Doubts about rules

[greatdwarf]

Hello,
I've recently bought the following books:
- RQ Core book
- RQ Companion
- RQ Legendary Heroes
- RQ Monsters
I've been reading all of these books and I can't find some things which are very important for my campaign.
The doubts I have are the following:
- I can't find anything about non human races and creating characters of non human races
- I see that there are professions and cultural backgrounds but there are no generic rules to make a character out of those professions
- In the companion I found rules for divine magic and sorcery but no rules to make priests or wizard characters
- I found rules about spirit world but I can't find anywhere something about shaman characters
- In 3rd edition rules a sorcerer could cast a spell which lasted 20 years, now the maximum duration of a sorcery spell is pow x 20 minutes ( let's say you have 21 in pow - that means 420 minutes = 7 hours ). I'm not criticizing this rule but I would only like to understand if it is a choice made to balance the magic system.

I hope someone can help me with my doubts.
Thanks[/list]

 

[Halfbat]

- I can't find anything about non human races and creating characters of non human races

Just come to an agreement with the GM and roll one dice more than required (except for 1D) and drop the extra. For example, a Duck character roll 3D for everything bar SIZ (4D for POW) and drop the worst. For culture/profession, it woul dbea good idea to agree one's with the GM whch are applicable to the campaign.

- I see that there are professions and cultural backgrounds but there are no generic rules to make a character out of those professions

Not sure what you mean by this but the cultures and profession skills are applied to the initial character. So a barbarian/Woodsmen would apply the Barbarian skills to the character 9selecting as necessary) then apply the Woodsmen additional skills, then apply the 100(no book, think it's a 100) extra free skill points as required.

The character is then developed onwards from there.

If that's not what you're asking, please do say!

- In 3rd edition rules a sorcerer could cast a spell which lasted 20 years, now the maximum duration of a sorcery spell is pow x 20 minutes ( let's say you have 21 in pow - that means 420 minutes = 7 hours ). I'm not criticizing this rule but I would only like to understand if it is a choice made to balance the magic system.

I'm pretty sure it is. It's been discussed on other threads, iirc.

 

[simonh]

The basic rulebook has the full procedure for creating a character using the cultural backgrounds and professions, including a full example.

The Monsters book has a section near the beginning explaining how to create characters using some of the monsters, including recommended culture and profession packages for several different monsters, such as Dark Trolls.

There aren't rules for creating sorcerers or priests yet, presumably youre supposed to achieve those professions during play. maybe they'll come up with advanced character gen rules later. Shaman rule are coming in a later supplement.

MAny thhings about magic are different. Legendary Abilities may well provide a route for achieving some of the larger scale effects from previous editions, and more.

 

[Cowboy]

- I see that there are professions and cultural backgrounds but there are no generic rules to make a character out of those professions

Not sure what you mean by this but the cultures and profession skills are applied to the initial character. So a barbarian/Woodsmen would apply the Barbarian skills to the character 9selecting as necessary) then apply the Woodsmen additional skills, then apply the 100(no book, think it's a 100) extra free skill points as required.

The character is then developed onwards from there.

If that's not what you're asking, please do say!

I think what he means is that there are no rules for creating characters who are not from any of those cultures and/or who are not of any of the professions in the book.

Which would be correct. The Companion contains some more cultures and professions.

 

[greatdwarf]

First of all, thanks for having answered my questions.
In fact, I didn't see the part of the monster book about creatures as characters. But I was asking myself reading that is "should a broo have the same base abilities as a human ?".
About the question on professions, what I was talking about was a set of rules for making custom professions in a balanced way. Or something to make a custom character.

About sorcery and divine magic, I don't quite understand why I have rules in the companion to cast spells for these systems. In fact, I can't create a new character that uses these magic systems.

 

[Utgardloki]

About the question on professions, what I was talking about was a set of rules for making custom professions in a balanced way. Or something to make a custom character.

My approach to that will be just to take a number of skill points, and let the players create a profession using those. I haven't done the math yet, but perhaps use 25 points to create a profession. (Figuring out the correct value is on my to do list.)

