Is Sword Trance broken?

[Pentallion]

8 minutes ago, Brootse said:

, just shoot Achilles in the heel.

 

 

This is why Sword Trance is broken.  As a GM, you don't want to just kill the players character.  If your solution to sword trance is just kill the players character, then you're basically saying, "Okay, you can play a Humakt, but I will kill him."  So why let him play a Humakt at all?

So many replies to this thread have been ways to kill the Humakt who casts it.  Since there are so many ways to kill the Humakt, by their reasoning, therefore the spell is not broken.  But this is precisely why the spell IS broken.

You are essentially banning the spell by killing anyone who can cast it.  And as the GM you don't want to be killing off all the player characters.  That is never the solution to a badly designed spell.

Also, Dispel Magic isn't relevant here either.  IF you include someone casting dispel magic on it in every encounter - and most scenarios published for the game do not - then you are essentially banning the spell.

You're admitting the spell is broken.

So let's only look at what happens when the spell doesn't get dispelled and you don't kill the caster in response to the spell being cast.  If, in that situation, the spell causes serious balance issues and problems in Boss Design for the GM, then yes, the spell is CLEARLY broken.

Sword trance is clearly broken for the reasons already stated.  If the spell is cast and the caster is not killed in response to casting the spell and the spell is not dispelled (ie, the spell isn't being BANNED from the game) then what happens when we inevitably have to design encounters around it?

We're fucked.  The 100% rule fucks us.  Group of brand new characters and one of them (who you don't want to BAN), casts sword trance and walks through the entire battle no problem.  Boooooorrrrrrring!  Especially doesn't make the other players feel too heroic.  OR, you design a Boss that's a challenge to said players character and then the Boss wins and you're looking at tpk .  Again, not a solution.

If you keep the 100% rule, then Sword Trance is clearly broken.  If you drop the 100% rule, then you have a discussion about cost/benefit of Sword Trance making it one of the more OP spells in the game, just like Axe Trance of old, but it is no longer clearly broken.

As Soltakks said, he likes the 100% rule.  Then Sword Trance needs nerfed IMO.  I personally hate the 100% rule and so Sword Trance is OP IMO.

[Brootse]

1 minute ago, Pentallion said:

This is why Sword Trance is broken.  As a GM, you don't want to just kill the players character.  If your solution to sword trance is just kill the players character, then you're basically saying, "Okay, you can play a Humakt, but I will kill him."  So why let him play a Humakt at all?

So many replies to this thread have been ways to kill the Humakt who casts it.  Since there are so many ways to kill the Humakt, by their reasoning, therefore the spell is not broken.  But this is precisely why the spell IS broken.

You are essentially banning the spell by killing anyone who can cast it.  And as the GM you don't want to be killing off all the player characters.  That is never the solution to a badly designed spell.

Also, Dispel Magic isn't relevant here either.  IF you include someone casting dispel magic on it in every encounter - and most scenarios published for the game do not - then you are essentially banning the spell.

You're admitting the spell is broken.

So let's only look at what happens when the spell doesn't get dispelled and you don't kill the caster in response to the spell being cast.  If, in that situation, the spell causes serious balance issues and problems in Boss Design for the GM, then yes, the spell is CLEARLY broken.

Sword trance is clearly broken for the reasons already stated.  If the spell is cast and the caster is not killed in response to casting the spell and the spell is not dispelled (ie, the spell isn't being BANNED from the game) then what happens when we inevitably have to design encounters around it?

We're fucked.  The 100% rule fucks us.  Group of brand new characters and one of them (who you don't want to BAN), casts sword trance and walks through the entire battle no problem.  Boooooorrrrrrring!  Especially doesn't make the other players feel too heroic.  OR, you design a Boss that's a challenge to said players character and then the Boss wins and you're looking at tpk .  Again, not a solution.

If you keep the 100% rule, then Sword Trance is clearly broken.  If you drop the 100% rule, then you have a discussion about cost/benefit of Sword Trance making it one of the more OP spells in the game, just like Axe Trance of old, but it is no longer clearly broken.

