Jump to content

New to RuneQuest-Glorantha


Scout

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, womble said:

Jeff's vision over Jason's.

Isn't it Jeff who keeps popping in to remind everyone that the PCs are exceptional and that the character creation rules contained RQG apply to the creation of PCs, not everyone? 

Further, as far as I can tell, Jason really works his ass off trying to make sure he is speaking the truth of the book that Jeff wrote. If there has been any daylight between them I haven't noticed it. (I don't read every thread, so maybe I missed lots of such examples. But from what I have read, I haven't really seen them at odds on these matters.) 

"But Pendragon isn’t intended to be historical, just fun.
So have fun."

-- Greg Stafford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Isn't it Jeff who keeps popping in to remind everyone that the PCs are exceptional and that the character creation rules contained RQG apply to the creation of PCs, not everyone? 

Further, as far as I can tell, Jason really works his ass off trying to make sure he is speaking the truth of the book that Jeff wrote. If there has been any daylight between them I haven't noticed it. (I don't read every thread, so maybe I missed lots of such examples. But from what I have read, I haven't really seen them at odds on these matters.) 

I've detected a deal of daylight between 'em, frankly. Not in the way you're reading it, perhaps. I entirely agree with both of them that PCs are "made" exceptional.

And there's a lot of daylight between 'character creation rules' and the 'rules of the world' (in an 'ongoing' sense). I'm thoroughly comfortable with the notion that the PCs are generated as superior to their 21 y.o. relatives and neighbours, but that says next to nothing about how adults then develop. What reason is there for adults to not be Initiated? What reason for any Initiate to not get biannual POW gain rolls (and, on average, hit half of 'em)? Do 'normal people' learn nothing in their jobs, season-to-season?

PCs will certainly develop into better adventurers than the common run-of-the-mill fellow, but a mature carpenter has a good chance to be significantly better at their job than a just-made-up-to-journeyman one. Since the rules of the world apply the same to everyone, PC or NPC, it is the PCs' actions which differentiates them from/raises them above Jo Stay-at-home-and-farm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, womble said:

but that says next to nothing about how adults then develop. What reason is there for adults to not be Initiated? What reason for any Initiate to not get biannual POW gain rolls (and, on average, hit half of 'em)? Do 'normal people' learn nothing in their jobs, season-to-season?

All true. And these are questions I wanted answers for and I asked several times here. The answers ranged, as far as i remember, from "It's a tool kit, do whatever you want!" to wordy posts that I could not decipher. I know I can do whatever I want with the setting. But that it is so hard for me to get a clear answer to these questions from the authors of the setting--what they expect the setting to be like in their own vision--kind of boggles me.

"But Pendragon isn’t intended to be historical, just fun.
So have fun."

-- Greg Stafford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

All true. And these are questions I wanted answers for and I asked several times here. The answers ranged, as far as i remember, from "It's a tool kit, do whatever you want!" to wordy posts that I could not decipher. I know I can do whatever I want with the setting. But that it is so hard for me to get a clear answer to these questions from the authors of the setting--what they expect the setting to be like in their own vision--kind of boggles me.

RQ3 handled aging better IMO.  Skills were based directly upon age.  Older NPCs were definitely better skilled than younger ones and it made sense.  Farmers farmed better, older hunters hunted better.  But adventurers increased in skills much faster than NPCs.  And that was good.   Being older in RQG doesn't feel like the NPCs improved enough in their skills.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 194: Magical Attacks and Strike Ranks

"[T]he first magic point used in the spell has no strike rank modifier. Any subsequent spells require 5 strike ranks to prepare, even if the same spell is being used."

"[C]asting a spell such as Bladesharp or Fireblade on a weapon held in the hand and striking with it in the same round only involves adding the normal strike rank to cast the spell to the normal strike rank for that weapon for that melee round."

Let's say I'm wielding a Dagger (SR 3), and in the same round, I cast Bladesharp on the dagger. Do I go on...

SR 8: Prepare Bladesharp (5) + Dagger (3)?

Next round I do the same so again I go on...

SR 8: Bladesharp (5) + Dagger (3)?

I'm just not sure about the magic point cost and the first magic point being free. Does this remain true for the second casting of a spell, the third, fourth?

Also, can you walk around with a spell already stored and prepared and ready to cast, effectively giving you SR 0 (because the first magic point has no SR cost)?

Sorry, probably over thinking this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Scout said:

Do I go on...

You normally will cast your magic first at the start of the round.  SR depends on the level of the spell.  Let's say your DEX SR is SR 1, SIZ SR is SR 2, and you cast Bladesharp 2 on the dagger you already have out and prepared.  

p.254: To determine the strike rank at which a spell can be cast, total the adventurer’s DEX strike rank plus the magic points of the spell (minus the first), plus any boosting magic points.

