, I think, HeroQuest?) so there's no such parallel to hang that badge on.

[metcalph]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

Specifically, I was wondering about Sorcerers.

Judging by the HQ rules, 90% in one or more spells possible.

[Austin]

On 7/31/2018 at 1:17 PM, styopa said:

Specifically, I was wondering about Sorcerers.

I figure we'll have to wait and see what a more full picture of RQG Sorcery looks like. IIRC the RQ3 Apprentice/Journeyman/Adept/Magus growth isn't in the new edition (nor are familiars in the same sense, as Phil mentioned), but maybe something regarding how many Runes the RQG sorcerer has mastered would provide an ad hoc way to model it. Say, three elements and two Techniques, or wherever you want the breakpoint to be. After all, a "Rune Master" should be measured by how they've mastered runes, right?

Unfortunately, I don't see a way that logic works regarding Shamans. RAW, Peace definitely seems to obliterate Shamans and Sorcerers unless they're also a Rune Priest of a cult. Ex, a Lhankor Mhy Rune Priest & Sorcerer, or maybe a Shaman of Daka Fal. (I believe his is one of the cults which notes that Shamans serve as Rune Priests, and I would personally rule that this makes them a Rune Master, but there's definitely an argument that it doesn't.)

As a potential GM, I'd make up some breakpoint and say "Here's the line where you're a Rune Master, for effects that target or exclude specifically them." It's not really RAW and a little lore-bending, maybe, but seems the most fair in terms of game balance. (Apart from the question of if spells like Peace should really be available in the first place...)

I'm really looking forward to seeing a Malkioni Sorcery supplement somewhere down the line (like years and years and years, I assume). As written I'm personally not a huge fan of RQG's sorcery, but I love the conceptual work behind it. I bet we'll be able to find a more definitive answer then. 

On 7/31/2018 at 9:44 AM, Scott A said:

Remember that one of the way for CHA to increase is to lead a successful battle. Successful warlords are practically rolling in CHA.

But you still can't increase your CHA above species maximum. I think the issue with CHA 18 isn't that it's difficult for humans to reach, but that some species (like Great Trolls and Tusk Riders) literally can't acquire that much CHA. Max CHA 14 (2D6) and 7 (1D6), respectively. I feel like a quick house-rule of "CHA 18, or species max" could suffice as a patch, but it does seem to me like there's an inconsistency in how the CHA requirement is being applied.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Crel

[metcalph]

8 minutes ago, Crel said:

But you still can't increase your CHA above species maximum. I think the issue with CHA 18 isn't that it's difficult for humans to reach, but that some species (like Great Trolls and Tusk Riders) literally can't acquire that much CHA. Max CHA 14 (2D6) and 7 (1D6), respectively. I feel like a quick house-rule of "CHA 18, or species max" could suffice as a patch, but it does seem to me like there's an inconsistency in how the CHA requirement is being applied.

CHA as written in RQG seems to operate like Mana in the polynesian sense as opposed to the received RPG sense.  Half-Trolls and Great Trolls are not just ugly they are also somewhat lacking in spiritual presence., Hence I don't think lowering the CHA limit to species max will work.

Another possibility to handle the CHA requirement is to create a shadow-CHA or Infamy, which is a statistic that reflects all the really bad things you have done.  Thus to qualify for Rune Lord, certain gods accept a Infamy of 18 for acceptance as a rune lord.

[Zozotroll]

Do we even want great troll runelords?  That just doesnt seem to be a part of troll society they would occupy.

[PhilHibbs]

6 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

Do we even want great troll runelords?  That just doesnt seem to be a part of troll society they would occupy.

Maybe not, I merely raised it as other examples where a race can't become Rune Lords. My main concern is Tusk Riders and Broo, neither of whom can become Rune Lords of Thed or The Bloody Tusk.

Great Trolls are a playable race, though. Seems a shame to cut off that line of development, they are even less likely to become priests.

[Zozotroll]

As a player, anything bad for broos is great.  As a GM, yes I see the problem.  And Tusk riders is certainly a problem

[soltakss]

On 7/31/2018 at 3:44 PM, Scott A said:

Remember that one of the way for CHA to increase is to lead a successful battle. Successful warlords are practically rolling in CHA.

But, if CHA uses the standard rules for Species Maximum, Tusk Riders have a maximum CHA of 7, if they roll on 1D6, so cannot become Rune Lords.

I know that CHA can be increased, but only to Species Maximum levels.

It always seemed strange to me that Tusk Riders are always perceived as having low CHA. Normally, the -10 CHA for different Species applies, so an average  Tusk Rider with 3D6 CHA would appear to have CHA 1 to non-Tusk Riders, but 11 to Tusk Riders, this also allows them to be Rune Lords, as they can achieve CHA 18, but be treated by outsiders as having CHA 8.

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, Zozotroll said:

Do we even want great troll runelords?  That just doesnt seem to be a part of troll society they would occupy.

Oh, yes we do.

Greate Trolls serving Cragspider make excellent Zorak Zoran Death Lords, even though they tend to use Greatswords, not Troll Mauls.

I agree that Great Trolls don't make good Kaarg Sons, as they don't represent the right sort of troll.

[Scott A]

For Great Trolls and the like, I'll personally house-rule it so that their Rune Lord CHA threshold equals [Max CHA - Number of CHA dice]. So 12 and 6 for great trolls and Tusk Riders, respectively.

[Joerg]

Vamargic Eye-Necklace was half Great Troll, half Cave Troll, and full ZZ Rune Lord. He might have become a Kitori before becoming a Death Lord, though, thereby avoiding the CHA limit. See 

 

[PhilHibbs]

I just noticed another problem with CHA, it limits your Rune Points. So a Tusk Rider can never have more than 7 Rune Points. At least that doesn't prevent Rune Priests, they only need 5 Rune Points.

[Daniel Stevenson]

On 8/2/2018 at 10:21 AM, PhilHibbs said:

Maybe not, I merely raised it as other examples where a race can't become Rune Lords. My main concern is Tusk Riders and Broo, neither of whom can become Rune Lords of Thed or The Bloody Tusk. 

I would like to point out that The Bloody Tusk and Thed do not have CHA requirements for Rune Lords ("Standard" is not specified.)  This and the low CHA honestly make sense for these species, anyway: a broo or Tusk Rider is much more likely to respond to force than persuasion.  Great Trolls still present a problem, though.

EDIT: I forgot to get to the point of this post.  Broo and Tusk Riders can indeed become Rune Lords of Thed and The Bloody Tusk, respectively.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Daniel Stevenson

[PhilHibbs]

59 minutes ago, Daniel Stevenson said:

I would like to point out that The Bloody Tusk and Thed do not have CHA requirements for Rune Lords ("Standard" is not specified.)

Neither do Orlanth, Seven Mothers, Yelm, or a bunch of others.

[Daniel Stevenson]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Neither do Orlanth, Seven Mothers, Yelm, or a bunch of others.

I know they don't.  I pointed out those two because I failed to see why low  CHA caused any problems for Rune Lords of those cults.