As Soltakks said, he likes the 100% rule.  Then Sword Trance needs nerfed IMO.  I personally hate the 100% rule and so Sword Trance is OP IMO.

Cool your jets.

[Kloster]

9 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

though for me the simple increase in Specials and Critical Hits, along with splitting skill to handle multiple opponents would have been enough.

This is RQIII's rule.

[Pentallion]

6 minutes ago, Brootse said:

Cool your jets.

No one in the history of mankind has ever cooled their jets from being told to cool their jets   What part of my jets were too hot for you?  I drop f bombs.  sorry if that offends you.

[Pentallion]

1 minute ago, Kloster said:

This is RQIII's rule.

Yes and it worked fine.  The new rule is actually the RQ6 rule and it causes too much wonkiness IMO.

[Kloster]

7 minutes ago, Anunnaki said:

All I can add is my players were SUPER GLAD that my wife's Babeester Gor character had Axe Trance when that accursed broo warband took a more "intimate" interest in the adventuring group (Axe Trance works identically to Sword Trance, for those who haven't read or played RQG yet -- just axes instead of swords).  I'm fairly certain that they didn't consider the spell to be "broken" ... And, as GM, I really didn't have any issues with it being used in play -- couple of broos got some hits in regardless. There are situations when this character is meant to shine and this spell meant that she did. Humakti, I'm sure are the same.

Now, I could have used Dispel Magic or Dismiss Magic against the Bab Gor (I didn't). We are still playing out RQG as written to see how we feel about different aspects of the game and my players are still new to RQ and Glorantha in general. Point here is that the spell didn't really overpower this encounter. It shifted the balance to where the players were more confident in their ability to defeat their opponents (which might bite them in the arse later, but we will see), but most importantly they had Maximum Game Fun.

I completely agree with you, Axe Trance is not broken, work perfectly fine in a RQIII rules environment and (I think) is not overpowered. Sword Trance, which is basically the same spell for swords instead of Axes is thus (for me) not broken. But It causes problems in a RQG rules environment, especially because:

- the way abilities over 100% are managed compared to RQIII.

- the possibility to parry with the weapon that attacks the same round (in previous Chaosium RQs, it was possible only with 2handed weapons).

- the multiple parry with same weapon/shield (imported from Stormbringer).

- the single weapon skill (instead of Attack and Parry skills in previous Chaosium RQs, also imported from Stormbringer).

[Pentallion]

Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a GM who games RQ once a week for the past 12 years and started gaming in '82 and gamed regularly since.  So I'm speaking from extensive experience with the 100% rule as well as Sword Trance.  In one of our games, the Humakti settled down in a doorway and since there are no longer any fatigue rules (sadly, while they kept the horrible 100% rule from RQ6, they dumped the excellent fatigue rules from RQ6), he was able to hack and slash all day long.

So, good GM doesn't want to ban Humakti so doesn't design specific encounters meant to kill any Humakti who uses Sword Trance.  ie, archers all targeting the Humakt.  Archers, cool, still use 'em, just not to specifically kill Achilles.  And doesn't want to ban sword trance so sparingly uses dispel to bring it down.  Here we are, at the doorway of the never tiring Humakt with Sword Trance.  While the others all unpack the lunches and discuss what movies they've seen recently, the Humakt goes about his business of Death.

Que elevator music.

Eventually, everyone gets bored.  The bodies piled up, and the enemy retreated, but this just keeps repeating itself, doorway after doorway.  Either I take out the Humakt or I throw a boss at him designed to challenge him.   What happens now?  If Humakt dies, the party is the recipient of reverse sword trance.  tpk.  so party, having realized this and not being afraid at all to ban sword trance from the GMs repertoire (adapt or die), they begin using the same tactics to ban the spell as a GM could take, but without the shackle of not wanting to kill the NPC.  Dispel magic, archers, traps etc.  All to take out the only boss that can handle the Humakt.  so the GM designs a boss who is skilled, not boosted, who can withstand archers and who can't be dispelled.  and what then?  Eventual party wipe?

