Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Anunnaki

  • Rank
    Junior Member


  • RPG Biography
    Roleplayer since 1975.
  • Current games
    Savage Worlds, RuneQuest, D&D, Pathfinder
  • Location
  • Blurb
    Fan of tabletop RPGs.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If it helps, the PDF from DTRPG (I don't have the Chaosium-direct version, so I can't comment if that is different from DTRPG, though I doubt it would be) is not as up-to-date as the print book (I snagged a copy of the print book at Gen Con). I am expecting an updated PDF at some stage and I believe it has been noted previously/elsewhere that once the print books "flow" out to customers Chaosium will be opening up the errata-snagging thread again to capture anything that sneaked through like the sneaky Chaos that errata is. 😊 Hope this helps! Kind regards, James
  2. Anunnaki


    Mea culpa... Apologies, please ignore this topic. I should have executed the obligatory Search first before posting.
  3. Anunnaki


    On the subject of Fireblade, p.262 in the RQ:G rulebook (I am referencing the printed rulebook, not the PDF, though the two are identical at time of writing). This spell is noted as being Active, but there is no reference in the description as to what would make it stop being active, nor can I find any guidelines about what "Active" means mechanically apart from a short paragraph on p.255, which notes that such spells "...require some concentration and attention by the caster to continue functioning as desired." Looking to earlier editions for clarification (this question came up in our last RQ:G game session and I had to make a GM ruling that it was Passive, not Active), I see that in RQ2 there is a note that if the caster takes physical or magical damage the spell goes away (Fireblade is Active). In RQ3, the spell is Passive. So my question: Are we missing the salient sentence from RQ2: "If the character using the spell takes physical or magical damage the Fireblade goes away." or should this spell simply be Passive instead of Active and wording remains as is? Thanks in advance for clearing this up! Kind regards, James
  4. Anunnaki

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    Fair call. The definition of "offensive spells" is in RQ:G in the Spirit Magic Procedures sidebar, p.256. Basically, "spells cast at an unwilling target that require a POW:POW resistance roll." So Detect Enemies, for example, isn't an "offensive spell" because it never triggers a resistance roll. But that said, the point I was trying to make is difference between "non-engaged" and "engaged" as a limit on attacks and just using an obvious attack spell as an example.
  5. Anunnaki

    How Many Attacks in a Round?

    (Disrupt is used in this post as an example "attack" spell and Bladesharp as a "non-attack" spell.) So, you are either "non-engaged" or "engaged" in melee. 1. If I am "non-engaged" I can cast Disrupt at an enemy, and if I have sufficient SRs and remain "non-engaged" I can cast Disrupt again at another (or the same) enemy that round. 2. If I am "non-engaged" I can cast Disrupt at an enemy, and if I have sufficient SRs (enemy comes to me or I move to enemy), I become "engaged" in melee and either cast Disrupt at my enemy or attack with a prepared weapon (one physical or magical attack when "engaged") that round. 3. If I am "engaged" in melee, I can cast Disrupt at my enemy or attack with a prepared weapon (one physical or magical attack when "engaged") that round. 4. If I am "engaged" in melee, and if I have sufficient SRs, I can cast Bladesharp on my prepared sword and attack with that sword (one physical attack, but magic used is not an attack) that round. 5. If I am "engaged" in melee and attack and kill my enemy, leaving me "non-engaged", and if I have sufficient SRs I can cast Disrupt at another enemy that round (one attack while engaged, but free to act while non-engaged). Does this make sense and/or help? More combinations, possible, obviously, but I wanted to cover a few scenarios. Kind regard, James
  6. Looking forward to September 14! On the topic of errata, MOB or Jeff or Rick, is there somewhere we can start collating errata for the printed copy of the RQ:G core rulebook (for those of us who have it at time of writing, but soon for others)? There are some errors in the print book that I've been coming across. So far there is nothing egregious or game-changing, FYI, but for future printings and/or PDF updates just wondered how or if you still want to collect errata.
  7. Anunnaki


