Atgxtg

Seems paradoxical, but isn't, I think.

I'm not so sure. You might be able to combine movement with casting here in which case the spell could go off while you are en route on SR1 of the first round. Also, technically speaking, does it actually state anywhere in the rules that healing magic, first aid, etc. has to be completed before it prevents death? I think it only states that such aid has to only be given, so being in the act might be enough to prevent death, at least until the attempt is finished. So it might be that if you declare that you are going to go over to someone and cast Heal Wound on them, the fact that you started to do so might be enough to keep them from dying at the end of the first round so you can finish your attempt on SR1 of round two. Note that I say might here, not does. I don't know just what the current authors intention is, but it would seem to make sense to me for it to work that way, since otherwise there would never be time enough to cast a high powered heal spell and save someone. Also, it does kinda make sense that starting life saving procedures, magical or mundane, should probably keep someone alive foe a few seconds. For all we know Healing magic might be the magical Gloranthan equivalent to CPR. Obviously the original intent was for such spells to be able to work in saving lives, and it's just bad wording that is preventing things from doing so.

Congrats. I wish it wasn't there, but it is. We have enough cans of worms now to open a bait shop.

AD&D used to have the same problem with so-called simultaneous initiative, where everything supposedly happened at the same time, yet injured spellcasters had thier spells "blown" by being hit, and incapacitated characters would drop before getting a turn. And to add fuel to your fire, there is also the fact that movement delays the resolution of actions, something that makes no sense at unless we are accounting for time. So it;s obvious that Strike Ranks represent the passing of time in some way. Just not in a fixed, linear way.

I think it doesn't, for two reasons. 1. The description for rune magic states that "Rune magic spells always take effect at strike rank 1". That would be a nearly pointless statement if Rune Magic had the same sequencing as Spirit Magic. 2. Some (most?) Rune Magic can be cast at variable point levels, yet that doesn't increase the casting time. For example, Shield 2 still goes off on SR1, not SR2. Now, I'll admit I'm using RQ2 rules as my source here, not RQG, but, unless there is something in RQG that specifically states otherwise, why assume differently?

I think it depends on your familiarity with the ruleset. If you are a die hard BRPer the the BGB is a godsend with near limitless potential. If you aren't, then it can be confusing and overwhelming. Reminds me of FUDGE in that That's a great idea. You get at least 90% of what you need for a typical Fantasy campaign in the quickstart. Add in fantasy races, extended equipment and weapons tables, and at least once magic system from the BGB and you're set.

It should work fine, mechanically. It's what the original Magic World was, a generic fantasy RPG. Any problems you may encounter will, more likely, be due to the differences between it and D&D. Players used to D&D, develop certain expectations that don't hold true for other games, and are often shocked when things don't work out the same way. For example, players might continue a fight long while injured because in D&D being down a a third or even half your hit points is no big deal.

Yeah, plus there is a merging of old Celtic stories into Knightly tales. We end up with different morals, virtues and priorities. So some behavior thiat would be considerable admirable or at least acceptable by some audiences become reprehensible by others. Lancelot has the problems of being more of a icon than a person. In a way it diminishes him. It like Superman facing off against an armed robber. You know he's in no real danger and is just going to roll right over the bad guy. Galahad is worse, because he is a Saint, and has no flaws or traits outside of those required to be a good Christian and a Chivalric Knight. Both are more ideals than heroes. I would look at it as more honor, courage and justice. He agreed to the situation going in, although probably not expecting to actually have to fulfill his end of the bargain, and then stuck through to it in the end. I considered it more quick to anger but more fair minded once he calms down, of it he thinks something is in error. Personally, I'm much more forgiving over an accident than when someone deliberately tries to "hurt" me. Most of the "villains" in my games were usually just people who were on the other side in a conflict, and not really villains at all. That ran to Saxons and Picts too. Some "villains" were rivals or personal enemies, who, outside of that, were decent enough. Occasionally there would be the baddie who was really evil, but they were few and far between. Morgan certainly a more capable and dangerous foe, when she is a foe. Most versions of the tale seem to have her reconciled with Arthur to some extent by the end. Agravaine is a weak villain, I think because he is one of the first examples of deliberately trying to make a villain, especially one who isn't killed right away and who gets to hang out with the good guys. He's more of a caricature than a character. To be fair, he's not helped by the fact that everything he does Mordred does better.