The spell occurs on SR 2 (1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You can then use your magically enhanced dagger on SR 8.  (2 SR's already into the round for the magic, +1 for DEX SR, +2 for SIZ SR, and +3 for weapon SR).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries or dodges).

If your dagger is not ready, then on SR 5 you draw out your dagger (5 SR's to prepare a weapon).  Now you cast your spell on SR 7 (same as prior example: 1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries, after SR 5, or dodges) as you need 6 SR's to attack with the dagger and that would be over the 12 SR limit for the round.

Note: most spirit magic spells last for two minutes (ten melee rounds).

Edited by jajagappa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Scout said:

can you walk around with a spell already stored and prepared and ready to cast, effectively giving you SR 0 (because the first magic point has no SR cost)?

No, not with spirit magic.  You must focus on the spell and then cast it.

Rune magic does act like this as it is instantaneous and occurs on SR 1 (unless boosted by additional MP's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

You normally will cast your magic first at the start of the round.  SR depends on the level of the spell.  Let's say your DEX SR is SR 1, SIZ SR is SR 2, and you cast Bladesharp 2 on the dagger you already have out and prepared.  

p.254: To determine the strike rank at which a spell can be cast, total the adventurer’s DEX strike rank plus the magic points of the spell (minus the first), plus any boosting magic points.

The spell occurs on SR 2 (1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You can then use your magically enhanced dagger on SR 8.  (2 SR's already into the round for the magic, +1 for DEX SR, +2 for SIZ SR, and +3 for weapon SR).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries or dodges).

If your dagger is not ready, then on SR 5 you draw out your dagger (5 SR's to prepare a weapon).  Now you cast your spell on SR 7 (same as prior example: 1 for DEX, 1 for 2 pt spirit magic - 1st pt).  You are now done for the round (excluding parries, after SR 5, or dodges) as you need 6 SR's to attack with the dagger and that would be over the 12 SR limit for the round.

Note: most spirit magic spells last for two minutes (ten melee rounds).

Thanks jajagappa.

And using the dagger in the second example would occur at SR 1 in the second round?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scout said:

using the dagger in the second example would occur at SR 1 in the second round?

No.  Each melee round for the most part has a "reset".  Exception is magic that requires multiple rounds to case (usually sorcery, or highly boosted spirit or rune magic).

Dagger attack in 2nd round will be at normal DEX + SIZ + weapon SR (unless you cast more magic first).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prinz.slasar said:

Is "Lore (local)" the same as "Homeland Lore (local)"?

The term "Lore (local)" appears only in the Occupation chapter.

Yes, it went through a terminology change during writing.  Originally was Area Lore (local).  Then changed to Homeland Lore (local).  Likely that occurrence in the Occupation chapter occurred during editing of the first, but didn't get Homeland inserted.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This attack v parry thing is a bit much to remember 😕 I know there's a table, but it's another table alongside the Resistance table you have to look up.

EDIT: So a shield's special damage is Crushing?

Edited by Scout
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Scout said:

This attack v parry thing is a bit much to remember 😕 I know there's a table, but it's another table alongside the Resistance table you have to look up.

EDIT: So a shield's special damage is Crushing?

Not sure what you mean by "this attack vs parry thing".  You attack, I parry and vice versa.  You get the hang of crits vs specials, etc. quite quickly, if that's what you mean? 

Yes, a shield does crushing damage.  You could also think of it as Bashing damage.  Maces, fists, shields all bash you in the face.  Crushing damage isn't very good for most humans though it's crazy good for trolls (and Conan, but that's another thread).

Edited by Pentallion
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pentallion said:

Not sure what you mean by "this attack vs parry thing".  You attack, I parry and vice versa.  You get the hang of crits vs specials, etc. quite quickly, if that's what you mean? 

Yes, a shield does crushing damage.  You could also think of it as Bashing damage.  Maces, fists, shields all bash you in the face.

I mean there are a good few variations on a similar theme when attacking/parrying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scores over 100%

Just to confirm, if your skill is reduced from 130% to 100%, you calculate special/critical success chances on the 100%? Just seems a little odd that the more skilled competitor also suffers a little from this rule.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don’t suffer. They reduce their opponents’ chance of succeeding. This means they are much more likely to land an undefended blow, or not have to bother defending themselves. 