Or just ban the stupid spell by dispelling it constantly?  Or just ban the character class outright?  All for a stupid spell that turns beginning characters into death zombies? If that isn't the very definition of broken spell what is?  For 1 rp?  No.  as a GM, either the 100% rule has to go or sword trance does.  And axe trance was just fine in RQ3 so 100% rule it is.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Pentallion said:

The spell is clearly broken.  You being stubborn about admitting it is not withstanding....

It is broken.

I disagree. You can add me to your "stubborn" list if you like.

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, Pentallion said:

The spell is clearly broken.  You being stubborn about admitting it is not withstanding.

First off, I wasn't being stubborn about it. I was pointing out that there isn't any soert of consesus saying that Sword Trance is broken. Far from it.

 

Secondly, the problem doesn't appear to be with Sword Trance per say, but with attack skills reducing parry, combined with mutiple parries, ans weapons taking damage. The basic problem, such as it is, remains regardless of how skill gets over 100%. IMO that seems much more serious too, as eventually I would expect Rune Lords and the like to have combat skills over 100%. 

4 hours ago, Pentallion said:

This is why Sword Trance is broken.  As a GM, you don't want to just kill the players character.  If your solution to sword trance is just kill the players character, then you're basically saying, "Okay, you can play a Humakt, but I will kill him."  So why let him play a Humakt at all?

No, that is a problem with ultra lethal actions. It's like how back in the days when most rifles fired one shot per trigger pull, the guy who carried an automatic weapon or flamethrower  would draw lots of enemy fire as soon as he opened up. He was just so much more lethal than the rest of the people in his squad that it painted a target on his back. Likewise, if one character appear much more lethal than the rest, then he will not only draw heavier fire, but will also draw more extreme responses because the opposition cannot endure the possibility of his attacks.

You get that same sort of response with any sort of rapid increases in lethality that the opposition can spot. The reason why the NPCs fighting the Humakti will kill him is because that is exactly what he is doing to them, so they will do whatever they can to stop him.It's just simple escalation.

 

From what I've read here, and please, somebody correct me if I misunderstood something, what seems to be the real problems are:

• Very high parry skill is reducing the opponent's attack skill. That's new to RQG
• That this reduction applies to multiple opponents, without breaking up the skill. That is also new to RQG.

Most of the other stuff, such as Sword Trace, or cumulative parries might exacerbate these problems, but the two above are game breakers.

Now, somebody with 200% parry becomes virtually unhittable by a group of sub 100% skill melee opponents. And that too is new to RQG. Before, highly skilled fighters were still vulnerable to double and triple teams. 

Again, I don't have RQG, so I'm just going on what has been posted here, but does it really work that way?

Edited January 24, 2019 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

for me the simple increase in Specials and Critical Hits, along with splitting skill to handle multiple opponents would have been enough.

Me too, but then that's one of many reasons why I prefer to stick with RQ3. I know it works.

[womble]

So, are we reading this right: even though it's the 10th parry (in the same strike rank), and your 300% chance to parry has dropped by 180 points, you're still dropping the attack chance of your opponent by 200 points? I don't think that's what's meant to happen.

I'd be mitigating the nastiness of a big [weapon] Trance under current RAW by restricting parries to the rear, for a start. Additional penalties, probably, because there are all kinds of Wuxia moves to let you parry attacks from behind that wouldn't work IRL, but we're in the realms of wire-fu when Sword Trance gets a-rollin' anyway.

But if you compare the current effective parry skill with the incoming attack skill to determine the reduction of the attack chance, then later parries will not be 'automatically' missing, and the parryng weapon will take damage.

Saying that a spell is broken because clever opponents will neg it every time they see it would make lots of spells 'broken'. And I'm pretty sure some of the application of negatives is being done in the wrong place in the example calcs being offered.

 

[Tupper]

8 minutes ago, Anunnaki said:

At the risk of taking this off-topic.

So, let's take our 150% combatant with a sword versus, say, three 50% opponents. Our 150% combatant reduces the skill scores of her/his opponents by 50% (points over 100), then reduces her/his own skill score by 50% to 100%. This is the skill score that she/he uses for her/his Attack AND Parry in this conflict. Counts for specials and criticals as well as starting score for parries. So that means a starting Parry of 100, then 80, then 60 vs those three combatants. This assumes he is using his weapon for both attack and parry.