The other approach is to put down numbers that seem consistent. I did that for my Runequest Modern game to define a "profession" for "Basically Competent High School Graduate", which all PCs are assumed to belong to, gaining +20 to Drive (Automobile), +15 to Lore (Mathematics), +5 to Lore (Science), and +20 to Lore (World). (Actually, I don't remember the exact numbers, but it doesn't really matter.)

I was considering making other modern professions. Whether modern or archaic, my guiding principle is to consider what a person of this profession can do, and apply skills accordingly. Thus a basically competent high school graduate has some knowledge of science (he knows the difference between a planet and a platypus), but is usually scientifically illiterate (unless he's used his personal skill points to improve his science knowledge). On the other hand, most basically competent high school graduates are proficient enough at driving to get from their driveway to a destination on the other side of the country.

 

[Durand Durand]

The other approach is to put down numbers that seem consistent. I did that for my Runequest Modern game to define a "profession" for "Basically Competent High School Graduate", which all PCs are assumed to belong to, gaining +20 to Drive (Automobile), +15 to Lore (Mathematics), +5 to Lore (Science), and +20 to Lore (World). (Actually, I don't remember the exact numbers, but it doesn't really matter.)

Given my experience with High School Graduates, even a lot of University Graduates, +20 World Lore is a bit excessive. It might vary depending on where in the world are you. A local radio program run for years here in Australia had the same question for every caller coming on air, 'What is the capital of Brazil?'. Even with the answer repeated several times every show, most people didn't make the cut. Distinction is made by the use of the word "Competent High School Graduate" though, so I guess it is OK.


DD

 

[Nickbergquist]

- I can't find anything about non human races and creating characters of non human races
The Core Rulebook, page 105 talks about this.
- I see that there are professions and cultural backgrounds but there are no generic rules to make a character out of those professions
Not sure what you mean here. Do you mean, how do you make your own professions/cultures? Or do you mean, are there "fast and dirty" design rules like in RQ3? If so, then you are right....no specific rules; the current system assumes all characters will have a profession/culture, even if it has to be built from scratch.
- In the companion I found rules for divine magic and sorcery but no rules to make priests or wizard characters
The rules cover the process of becoming a priest or sorcerer, but I think what you want are some professions which allow a character to start as such, not become such. If you look at these magical options, all a character needs to practice divine magic is the specific Lore skill for his cult/religion, and all sorcery spells are treated as avanced skills. Therefore, I really see nothing prohibiting a player from making a character and using starting skill points to acquire one or both of these options (or more) unless the GM forbids it. A GM might tell you only professions which have access to Runecasting can also spend point here, and may even ask that the runecasting be replaced by divine spellcasting or sorcery....
- I found rules about spirit world but I can't find anywhere something about shaman characters
You would be right; shamanic magic is missing so far, and on the way I understand. Yeargh!!
- In 3rd edition rules a sorcerer could cast a spell which lasted 20 years, now the maximum duration of a sorcery spell is pow x 20 minutes ( let's say you have 21 in pow - that means 420 minutes = 7 hours ). I'm not criticizing this rule but I would only like to understand if it is a choice made to balance the magic system.
Probably......but I think I'd allow a measure of permanency to any spell a sorcere casts if they are willing to sacrifice enough POW to do it, myself! :twisted:

 

[CharlieMonster]

- In 3rd edition rules a sorcerer could cast a spell which lasted 20 years, now the maximum duration of a sorcery spell is pow x 20 minutes ( let's say you have 21 in pow - that means 420 minutes = 7 hours ). I'm not criticizing this rule but I would only like to understand if it is a choice made to balance the magic system.

MRQ seems to be heading more along the route of enchantments being the standard for permanent/semi-permanent magic as covered in the companion. I would expect to see more material in this vein, particularly in Magic of Glorantha. Apparently Lankhmar has a different magic systems too.

On a personal levle I'm looking forward to Demonology, which has been hinted at, but I have no idea where that will turn up. Possibly in the Hawkmoon/Corum campaign books that were threatened a while back.

 

[Loz]

On a personal levle I'm looking forward to Demonology, which has been hinted at, but I have no idea where that will turn up. Possibly in the Hawkmoon/Corum campaign books that were threatened a while back.

