4th preview is up

[homerjsinnott]

OK, so I didn't expect an RQ 2 or 3 reworking, so changes are fine by me, but I sure did think it was reasonable to expect that any changes that would be made would have generally been in keeping with the spirit and style of the originals. This stuff is not.

Hmmmm...

I agree with you in the most part but, I don't know, where do you go from Runelord/priest? I hope it will be easy to use these things as rewards for HQing.

I have been toying with the idea for a long time of making the abilities of rune levels PC's non-standard so each cult would grant different abilities ie a Humakti RL would have very different abilities to that of a Chalana Arroy RL. I have even thought they should be High Temple specific..
I don't feel that they are favoured enough by their god and DI is too powerful and generic.

 

[andakitty]

Oh, I'm concerned about 'born to the saddle' too. You are right, if it is as it appears right now it does not capture the feel of RQ, any edition, or Stormbringer for that matter. I am still hopeful that the full set of rules will reveal more thought put into the design and how everything fits together. If it is too 'D20ized' they will have lost at least one old time RQer right out of the gate. I guess I can get Delux BRP and continue to do my thing...

 

[Mark Galeotti]

I confess that I have a fondness for feats and similar special abilities; the slow accretion of an extra few percentiles on a skill here or there may be more realistic, but there's something -- IMO -- simply rather fun about picking up some 'signature move' type abilities along the way.

All the best

Mark

 

[Harshax]

I confess that I have a fondness for feats and similar special abilities; the slow accretion of an extra few percentiles on a skill here or there may be more realistic, but there's something -- IMO -- simply rather fun about picking up some 'signature move' type abilities along the way.

Let's just leave it as, "Setting specific mechanics," before anyone gets hurt, ok?

 

[seanwalsh]

Can someone explain to me why a First Aid or Healing test can raise a character by one level of Fatigue once per day, but cannot raise a character above Winded, while "swimming at a reasonable pace" will raise a character to Fresh if you keep at it long enough?
Swimming, regardless of pace, is not invigorating. I also do not see how "carrying light loads" will make a person less weary. Four hours of spell casting? No, you are still tired!
I, for one, vote for deleting the rule that allows recovery of fatigue by 4 hours of light activity, unless the rules indicate a difference between "Light Activity", like swimming at a reasonable pace, and "light activity", like doing the crossword puzzle in bed.

By the way, I love everything I've seen so far, even the silly stuff. I can hardly wait!

 

[aknaton]

I confess that I have a fondness for feats and similar special abilities; the slow accretion of an extra few percentiles on a skill here or there may be more realistic, but there's something -- IMO -- simply rather fun about picking up some 'signature move' type abilities along the way.

All the best

Mark

I second that. Feat-like abilities are a good thing.

/Aknaton

 

[andakitty]

The more I think about them, the less like feats they look (I thought 'feats' the first time I looked at the preview too). First, each is a set of abilities, whereas feats are built in chains with a series of prerequisites. Second, you have to work up a skill to what was, in first edition Stormbringer, 'master' level. That is, 90% +. So they look more like benefits gained from getting really good with a specific skill or set of skills. In Stormbringer when a (combat) skill reaches 90% you gain two advantages..you can riposte, which pretty much makes you a walking cuisinart, and you can effectively teach the skill. This part of MRQ reminds me of that more than it does feats. As long as they don't subsume things that are the proper province of skills as skills (as in not allowing decapitation unless you have the 'ability') and hero points are really, really hard to get I'll be able to live with it.

As for the fatigue rules, I'll probably ignore them. I usually do.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Well, one of the key reasons the originals were so well loved was because what you could and couldn't do was defined by skills, rather than by any artificial mechanics. Anybody should be able to do a "decapitating swing" (intentional non-use of caps), so long as they have sufficient skill and can inflict enough damage.

Likewise, going berserk was a Divine spell (think of it as letting yourself be possessed by the fury of your god, if you like) rather than a specific ability. This kind of thing is not necessary.

IIRC, RQ2 allowed you to be a trainer at 90% also, but didn't have any silly stuff attached to it.

What I'm going to assume - and I hope I'm right - is that these are (a) explicitly optional, both in terms of rule mechanics and in terms of character choice in-game, and (b) intended to give a 90% advancement path to non magic-using characters, that's the equivalent of being a Shaman or Rune Lord.

That doesn't mean I have to either like or accept them. Although I wouldn't mind them as character generation options as much as I mind them as advancement options - at least that would make sense.

 

[andakitty]

Indeed.

Matt has posted a short explanation over at rpg.net. It seems I was more or less correct in my speculation.

 

[Harshax]

You know I was just going to post that maybe those abilities at the end of the preview might be a taste of what one can expect in Runequest Companion. (or whichever supplement deals with incredibly powerful characters)

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

OK, so here's the official explanation:

Worry not about the inclusion of Legendary Abilities. They may look and smell like feats but they serve another role, to give characters with ability scores climbing over 100% something solid to aim for. If your games of RQ do not generally go that high, you will never come into contact with them. On the other hand, they are one of the ways we provide legs for more heroic play at high 'level'.