Let's complicate things by giving our combatant sword and board. Sword skill of 150% and Shield skill of 80%. This mixes things up. So you attack your combatants, who have their parries reduced by 50% (>100% Attack vs Parry). However, those combatants attacks are being countered by your shield, which is <100% so their attacks come in at 50% (unaltered) vs 80%, then 60, then 40% (for additional parries after the first).

Complex yes?  Did I get this right?

I *think* what should happen is that the parrying penalty gets applied before the adjustment for being over 100:

Case 1 (sword vs 3 opponents)

First opponent attacks.  Parry at full 150.  This is over 100, so reduce it to 100 and reduce the opponent to 5.

Second opponent attacks.  Parry is now at 130.  Still over 100, so reduce it to 100 and reduce opponent to 20.

Third opponent attacks.  Parry is now "only" 110.  Reduce it to 100, and reduce opponent to 40.

Case 2 (sword and board)

When attacking, you attack at 150.  This is over 100, so reduce to 100, but reduce the target's parry to 5.

If you parry with the shield, your first parry would be at 80.  This is not over 100, so the opponent still gets his/her full attack of 50.

 

[Tupper]

First, let me say that this is a very interesting conversation.  I can't resist adding my 2c, as a newcomer to RQ, but a veteran of some other similarly gritty games (Rolemaster, Harnmaster).

I think the purpose of the "over 100" rule is to allow a really powerful character (call him Goliath) to (almost) shut down the chance of a lucky hit by someone weaker than them (call him David).  There's still the 1% danger of David scoring a critical, but the probability of a David getting a successful hit while Goliath fails the parry is being allowed to become miniscule.  If you don't have that rule there, there'll still be a 5% chance that Goliath fails the parry, on top of which there could be 2-3% chance that David gets a critical, and suddenly we're close to a 5% chance that things go pearshaped for Goliath when he squares off with David. This is similar to Rolemaster, where there's always the danger that David is going to roll an open-ended attack (96-100) on Goliath, and do some vicious critical to him, even if he's been parrying prudently.  While this may be realistic, if a player has put Goliath in a situation that he *should* win, it seems a bit rough to then kill Goliath with a 5% chance (from a game perspective). 

Put another way, if someone with 300 skill fights someone with 50 skill, it should feel one-sided. 

The second issue then, is: is it sensible for someone to drop 1 rune point and (say) 20+ magic points to have a combat skill of 300. It's a great deal if you're fighting people who *aren't* initiates (or animals).  Then you can re-enact the Crazy 88 fight, or Hit Girl in action (and maybe playing some cool music would be appropriate).  However, a lot of people who you're going to fight in RQG *are* initiates.  And all initiates have access to the common rune spell Dismiss magic.  So a fight is likely to look like:

Round 1, Humakti casts Sword Trance.  Kills someone.

Round 2, Someone on the other team spends a rune point, dismisses the Sword trance.

Now, you might point out that the Humakti can just recast Sword Trance for another rune point.  But the problem is all the magic points he/she is burning.  Even with 50 magic points, this will only be tenable for a round or two. 

Note that this is a very rational response by initiate opponents.  They're not being cheap.  They're just doing what the PCs would probably do under the circumstances.  They saw their buddy get sliced six ways to Sunday, and shut down the magic that caused it to keep it off their backs.

Remember that if many opponents the PCs fight are initiates, then the rune point economy favours the PCs opponents.  There are 4 people in the party (say) and they have 3 rune points each.  That's 12 to get through the adventure.  If, in various encounters, they deal with 20 opponents, they might have 60 rune points between them, so getting into a war of attrition over rune points is not a good strategy for PCs.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Tupper
Grammatical correction.

[Tupper]

11 minutes ago, Anunnaki said:

@Tupper ... I love you and I want your babies. Ha!  (Not literally.)

Point here is that there are nuances and complexities that could benefit from some examples of play, some guidance, and perhaps that should/could be in Rune Fixes or the Gamemaster's Book.

Thanks for the vote of confidence!