It would be odd to find demonology in Hawkmoon (and, to a certain extent, Corum, too). I can't think of a single instance in the Hawkmoon saga where a demon is summoned to perform any kind of service. There are mutants and warped creatures; robots, too; and Hawkmoon uses various enchanted items (plus has the soul-eating black jewel buried in his bonce). But demons? Conspicuous by their absence.

Now Elric... crawling with 'em. That'd be the place for demonology stuff.

:wink:

 

[RosenMcStern]

- In 3rd edition rules a sorcerer could cast a spell which lasted 20 years, now the maximum duration of a sorcery spell is pow x 20 minutes ( let's say you have 21 in pow - that means 420 minutes = 7 hours ). I'm not criticizing this rule but I would only like to understand if it is a choice made to balance the magic system.

MRQ seems to be heading more along the route of enchantments being the standard for permanent/semi-permanent magic as covered in the companion.

People, a spell that lasts 7 hours and costs 2 MPs IS permanent. Your sorcerer will regain the 2 MPs in much less than 7 hours, he has just to recast the spell, and since he must be 200% with it it .

Now just think of your average quicksilver Dwarf with POW 15, Damage Boosting 200%, Manipulation(Duration) 200%, Manipulation(Combine) 150%, Manipulation(Magnitude) 150% [dwarfs are immortal, remember, so high skills are common]. All right? Well, he can cast Damage Boosting 15 on 15 Iron Dwarfs, duration 15*20=300 minutes (5 hours), at the cost of 4 MPs. He recovers his full MPs in 10 hours even when not sleeping, so after 5 hours he has recovered 7-8 MPs, i.e. enough to recast the spell without any extra MP source

And anything but a Dragon meeting 15 Iron Dwarfs with Damage Boosting 15 on their axes is mincemeat.....

Does anyone still need permantent spells? :twisted:

 

[Halfbat]

And anything but a Dragon meeting 15 Iron Dwarfs with Damage Boosting 15 on their axes is mincemeat.....

Does anyone still need permanent spells? :twisted:

Fantastic example! :lol: Even the dragon would run!

It's a good point: the sorcery is not exactly permanent (as you still need the sorcerer around with you) but a high level sorcerer is _still_ a force to be reckoned with, especially when he has a few mundane allies.

 

[soltakss]

With the ignoring armour rules, nothing is safe.

I'd go at -40, or whatever it is (I'd even quarter my chance if needs be) to ignore armour every time against dragons and anything tough.

So, 15 dwarves, each attacking at 75% being tough but not too tough and having Damage Boosting 15, attack a poor defenceless dragon, ignoring armour takes them down to 35%, which means that 5 of them should hit, each doing 2D6+2+1D4+15 or 26 points on average, should be enough to take down any poor little dragon in one round.

Ignoring armour sucks for a GM

 

[Darran]

Ignoring armour sucks for a GM

Yes but that cuts both ways!

 

[Rurik]

I for one beleive NPC's should (within reason) leverage the same advantages that players do. I think the Bastion (-80% to ignore armor precise attacks) option for high quality items from the Companion is going to very popular among those players that can afford it - it certainly will be among well to do NPC's who are in a postion to afford it (read: major foes) in my games.

Which brings up the point should good armor be better to bypass than natural armor? Maybe natural armor should be -80 as well?

I originally planned on not letting precise attacks bypass natural or magical armor. The downside of this is that it makes magical protection that much more better than worn armor, so I am on the fence on that one.

I was going to NOT allow bypassing natural armor, but -80% may be a reasonable work around. You just have to deal with the math when a creature is wearing worn armor over natural armor (Minus 40 to hit and bypass worn armor, but you have to roll 80 under your skill to bypass the natural armor as well).

 

[Durand Durand]

And anything but a Dragon meeting 15 Iron Dwarfs with Damage Boosting 15 on their axes is mincemeat.....

Does anyone still need permanent spells? :twisted:

Fantastic example! :lol: Even the dragon would run!

Only a Dream Dragon. A REAL one would get up and shake them off its back, snort them out of existence and go sleep somewhere else.

It's a good point: the sorcery is not exactly permanent (as you still need the sorcerer around with you) but a high level sorcerer is _still_ a force to be reckoned with, especially when he has a few mundane allies.

