Egregious munchkinnery!

[Kloster]

26 minutes ago, g33k said:

It sure the heck isn't!

Statistically speaking, your character is ovewhelmingly likely to be dead.

Not if you have only the occupational experience rolls.

[g33k]

29 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Not if you have only the occupational experience rolls.

No; but my point was regarding the prior point of various un-played advancement systems vs the results of in-play advancement.

[Tywyll]

8 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yep. You're better off doing the occupational experience rolls for 50 seasons.

The true Munchkin way! 

[Shiningbrow]

21 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yep. You're better off doing the occupational experience rolls for 50 seasons.

Except... that's not an option (for character creation - as per RAW).

While I agree we're getting suckered, the fact is that it's for a starting character.. and really, there isn't a race to the end. I think logically, every player would be better off adding a decade or two to their starting character. Unless you're expecting a really long campaign (many many years), it won't have any in-game effects (other than losing 1 pt of a physical attribute).

[HreshtIronBorne]

RAW you can join both Orlanth and Humakti, which is just bonkers strong. It may not be a starting option but, quickly gets very very strong. Truesword, sword trance, darkwalk, Leap, flight, teleport, shields for days. Not to mention skills and spells.

[Joerg]

3 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

RAW you can join both Orlanth and Humakti, which is just bonkers strong. It may not be a starting option but, quickly gets very very strong. Truesword, sword trance, darkwalk, Leap, flight, teleport, shields for days. Not to mention skills and spells.

Joining Humakt takes much of the use out of Darkwalk or other ambush-friendly magics. Yes, Humakt has some kick-ass killing powers, but the cult also comes with lots of pesky limitations that take much of the fun out of anything but "real man" approaches to roleplaying.

For a similar package, join Lhankor Mhy as a Sword Sage with Argan Argar as a side order, possibly become a Kitori and/or Arkati.

[Crel]

2 hours ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

RAW you can join both Orlanth and Humakti, which is just bonkers strong. It may not be a starting option but, quickly gets very very strong. Truesword, sword trance, darkwalk, Leap, flight, teleport, shields for days. Not to mention skills and spells.

The way I read it, because Humakt has "None." for Associated Cults listed in its entry on p.297, initiates of Humakt can't be initiates of other cults. Which makes sense, given the whole separation motif running throughout the cult in the stories IIRC.

[Kloster]

26 minutes ago, Crel said:

The way I read it, because Humakt has "None." for Associated Cults listed in its entry on p.297, initiates of Humakt can't be initiates of other cults. Which makes sense, given the whole separation motif running throughout the cult in the stories IIRC.

For belonging to several cults, they have to be 'compatible', not 'associated' (RQG p275). Orlanth and Humakt are friendly (RQG p311).

Edited May 1, 2019 by Kloster
add page numbers

[Shiningbrow]

Not egregious, and not munchkinnery, but I just did the maths on Homeland skill points - if you take High Llama, you're really hurting yourself! Not including the Cultural skill (and sometimes missing Speak Own) which are all the same, the High Llamas are down 10% from most of the other Praxians, and 20% lower than Pol Jonis, and Sartarites.

The best in this respect is Esrolians, who get 185 skill points.

Lunar Tarsh get 175, Sartarites get 165. Old Tarsh gets 155 like most Praxians.

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Not egregious, and not munchkinnery, but I just did the maths on Homeland skill points - if you take High Llama, you're really hurting yourself! Not including the Cultural skill (and sometimes missing Speak Own) which are all the same, the High Llamas are down 10% from most of the other Praxians, and 20% lower than Pol Jonis, and Sartarites.

 

Gustaf, j'accuse, you egregious Munchkin!

Sorry Shiningbrow, wrong on both counts. When you are looking at about 600 percentile points or so of skills (did the math quicky about a year ago to try to get a handle on the new rules so I will not swear to 600 but thats what I recall) grabbing every single esrolian percentile point is most certainly egregious and Munchkinnery!

Cheers

[Bill the barbarian]

One old gaffer in front of the fire toothlessly nursing a quaff:

Ahh I remember when I was young and used to long for even a single percentage point...

Yet another old gaffer jumps in:

Aye but ya tell that toooo the young 'uns new adays and they'll nay believe ya.

Many mutterings

Aye...