I agree that some Rune Fixes and more examples are in order.  You've already seen my attempts at bumbling through strike ranks, wounds, etc.

[g33k]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

So just to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else here, if one guy with Sword 150% were fighting two opponents at 50%, he would be able to make one attack at 150%, but still reduce both opponents attacks by 50% (down to the default 5%)?And, since their attacks will most likely miss and his parries will most likely succeed, he will be probably be  damaging both of their weapons in the process? Is that a correct assessment of how the combat would play out in RQG?

I believe the RAW states that all 3 get their combat skills reduced by 50% (the amount needed to take the highest down to 100%).

The two at 50% are stuck at an effective 0% skill, so they follow the rule that 05 & below is a hit and 01 is a crit; they miss on 06+ and they fumble on 96+ (fumbling as often as they hit at all; ouch!)

The 150% (now 100%) combatant will do their 1st parry at 100% and their 2nd parry at 100-20= 80%.  So, yeah -- looks like the 50% guys get their weapons damaged a LOT... likely (by the odds) having their weapons destroyed before they ever land a blow... although my gut-check says they aren't likely to see that happen, because 150now100 will have disabled/killed them faster than their weapons would have gotten destroyed.

If I have mis-analyzed this, I welcome anyone correcting me.

###

I don't know that the RAW addresses the issue of whether there's an upper limit for how many combatant's can have their skill reduced in this fashion; in my prior example (of 6 Trollkin in a 1st ring (with short weapons), and 12 in an outer ring (with longer weapons)) would have EIGHTEEN skill-reductions.  That... does not pass my common-sense test... but AFAIK it does in fact match the RAW.  😲

Granted that getting doubly-encircled this way is a sub-optimal strategy... unlikely for someone with a native 100+% let alone Trance'd to 200+% ! 

I can still imagine it happening, FrEx with some well-trained Trollkin & a trainer/boss with a very-high Battle skill.  I'm going to have to sit down and crunch some numbers to see just how much of a threat the "mob/horde" that I was advocating really is.  If it isn't a threat, then that really is a substantive change in the way RQ/BRP has always run, where Numberless Hordes is always a credible threat.  I think my other point remains valid, that missiles/spells/spirits/poison/etc all bypass *Trance spells, so they don't really "break" the system as a whole.   But if the Horde/Mob is no longer a threat... hmm.  That changes the feel of the game; I would have to decide if it needs a HR.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Tupper said:

I *think* what should happen is that the parrying penalty gets applied before the adjustment for being over 100:

Case 1 (sword vs 3 opponents)

First opponent attacks.  Parry at full 150.  This is over 100, so reduce it to 100 and reduce the opponent to 5.

Second opponent attacks.  Parry is now at 130.  Still over 100, so reduce it to 100 and reduce opponent to 20.

Third opponent attacks.  Parry is now "only" 110.  Reduce it to 100, and reduce opponent to 40.

...

Now that's an interesting take on the rule.  Hrm.

Agreed, we need some official consideration/rulings here.

[Pentallion]

4 hours ago, Tupper said:

First, let me say that this is a very interesting conversation.  I can't resist adding my 2c, as a newcomer to RQ, but a veteran of some other similarly gritty games (Rolemaster, Harnmaster).

I think the purpose of the "over 100" rule is to allow a really powerful character (call him Goliath) to (almost) shut down the chance of a lucky hit by someone weaker than them (call him David).  There's still the 1% danger of David scoring a critical, but the probability of a David getting a successful hit while Goliath fails the parry is being allowed to become miniscule.  If you don't have that rule there, there'll still be a 5% chance that Goliath fails the parry, on top of which there could be 2-3% chance that David gets a critical, and suddenly we're close to a 5% chance that things go pearshaped for Goliath when he squares off with David. This is similar to Rolemaster, where there's always the danger that David is going to roll an open-ended attack (96-100) on Goliath, and do some vicious critical to him, even if he's been parrying prudently.  While this may be realistic, if a player has put Goliath in a situation that he *should* win, it seems a bit rough to then kill Goliath with a 5% chance (from a game perspective). 

Put another way, if someone with 300 skill fights someone with 50 skill, it should feel one-sided. 

