Mechashef Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 The description of the Nilmerg in the Bestiary states: Quote Armor: None. However, the nilmerg’s small size forces all foes to subtract –20% from attack chances against it. In RQ3 there is a rule where small creatures (including some characters) are harder to hit. It looks as though this has made it into RQG at least in some form. I couldn't find it in the rule book. Is it there? Presumably a size 2 shadowcat also forces foes to subtract 20% from their attacks? If a size 2 nilmerg forces all foes to subtract 20% (not subtract -20%. RQ authors, please learn maths and logic) then does a size 3 nilmerg force a 10% or 15% or 0% penalty? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runeblogger Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 I guess "substract -20%" could be a way of expressing that you have to substract 20 from your initial percentage, as opposed to substracting 20% of your score(?). So,if your skill is 50%, with -20% you are left with 30%, but if you substract 20% of 50 (which is 10) from 50%, you end up with 40% chances. 😛 (OK, just joking). As for the small creatures, I'd rule 10% less chances for every point of SIZ below 4. A certain degree of agility (DEX) should also be necessary for a small being to be harder to hit in melee. Quote Read my Runeblog about RuneQuest and Glorantha at: http://elruneblog.blogspot.com.es/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prinz Slasar Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Runeblogger said: I guess "substract -20%" could be a way of expressing that you have to substract 20 from your initial percentage, as opposed to substracting 20% of your score(?). So,if your skill is 50%, with -20% you are left with 30%, but if you substract 20% of 50 (which is 10) from 50%, you end up with 40% chances. 😛 (OK, just joking). A lot of RPGs have the writing convention to write a penalty with a minus and a bonus with a plus. So it is easier to perceive while reading. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechashef Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 33 minutes ago, Runeblogger said: As for the small creatures, I'd rule 10% less chances for every point of SIZ below 4. A certain degree of agility (DEX) should also be necessary for a small being to be harder to hit in melee. That would seem reasonable. On the other hand, RQ often has a granularity of 5%. As examples see the Skill category modifiers as well as the effects of darkness and wind on combats skills. So it would seem to be more consistent to have 5% steps. That would make it a 5% penalty for each point of size below 6. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechashef Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 30 minutes ago, prinz.slasar said: A lot of RPGs have the writing convention to write a penalty with a minus and a bonus with a plus. So it is easier to perceive while reading. A modifier (or modification or change or variation or whatever) of 10% or -10% is easy to perceive. A bonus of 10% is easy to perceive. A penalty of 10% is easy to perceive. Adding 10% is easy to perceive Subtracting 10% is easy to perceive. Subtracting -10% is just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g33k Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 19 minutes ago, Mechashef said: Subtracting -10% is just stupid. ... but you know what they mean! 😈 Quote C'es ne pas un .sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.