I'm under the impression high level Sorcerers would rely heavily on enchantments for boosts and permanent spells. As we have yet to see a complete semblance of magic rules and how things might operate in Glorantha's second age, we shall have to wait and see.

DD

 

[CharlieMonster]

It would be odd to find demonology in Hawkmoon (and, to a certain extent, Corum, too). I can't think of a single instance in the Hawkmoon saga where a demon is summoned to perform any kind of service. There are mutants and warped creatures; robots, too; and Hawkmoon uses various enchanted items (plus has the soul-eating black jewel buried in his bonce). But demons? Conspicuous by their absence.

At the risk of showing my age it's been a good 20-odd years since I read Moorcock and they all kinda blur into one through the mists of time

 

[weasel_fierce]

Sorcery, as written, is only available in-game. You cant begin play with it.

As an idea, take a career that currently receives runecasting, and just replace it with a sorcery spell of choice.

As far as divine magic, the priest can replace his normal theology skill with a specific theology, which, provided he's at least an acolyte (and being a priest, I dont see why not), would let him pick divine spells.

 

[Trifletraxor]

Yet another suggestion for houseruling the opposed tests (based on ideas stated by others previously):

If one opponent in the opposed test have a skill above 100%, subtract the skill amount above 100% from both skills before rolling. If both opponents have skills above 100%, halve both skills (as many times as necessary) before rolling. Double failures are rolled again if a winner of the opposed test is necessary.

I find it combining the best of two good suggestions. What do you think?

SGL.

 

[Gnarsh]

Yet another suggestion for houseruling the opposed tests (based on ideas stated by others previously):

If one opponent in the opposed test have a skill above 100%, subtract the skill amount above 100% from both skills before rolling. If both opponents have skills above 100%, halve both skills (as many times as necessary) before rolling. Double failures are rolled again if a winner of the opposed test is necessary.

I find it combining the best of two good suggestions. What do you think?

meh... Why have two different methods though? If you've already got your players doing simple subtraction of their skills when dealing with stuff over 100%, it would seem easier to just use that all the time. It simply becomes a matter of measuring the difference in skills at that point, which is pretty darn easy to do.

Also. I find rolling over and over kinda ridiculous. In an opposed test, you need to determine who succeeded and who failed. More importantly, you're really determining who overcame the other guys skill at the particular task at hand. Simple subtraction of skill over 100 from both skills works great for combat skills (where both can succeed and still get a valid result), but not so great by itself for opposed rolls.

What I do for opposed rolls over 100% is the following. One side rolls. He subtracts the amount he rolled from his skill. This establishes a single number that represents the number of percentiles he made his skill by, which can be extrapolated to be the degree to which he succeeded, right? That value is then applied as a skill minus to the opposed skill (essentially difficulty since it's *harder* to spot someone who is really good at hiding, right?).

The advantage of this method is that you as the GM can apply it without having to even reveal to the players what they are attempting to do, or what the skill level of the opposed skill is. For example. I can decide that a broo assassin is sneaking up on the character. I roll my broo's stealth and make it by 37%. I can then tell the player to roll his perception skill and tell me how much he made it by. If his number is 37 or higher, then he spotted the broo. If not, then he didn't spot the broo.

This is easy to manage because the players can get used to doing a single mechanic all the time. When you as the GM ask them to make a skill roll, they just roll the dice and tell you if they suceeded, and if so, by how much. After using this mechanic for a short while it becomes an automatic process and the players don't find it difficult at all. They get used to the idea that how much they make their skill by determines how well they succeeded. Period.

The additional beauty of this is that it works perfectly with regards to enviornmental skill minuses. If a character is trying to pick a lock, I as the GM know how difficult it is and therefore what the minus to his chance is. I don't necessarily need to tell the player. He just rolls his skill as normal, and if he makes it by more then the difficulty, he succeeded. The same mechanic is used for all skills (except combat) all the time. From the players perspective, this is incredibly easy. They don't have to think about whether they're halving their skill or not. They just do the same simple process every time they're asked to attempt a skill roll.

It's what I've been using in my RQ3 campaign for quite some time. It works very well. I've never had any issues with it, nor do the player have any problems with it. Consistency is the key IMO...