The second issue then, is: is it sensible for someone to drop 1 rune point and (say) 20+ magic points to have a combat skill of 300. It's a great deal if you're fighting people who *aren't* initiates (or animals).  Then you can re-enact the Crazy 88 fight, or Hit Girl in action (and maybe playing some cool music would be appropriate).  However, a lot of people who you're going to fight in RQG *are* initiates.  And all initiates have access to the common rune spell Dismiss magic.  So a fight is likely to look like:

Round 1, Humakti casts Sword Trance.  Kills someone.

Round 2, Someone on the other team spends a rune point, dismisses the Sword trance.

Now, you might point out that the Humakti can just recast Sword Trance for another rune point.  But the problem is all the magic points he/she is burning.  Even with 50 magic points, this will only be tenable for a round or two. 

Note that this is a very rational response by initiate opponents.  They're not being cheap.  They're just doing what the PCs would probably do under the circumstances.  They saw their buddy get sliced six ways to Sunday, and shut down the magic that caused it to keep it off their backs.

Remember that if many opponents the PCs fight are initiates, then the rune point economy favours the PCs opponents.  There are 4 people in the party (say) and they have 3 rune points each.  That's 12 to get through the adventure.  If, in various encounters, they deal with 20 opponents, they might have 60 rune points between them, so getting into a war of attrition over rune points is not a good strategy for PCs.

So as GM you're admitting the spell is broken and will always ban the spell with dismiss.

Are there other rune spells so broken they must be instantly dismissed?  Idk, but this one is if it requires instant dismissal, ie GM banhammer.

But I'd like to reiterate, it is not Sword Trance per se that's actually broken.  It's Sword Trance with the 100% rule that id actually broken.  Ie, it's really the 100% rule.

Though IMO even in RQ3 days Axe Trance needed nerfed.  + x% where x is the amount in all your mana crystals for 1 rune point?  Benefit is way out of scale compared to cost.

Edited January 24, 2019 by Pentallion

[Sumath]

8 hours ago, Pentallion said:

Just to be clear, I'm speaking as a GM who games RQ once a week for the past 12 years and started gaming in '82 and gamed regularly since.  So I'm speaking from extensive experience with the 100% rule as well as Sword Trance.  In one of our games, the Humakti settled down in a doorway and since there are no longer any fatigue rules (sadly, while they kept the horrible 100% rule from RQ6, they dumped the excellent fatigue rules from RQ6), he was able to hack and slash all day long.

So, good GM doesn't want to ban Humakti so doesn't design specific encounters meant to kill any Humakti who uses Sword Trance.  ie, archers all targeting the Humakt.  Archers, cool, still use 'em, just not to specifically kill Achilles.  And doesn't want to ban sword trance so sparingly uses dispel to bring it down.  Here we are, at the doorway of the never tiring Humakt with Sword Trance.  While the others all unpack the lunches and discuss what movies they've seen recently, the Humakt goes about his business of Death.

Que elevator music.

Eventually, everyone gets bored.  The bodies piled up, and the enemy retreated, but this just keeps repeating itself, doorway after doorway.  Either I take out the Humakt or I throw a boss at him designed to challenge him.   What happens now?  If Humakt dies, the party is the recipient of reverse sword trance.  tpk.  so party, having realized this and not being afraid at all to ban sword trance from the GMs repertoire (adapt or die), they begin using the same tactics to ban the spell as a GM could take, but without the shackle of not wanting to kill the NPC.  Dispel magic, archers, traps etc.  All to take out the only boss that can handle the Humakt.  so the GM designs a boss who is skilled, not boosted, who can withstand archers and who can't be dispelled.  and what then?  Eventual party wipe?

Or just ban the stupid spell by dispelling it constantly?  Or just ban the character class outright?  All for a stupid spell that turns beginning characters into death zombies? If that isn't the very definition of broken spell what is?  For 1 rp?  No.  as a GM, either the 100% rule has to go or sword trance does.  And axe trance was just fine in RQ3 so 100% rule it is.