It also means that they are much less likely to Be on the receiving end of a critical, which is the bane of every adventurer everywhere

 

It is a huge advantage. Huge. Especially against multiple opponents. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In most cases, yeah, it's just right to reduce both, even if it seems a little counterintuitive at first sight. Where it gets hinky is situations where the higher skill would reduce the lower to below 05%, since the full disadvantage applies to the higher skill, but is capped on the lower. To make this feel right for me, I reduce both skills by the same amount, which is the lesser of "reducing the higher skill to 100" and "reducing the lower skill to 05". Means that the vastly superior practitioner retains higher crit/special chances against the greatly inferior opponent.

With the high skill levels possible in character generation, and the levels of buff available, this situation can occur even very early on in a character's development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, womble said:

In most cases, yeah, it's just right to reduce both, even if it seems a little counterintuitive at first sight. Where it gets hinky is situations where the higher skill would reduce the lower to below 05%, since the full disadvantage applies to the higher skill, but is capped on the lower. To make this feel right for me, I reduce both skills by the same amount, which is the lesser of "reducing the higher skill to 100" and "reducing the lower skill to 05". Means that the vastly superior practitioner retains higher crit/special chances against the greatly inferior opponent.

Very good. That would remove one of the main problems of the current rules. I have to present that to my GM.

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

Very good. That would remove one of the main problems of the current rules. I have to present that to my GM.

Kloster

I'd like to think that the original intention of the rule was something similar, but that the framing of it in the Core book simply didn't consider that there would often be occasions where the skill differential would be higher than the lower skill, and so didn't address the issue in its language, but 150 vs 49 isn't going to be that uncommon, with Fanaticism and other buffs going around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, womble said:

I'd like to think that the original intention of the rule was something similar, but that the framing of it in the Core book simply didn't consider that there would often be occasions where the skill differential would be higher than the lower skill, and so didn't address the issue in its language, but 150 vs 49 isn't going to be that uncommon, with Fanaticism and other buffs going around.

Yes, you're right. At character creation time and including spells, there is a 105% difference between my character and the best fighting character in my group (50% no spells vs 90% pushed to 155% with Fanaticism and Bladesharp 2).

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kloster said:

Yes, you're right. At character creation time and including spells, there is a 105% difference between my character and the best fighting character in my group (50% no spells vs 90% pushed to 155% with Fanaticism and Bladesharp 2).

Kloster

Call me a quibbler, but IMO RQG has overcomplicated this.

If you have a 155 vs a 50, in the various interpretations it would be played out as:

  1. RQG RAW: 100 vs 0%
  2. RQG Amended(better): 110 vs 05 or really 95 (with special of 22/crit of 6) vs 05.
  3. RQ3 results in 95 (with special of 31, crit of 8 I think) vs 50

While I agree that #2 is way better than #1, it seems like 3 is simpler, still gives the lower-skill the full 'value' of the skill they have and likewise acknowledges a diminishing return on super-high levels of skill - essentially you're just a) better able to cope with disadvantages, but b) mainly (slowly) increasing your special/crit chances...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, styopa said:

Call me a quibbler, but IMO RQG has overcomplicated this.

If you have a 155 vs a 50, in the various interpretations it would be played out as:

  1. RQG RAW: 100 vs 0%
  2. RQG Amended(better): 110 vs 05 or really 95 (with special of 22/crit of 6) vs 05.
  3. RQ3 results in 95 (with special of 31, crit of 8 I think) vs 50

While I agree that #2 is way better than #1, it seems like 3 is simpler, still gives the lower-skill the full 'value' of the skill they have and likewise acknowledges a diminishing return on super-high levels of skill - essentially you're just a) better able to cope with disadvantages, but b) mainly (slowly) increasing your special/crit chances...

Agreed. On that point, I prefer RQIII to RQG, but my point was that #2 was better than #1, not counting #3.

Kloster

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, styopa said:

Call me a quibbler, but IMO RQG has overcomplicated this.

If you have a 155 vs a 50, in the various interpretations it would be played out as:

  1. RQG RAW: 100 vs 0%
  2. RQG Amended(better): 110 vs 05 or really 95 (with special of 22/crit of 6) vs 05.
  3. RQ3 results in 95 (with special of 31, crit of 8 I think) vs 50

While I agree that #2 is way better than #1, it seems like 3 is simpler, still gives the lower-skill the full 'value' of the skill they have and likewise acknowledges a diminishing return on super-high levels of skill - essentially you're just a) better able to cope with disadvantages, but b) mainly (slowly) increasing your special/crit chances...

Thing is, someone who's just 'average amateur'  at foil vs an olympic fencer simply won't get a tip on their target and will be hit at will. The second option is more in tune with the reality of gross mismatches. I'm 'quite good' with sword and board, and can work my way through a lot of defenses, but there are people I am struggling to hit at all, ever, who can pretty much pick their shots on me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...