From another table, an eruption from RHW

MORE BEER!

[Crel]

21 hours ago, Kloster said:

For belonging to several cults, they have to be 'compatible', not 'associated' (RQG p275). Orlanth and Humakt are friendly (RQG p311).

Could you elaborate on your reading? Having re-read the sections on 275 and 311 this notion of "compatibility" feels ambiguous to me. The way I see it, Friendly is more "oh hey we like each other" and Associated is the close bond needed to share worship. But I feel like there's not really support in the text to prefer one reading to another, so I'm curious to understand your interpretation.

[Kloster]

27 minutes ago, Crel said:

Could you elaborate on your reading? Having re-read the sections on 275 and 311 this notion of "compatibility" feels ambiguous to me. The way I see it, Friendly is more "oh hey we like each other" and Associated is the close bond needed to share worship. But I feel like there's not really support in the text to prefer one reading to another, so I'm curious to understand your interpretation.

The way I have understood (or, more properly, decided, because as you wrote, there is nothing more precise) the rule p 275 is that Associated and Friendly cults are compatible, Enemy and Hostile are not, and Neutral are on a case-by-case basis. My reasoning is based on the descriptions of the 5 categories p311. In the case that concern us (Friendly), the description is: "Even without formal arrangements these groups find each other supportive and agreeable. Meetings are likely to be pleasant.". The term supportive is for me (I'm not a native english speaker and may be wrong) strong enough to allow cooperation to the point of dual initiation. The next level(Neutral) says: "Such cults act according to present circumstance. Trouble may occur, but the spark must be deliberate, not caused by minor squabbles.". The 'present circumstances' is what drove me to the 'case-by-case'. I will not elaborate on the last 3 categories (Enemy, Hostile and Associated) because they seem obvious.

Another point is that I feel that if the author of the rule wanted to have only associated cults to allow dual initiation, he would have written associated, not compatible.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Kloster

[gochie]

6 hours ago, Kloster said:

The way I have understood (or, more properly, decided, because as you wrote, there is nothing more precise) the rule p 275 is that Associated and Friendly cults are compatible, Enemy and Hostile are not, and Neutral are on a case-by-case basis. My reasoning is based on the descriptions of the 5 categories p311. In the case that concern us (Friendly), the description is: "Even without formal arrangements these groups find each other supportive and agreeable. Meetings are likely to be pleasant.". The term supportive is for me (I'm not a native english speaker and may be wrong) strong enough to allow cooperation to the point of dual initiation. The next level(Neutral) says: "Such cults act according to present circumstance. Trouble may occur, but the spark must be deliberate, not caused by minor squabbles.". The 'present circumstances' is what drove me to the 'case-by-case'. I will not elaborate on the last 3 categories (Enemy, Hostile and Associated) because they seem obvious.

Another point is that I feel that if the author of the rule wanted to have only associated cults to allow dual initiation, he would have written associated, not compatible.

Also in the past editions (or at least RQ3), the way it was said was that pretty much only enemy/incompatible cults weren't allowed for dual-initiation. 

[Kloster]

4 minutes ago, gochie said:

Also in the past editions (or at least RQ3), the way it was said was that pretty much only enemy/incompatible cults weren't allowed for dual-initiation. 

Right, but RQIII had only inter-pantheon relationship, not the detailed, cult-by-cult infos. I don't remember for RQ2.

[gochie]

1 minute ago, Kloster said:

Right, but RQIII had only inter-pantheon relationship, not the detailed, cult-by-cult infos. I don't remember for RQ2.

What do you mean? RQG has pretty much just as much info as the cults book of RQ3. 

[Kloster]

6 hours ago, gochie said:

What do you mean? RQG has pretty much just as much info as the cults book of RQ3. 

The extra info is the table p311 (that came from RQ2). It gives relationship cult by cult as RQIII is giving the info Pantheon by Pantheon.

[gochie]

2 hours ago, Kloster said:

The extra info is the table p311 (that came from RQ2). It gives relationship cult by cult as RQIII is giving the info Pantheon by Pantheon.

That still shows almost everyone as neutral to Humakt, and Orlanth as friendly. 

 

The way it was worded, neutral seemed good enough in RQ3. 