Sorry, you've said here that because of a lack of fatigue rules you allowed the Humakti to camp in a doorway and hack and slash tirelessly. Either you're exaggerating to make a point, in which case the example is not an honest appraisal of the situation, or this was a case of bad GMing. The fact that there are no fatigue rules in RQG does not prevent a GM from making a ruling on how long a fighter can sustain continuous physical combat for, what penalties might be imposed after a certain number of rounds, and how quickly these would mount up.

I don't have the rule book to hand but I don't remember Sword Trance making the Humakti indefatigable.

[Pentallion]

That was an allegory.

[Sumath]

So... it wouldn't actually happen at the table.

If you're worried about Humakti killing machines then just start loading them with cumulative penalties after the first 5 MRs.

[PhilHibbs]

13 hours ago, Brootse said:

What? You can parry hits struck behind you now?

I don't ever remember any rules saying that you either could or could not parry flanking or rear attacks, so I think this is unchanged.

[PhilHibbs]

9 hours ago, Tupper said:

Remember that if many opponents the PCs fight are initiates, then the rune point economy favours the PCs opponents.  There are 4 people in the party (say) and they have 3 rune points each.  That's 12 to get through the adventure.  If, in various encounters, they deal with 20 opponents, they might have 60 rune points between them, so getting into a war of attrition over rune points is not a good strategy for PCs.

I strongly disagree with this interpretation.

You are saying that whilst the players sometimes enter encounters with their Rune Points diminished, that NEVER happens to the NPCs. Why is this? How come they are always fresh with full RP pools? Did those bandits not need to use any RP in their last raid? Did those broo not get into a fight with each other, is that ogre close to a Cacodemon shrine and was the holy day quite recent?

Personally, my approach is entirely the opposite. The bad guys in any scenario tend to start out on a good footing, everything is going right for them until the players showed up. Why? Because they already spent all their Rune Points to make their plans happen! Unless my bad guys are on the offensive and in control of the narrative, they tend not to have whatever the game mechanic is, be it Rune Points, Hero Points, Plot Points, or whatever. Occasionally I might send an assault team against the players, and they might be tooled up with Shield, Flight, Truesword, and a few spare spells to throw, whatever I think might make a fun challenge. But if the players just encounter some schmucks out in the woods, they are just as likely to be low on RP as the PCs are.

[Joerg]

On 1/23/2019 at 10:30 AM, RosenMcStern said:

No longer the case in RQG when your weapon skill is boosted to 200+. As I explained in the uzdo example, the problem is that the huge skill of the humakti forces a miss on the attacker. Instead of some damage overcoming the weapon parry points that you would have in RQ2/RQ3, you have the humakti's sword damaging the enemy weapon with each attempted blow.

Thrown weapons can be parried....

True, but to be targeted by a thrown weapon means that you can be attacked by a lot more than six opponents.

What is the convention about multiple parries on a single strike rank? Personally, I would give hefty situational maluses on the second and third parry on the same strike rank, reflecting the supernatural speed you need to deflect more than one incoming attack in much less than a breath's time.

[RosenMcStern]

10 hours ago, Tupper said:

Remember that if many opponents the PCs fight are initiates, then the rune point economy favours the PCs opponents.  There are 4 people in the party (say) and they have 3 rune points each.  That's 12 to get through the adventure.  If, in various encounters, they deal with 20 opponents, they might have 60 rune points between them, so getting into a war of attrition over rune points is not a good strategy for PCs.

Jeff has explained very clearly that the "each initiate has three RP" equivalence is only valid for player characters. NPC will have Rune Points only if the GM explicitly decides that they do, and most enemies should not have any. So it is up to the GM to decide whether the bad guys do have that Dismiss Magic available to de-trance the Humakti. It is not automatic.

[RosenMcStern]

16 minutes ago, Joerg said:

What is the convention about multiple parries on a single strike rank? Personally, I would give hefty situational maluses on the second and third parry on the same strike rank, reflecting the supernatural speed you need to deflect more than one incoming attack in much less than a breath's time.

This is sensible, but as many other sensible suggestions posted here, it is a ruling and not the official rule. Again, it is the GM trying to "tone down" a very powerful ability that the entranced character has. The supposition that the spell is overpowered has some merit.