That makes sense, I can applaud the motivation, although what we've seen of the execution so far is a little suspect.

But hey, no game I was ever in went even remotely near 80%, so cool enough.

 

[Archer]

Indeed.

Matt has posted a short explanation over at rpg.net. It seems I was more or less correct in my speculation.

Would you mind posting a link to that post on rpg.net? (seems there are no search function that works).

 

[Adept]

I confess that I have a fondness for feats and similar special abilities; the slow accretion of an extra few percentiles on a skill here or there may be more realistic, but there's something -- IMO -- simply rather fun about picking up some 'signature move' type abilities along the way.

All the best

Mark

I second that. Feat-like abilities are a good thing.

/Aknaton

I'm pretty sure the D&D franchise nicked the term "feat" from Hero Wars, where it makes much more sense. Just an observation.

 

[yipwyg]

here is the link that you ask for.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=268654&page=3

The thread is called Mongoose Runequest 4th preview is up

 

[Archer]

here is the link that you ask for.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=268654&page=3

The thread is called Mongoose Runequest 4th preview is up

Thank you very much kind Sir.

 

[kwinland]

Howdy,

Well *I* am still buying the new RQ sight unseen.... :wink:

The "new" fatique system is basically the same one from RQ4 (which never really saw the light of day). It works fine. As the new RQ is supposed to be Open, use the RQ3 system if you don't like the new one, or wait for a new fatique variation to come out from some third party (like the numerous D20 books that have flooded the market - I WISH RQ will have that much third party support!). Or make up your own fatigue system!

The "Heroic Abilities" look OK, although it all depends (for me) on the accumulation and spending of Hero Points. Special abilities are nifty things, and the game is still skill-centric. People seem to get hung up on names/titles - how about "...LIKE they were born to the saddle...". :roll:

I like the generic applicabilty of a rulebook - I MUCH prefer the RQ3 approach as opposed to having Glorantha bound into the examples and flavour. That's what sourcebooks are for. THAT said, I have used RQ a LOT, but never ran in Glorantha much.... I like to play in Glorantha, but not run a game in it.

My biggest grief (aside from some goofy damage in the weapon chart)? Using SILVER PIECES as the default currency! Come on guys, use COPPER!

My 2 pennies...

Ken
..Stil running RQ after 24 years...

 

[andakitty]

Which damage values do you find goofy? I ask because I think some got kinda nerfed, myself (although the spears look better). Curious to know if anyone else thinks so...and I'm really wanting to see missile damages too.

I wish they would post the character sheet!

 

[Adept]

Which damage values do you find goofy? I ask because I think some got kinda nerfed, myself (although the spears look better). Curious to know if anyone else thinks so...and I'm really wanting to see missile damages too.

I wish they would post the character sheet!

Daggers, spears and leather armour are terribly underrated in almost any RPG system.

Spear has been the most important weapon over the millenia, and a dagger should do as much damage. The difference is one of reach.

I seem to recall that different length spears did different damage. That is strange. That said, there was the 1h/2h damage difference finally, and the numbers looked pretty good. Things did way too much damage in RQ-3, meaning that one had to wear huge amounts of armour for it to do any good.

 

[andakitty]

I agree about spears and leather armor. Daggers? Nah. 1D4+2 was way too much. Besides, a dagger doing as much damage as a gladius? Mostly I thought the swords, except the great sword, were too weak. Also maces. It will be interesting to see the rest of the system, things such as damage bonuses. See how it all balances out.

I can understand spears doing different damage 1h or 2h, you can get more power behind the thrust with two hands. But what is the +2 on the lance? Aside from a D&D holdover, that is. I liked the RQ idea, the horse's momentum giving extra lethality, using the mounts DB. Otherwise what is a lance except a spear?

Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they are worth.

 

[Adept]

I agree about spears and leather armor. Daggers? Nah. 1D4+2 was way too much. Besides, a dagger doing as much damage as a gladius? Mostly I thought the swords, except the great sword, were too weak. Also maces. It will be interesting to see the rest of the system, things such as damage bonuses. See how it all balances out.

A dagger thrust has exactly as much force behind it as a gladius thrust. If anything a good dagger does more damage on a thrust for having a more slender blade. The point with gladius is that it's sturdier, has a longer reach and can also cut. More damage on a thrust it has not.

I can understand spears doing different damage 1h or 2h, you can get more power behind the thrust with two hands. But what is the +2 on the lance? Aside from a D&D holdover, that is. I liked the RQ idea, the horse's momentum giving extra lethality, using the mounts DB. Otherwise what is a lance except a spear?

Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they are worth.

Parhaps the +2 is the damage on a mounted charge. What else could it be? The logic of a larger horse giving more damage is flawed. Worry about a large man on a small, quick horse rather than a small man on a large horse. What matters in the lance charge is the speed (and the size/strength of the rider). Physics, pure and simple.