[Shiningbrow]

19 hours ago, Kloster said:

The way I have understood (or, more properly, decided, because as you wrote, there is nothing more precise) the rule p 275 is that Associated and Friendly cults are compatible, Enemy and Hostile are not, and Neutral are on a case-by-case basis. My reasoning is based on the descriptions of the 5 categories p311. In the case that concern us (Friendly), the description is: "Even without formal arrangements these groups find each other supportive and agreeable. Meetings are likely to be pleasant.". The term supportive is for me (I'm not a native english speaker and may be wrong) strong enough to allow cooperation to the point of dual initiation. The next level(Neutral) says: "Such cults act according to present circumstance. Trouble may occur, but the spark must be deliberate, not caused by minor squabbles.". The 'present circumstances' is what drove me to the 'case-by-case'. I will not elaborate on the last 3 categories (Enemy, Hostile and Associated) because they seem obvious.

Another point is that I feel that if the author of the rule wanted to have only associated cults to allow dual initiation, he would have written associated, not compatible.

Firstly, the descriptions between the cults given (as in, "likely to be pleasant") isn't about cults per se, but about the adherents of those cults. Your Initiate May Vary 😛

Also, to some extent, it describes how the gods themselves would interact with each other... although the Orlanth/Humakt doesn't help this description, nor do most of the Orlanthi pantheon to Eurmal (mistrust, caution, etc - but still an important Lightbringer)

Secondly, "Associated" means being able to get Rune spells, and to act in others' mythologies... so it goes way beyond the ability to cross initiate. In this sense, because Humakt was an important part of the Orlanthi mythology, cross-initiation should work. However, against that is the idea that Humaktis are supposed to cut off all outside ties, and thus, no association.

[HreshtIronBorne]

The way we have played it is that joining Humakt severs loyalties and ties but, after that there may be reasons a Humakti could initiate to or bind himself to another. Like Humakt did after Orlanth offered him a seperate but equal position. And that is without any illuminated shenanigans. Lol

[Crel]

AFAICT, there's no reason to not wear leather vambraces, hauberk, and pants below your other armor. The table on p.215 notes "Can be worn under any other armor, with a cumulative encumbrance penalty" for those items but the listed ENC is 0. So.... Free AP!

I think. Unless I buggered the reading again. Am I wrong?

[HreshtIronBorne]

Also, linen linothorax is only 1 enc for 3 ap, wearable under armor for both chest and abdomen. Sign me up,

[Crel]

22 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Also, linen linothorax is only 1 enc for 3 ap, wearable under armor for both chest and abdomen. Sign me up,

In my copy and on the PDF I don't see the ** mark indicating a linen linothorax can be worn beneath other armor.

Also (just in general) worth noting that I don't believe there's a "wear under" option for the head.

[Shiningbrow]

43 minutes ago, Crel said:

AFAICT, there's no reason to not wear leather vambraces, hauberk, and pants below your other armor. The table on p.215 notes "Can be worn under any other armor, with a cumulative encumbrance penalty" for those items but the listed ENC is 0. So.... Free AP!

I think. Unless I buggered the reading again. Am I wrong?

 

1pt leathers/quilted was always worn under other tougher (usually metal) armours in our games.

 

22 minutes ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

Also, linen linothorax is only 1 enc for 3 ap, wearable under armor for both chest and abdomen. Sign me up,

2pt Linen Linothorax is not written (table or description) as being wearable under other armours in my book... Quilted is  (2pts v 1pt).

There seems to be a discrepancy between the table and the description -  the table doesn't have the ** to indicate wearable underneath, while the description does. However, that's only for hte quilted, and not for the linen anyways...

[Pentallion]

On 4/26/2019 at 1:07 AM, metcalph said:

Depends on what you mean by atheism.

1)  If you mean does not worship, then worship of the Invisible God is not necessary to perform sorcery.  Some Malkioni may do it but they are considered to be stupid by others.

2) If you mean a denial of the existence of Gods, then I don't think this is Glorantha.  The Gods are real, not figments of imagination.  Whether they should be worshipped is another matter.

 

A:  from the Malkioni perspective, the gods are just sorcerers, nothing more.  B:  The only real god does NOT move amongst his worshippers, he is not present at all.   Hence, Invisible.  Unlike the phony gods.  This sorcerers are called atheists because they do not believe in the tangible gods.