On bonuses

[Brootse]

 

What are giants' basic skill percentages? Are they the same they were in RQ3? Or are they the same as humans'? If they are the same as humans', then a 9m tall giant would be a great craftsman in every craft with his +65% Manipulation bonus. And if they are the same as in RQ3, then the 9m tall giant would still be a great leatherworker. And Great Trolls are not only great in size, they are also great at picking pockets. Perhaps STR should be removed from the Manipulation bonus? It makes no sense.

And do you need brains to brain someone? In my opinion, no. Weapon skills should logically use the same bonus as Jump and Dodge, ie. the Agility bonus.

 

 

[womble]

I'd far rather fight a trained lackwit than a trained genius of similar motivation; the genius will adapt to my actions way better than someone who's just been drilled and doesn't have the creative spark to think outside their kata.

In some ways it makes sense that a giant would be a good crafter: their strength means they can manage things a human-strength character couldn't. Their size should count against them in some way though; they'll struggle with really fine work. 'Tis the problem with a generic bonus.

[PhilHibbs]

I'm prepared to just accept that the RQG system is not built to deal with giant PCs. If I put a giant up against the party, his crafting skills probably aren't going to come into play.

[styopa]

It's one the aspects where the (STAT+STAT) as base for various skills worked quite well, I believe that was RQ6.  Nevertheless, even with that you had kludgy non-consistent results (tigers are huge, but stealthy AF...) in some narrow cases.

No model is a perfect representation of the modeled.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

Nevertheless, even with that you had kludgy non-consistent results (tigers are huge, but stealthy AF...) in some narrow cases.

Actually, tigers in RQ6/Mythras have a Stealth of 72%, plus the Camouflage ability, which imposes a hefty (two difficulty grades, which effectively halves the Perception skill in normal conditions) penalty on attempting to spot them...

Edited September 19, 2018 by lawrence.whitaker

[Brootse]

6 hours ago, womble said:

Their size should count against them in some way though; they'll struggle with really fine work. 'Tis the problem with a generic bonus.

If STR was removed or capped the problem wouldn't exist.

 

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm prepared to just accept that the RQG system is not built to deal with giant PCs. If I put a giant up against the party, his crafting skills probably aren't going to come into play.

I liked it when the same system was used to make NPCs and PCs.

 

3 hours ago, styopa said:

It's one the aspects where the (STAT+STAT) as base for various skills worked quite well, I believe that was RQ6.  Nevertheless, even with that you had kludgy non-consistent results (tigers are huge, but stealthy AF...) in some narrow cases.

No model is a perfect representation of the modeled.

Large animals are handled easily, just give tigers a high enough basic skill in sneaking, then a possible negative bonus wouldn't make things silly.

[jps]

You could consider that, for very large creatures SIZ is a negative Manipulation modifier, it makes sense: giants use gigantic tools to craft gigantic stuff (so their strength would negated by their size). Even more convenient, since their average Size is 65, you could use STR-55 to determine the actual Manipulation modifier. So, a Giant with STR 65 (an average for their race) would be treated as having a 65-55=10 STR (the average for a human) for the purpose of Manipulation.

[womble]

1 hour ago, Brootse said:

If STR was removed or capped the problem wouldn't exist.

 

But then increases in STR would stop being useful for things where strength is useful.

You're entirely free to make whatever stats you think proper apply to whatever skills you like. You don't have to compromise.

 

 

 

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, womble said:

But then increases in STR would stop being useful for things where strength is useful.

You're entirely free to make whatever stats you think proper apply to whatever skills you like. You don't have to compromise.

The basic problem is that secondary characteristic bonuses increase at the same rate as primary but offset by 5%. This is why the rules for Coordination and Strength are wonky, if you have a STR of13+ then Strength improves your agility skills by 10, but Coordination only by 5. Secondary cat mods should be +5% per +8, not +5% per +4, then we would be in a better place. Still not perfect, but better. Breaking out manipulation from combat would also help with SIZ as a secondary negative to manipulation.

[jeffjerwin]

Giants are mythically very good at building things. As they are in Glorantha... I mean, 'Aedin's Wall'. Nonetheless, I would apply substantial penalties to making things significantly smaller then themselves...

[Joerg]

4 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Giants are mythically very good at building things. As they are in Glorantha... I mean, 'Aedin's Wall'. Nonetheless, I would apply substantial penalties to making things significantly smaller then themselves...

The Aedin's Wall myth in Heortling Mythology names Aedin as just another deity (daimon), not a giant.

However, the cradles and their toys are renowned pieces of artisanhood, and for giant-built structures look at the citadels of Balazar.

[jeffjerwin]

44 minutes ago, Joerg said:

The Aedin's Wall myth in Heortling Mythology names Aedin as just another deity (daimon), not a giant.

However, the cradles and their toys are renowned pieces of artisanhood, and for giant-built structures look at the citadels of Balazar.

Yes, you're right.

[Brootse]

7 hours ago, Joerg said:

The Aedin's Wall myth in Heortling Mythology names Aedin as just another deity (daimon), not a giant.

However, the cradles and their toys are renowned pieces of artisanhood, and for giant-built structures look at the citadels of Balazar.

Those are good points on giant craftmanship. But should large giants be good craftsmen because of their big muscles, or because of the time they have spent on practising their crafts?

[Joerg]

42 minutes ago, Brootse said:

Those are good points on giant craftmanship. But should large giants be good craftsmen because of their big muscles, or because of the time they have spent on practising their crafts?

Large giants should be good craftsmen because of their affinity to creation magic (their species itself being a remnant from the Creation Age), and those with a stronger affinity to Disorder should be hampered by that.

Any artisan is only as good as his imagination or the way he understood the work order if doing contractual work. The stupid brutes like the encounters in Griffin Mountain or the tainted ones like Bigclub from Snake Pipe hollow should be lousy craftsmen. They might be able to improvise their clothing or their weaponry without much trouble, but getting them to understand principles like static or planning is a different proposal. We would probably be astonished at Bigclub's ability to knap a boulder into a usable hand-axe, or to skin a few bisons for a new loincloth, and I see no big problem there. Hand-eye-coordination probably finds its limits at giants' eyesight.

But then, I would expect a lot of the cradle artifacts to be sung rather than hand-crafted, and in that case, the complexity achievable is not tied to any manipulation bonus.