    Understood. So in that case, your proposal seems reasonable. I guess I need to understand the difference in how Rune Magic works better in RQG to comment further. Will get to try that out soon enough as I kick off our campaign this weekend.
  8. Anunnaki


    I'm not sure about the Temporal thing. As written, it's definitely not right, however (so good catch). These things happens between multiple versions, so it's not a biggie. That's why we have forums and constructive debate. So, going back to basics, here's the RQ3 writeup: EARTHPOWER 3 points ranged, instant, stackable, one-use Once bought, this is an automatic spell. The spell activates the first time that the priestess touches the ground if magic points or her POW drop to zero. It activates exactly as her POW or magic points drop to zero, preventing unconsciousness or destruction of her soul, and allowing her to draw both 1 point of POW and 1D8 magic points directly from the earth. If she has more than one Earthpower spell, all activate at once. So, being new to RQG and just getting back into the game after decades of "other games" (and loving it, btw -- RQ2 was our favorite game for almost a decade), I am genuinely curious to see how the RQ3 write-up could be modified to make a more appropriate RQG version? To me, it's clear that this is a "when the bad thing happens to the character" spell. I don't see it as being Temporal; One-use definitely makes sense. Tangent, being a newbie to the forums, I am loving the polite, constructive, discourse here, so thanks all. Ultimately, the goal is to improve our beloved game, especially in its nascent re-emergent infancy. (No broo jokes please.) 😊
  9. Anunnaki


    Hmmm. It's the same in the printed RQG book (compared to PDF) and there is no clarification in the Gen Con 2018 GoG Preview document, so possibly something that slipped through the editorial cracks. In RQ2 it auto-activates when the "touch earth" criteria is met and the caster's POW is 1 or less; POW gain is permanent. In RQ3 (more analogous mechanics-wise, due to both POW and MP), the POW/MP gained is permanent until used, but activates when POW/MP drop to zero. Sounds to me like the latter is what was intended for RQG, so probably should reference the "activates automatically" nature and ignore the "disappear at the end of the spell's duration" for POW gain. Thinking more, you could be right about making it Temporal, but that implies knowing your POW/MP could drop to zero, so seems less like a "save bacon" effect than it is in RQ2/3 using it this way. Thinking even more, I don't know about the "MP in excess" statement. Seems to me to be potent enough capping any POW and MP gains at the character's starting values. A 3 point "don't lose my soul from POW loss or fall unconscious from MP loss" spell seems pretty good to me as is. Anything more is gravy. 😊
  10. Anunnaki

    What worlds would people like to see in BRP?

    Hiya, Apparently Maelstrom is being reprinted and intended to be published (and supported) this year. I can't recall the company who is doing it, however. There was a thread on rpg.net about it in the last month or so. Regards, James
  11. Anunnaki

    Q&A's with the new BRP author version 2.0

    Hiya, Well, you and me idiots both then, Drohem. I've had a good read now and I am also "confuzzled" about what's intended here. (Please ignore my earlier post -- I think I am way wrong...) Regards, James
  12. Anunnaki

    Q&A's with the new BRP author version 2.0

    Hi Drohem, I suspect it's because of the sliding MOV scale (1-5), mentioned in Vehicles, p.265. For Humans (and Horses), they have a "normal" combat round MOV of 10 and 12, respectively. The Vehicle Table assumes a scale of 3 which means your Horse (MOV 4 in the Vehicle Table) ends up with an equivalent combat round MOV of 12 (4 x 3 = 12). Same with Chariots. I'm not 100% sure how this all works or why the scale, to be honest, but I'm sure Jason will jump in and explain better. (I haven't read the whole book yet, sorry.) Presumably this keys into vehicles being so much faster and is a mechanism for scaling large distances in game play down to manageable values? Kind regards, James
  13. Anunnaki

    I got mine!

    Hiya, I ordered my copy on 14 December and it arrived in New Zealand this morning! *glee* #58 if anyone is counting... Kind regards, James