Sure they are. A lot of histories real baddies could, under other circumstances, be nice guys. Plus there is a lot of overlap among traits, plus a lot of factors pulling people in differernt directions. Read the stories,it gets weirder. Most characters in the stories, villains and heroes are one-dimensional. This is probably due to several factors: lack of characterization in general in early literature, limited "screen time" (most baddies aren't around long enough after their intro to get a fleshed out personality). The problem here is that just what traits a given one dimensional character has often changes depending on the story. I think one of the reason for the multiple traits and opposed rolls is so that you can recreate the various facets of characters from different stories. For instance, Gawain is a paragon of virtue except when his family is involved. Then he can be a vengeful murderous thug., and the game strives to reflect that. Without such a complex interacion of traits and passions he would be reduced to being one of the other, and his actions would not be explainable in the game. What if it this is his trial? For a Knight charged with murder, trial by combat would be the norm, and tghe Liege picking your character to face off against the accused would be seen as fitting. Or what if the killer is so well connected that he can escape justice? So it's quite possible that killing him might be more just that bringing him to your liege. You're assuming that the fight is a personal vendetta. It might be, but that's not spelled out in your initial post. Context makes quite a difference. If it's a personal vendetta then that different, but then a Love or Amor Passion is probably going to be playing a major factor here, and rightly so. Passions, and the nature of the transgression also play a big factor here. If someone spills soda on me, I'll probably forgive them for it, and fairly quickly. If they murder my family, I'd be less inclined to forgive, and if I did it probably would take longer to do so.

Yes, but that partially why the traits get a rating and are not absolutes. I wouldn't trash a trait score for one action. Also traits are often opposed by other traits, so that someone might not be less mercical, but more Just. In one of my campaigns we had a PK with a hilariously funny example of that. His character was noted for being Cruel (16) but Forgiving (19 to start with). As a result, whenever any of his peasant got into trouble they would usually just apologize and beg for forgivingness thus triggering Forgiving for an opposed roll. It pretty much always worked, and the character didn't become are less Cruel, but he did become more Forgiving. If you do it the way you described what happens is that characters literally become one dimensional, with one trait dominating all the others. In your example, Merciful and Forgiving take hits despite the fact hat other factors clearly apply. It would certainly be Just not to spare that rival.

LOL! That's a bit of an extreme example. I can see someone doing something out of character as a one off- thats part of what the trait scores are for, and even kind people do cruel things at times. What I was referring to was a situation where a player knight was acting very unchivalrously one year, but technically qualified for the bonus. But I've had a few problem players, such as one guy who kept telling everybody how Modest he was (he got miffed when his 22 Modest got ruined by a Pride check).

Yes, Greg. According to his post, 80 was an error . Yes, except the "cost" wasn't the same in later editions it was actually lower, since player knights got more modifiers to their traits. For example, in KAP3 all PKs start with Valorous 15, something they didn't start with in KAP1-2. That combined with the religious trait modifiers, brought the average PK total up to around 71 and made it much easier for an average PC to get to 80 than in KAP1-2. Yup. Much like any other rule in KAP. Plus what it means in play. One thing about Chivalry in KAP is that it often is treated as something a knight either is or isn't. This tends to make the player's behavior a bit extreme, as there is no point, in game to being "a little chivalrous". It also makes it so that a PK can act very unchivalrously, and still technically qualify for the bonuses due to his high traits. I used to require that Chivalrous knight had to act chivalrously to get their bonus.

I think an average of 16 probably makes the bonus too unattainable, and I have doubt about it being the idea in KAP1. Back then characters didn't get as many modifiers to starting trait values, and knight weren't necessarily valorous. KAP3-4 changed that. Looking over the thread I see that once of the ideas that Greg was toying with was a tiered approach to the bonuses, where instead of getting or not getting the bonus, the amount of the bonus was tied to the trait values. That might be the better way to go. That might help differentiate between knight who are chivalrous and thous who are paragons of chivalry.

Very sad news. Goodbye Greg, and thanks for everything.

Yup, I did something like that for a variant, based off of how Bushido does it, Pendragon, and the demon table from Elric!/Stormbringer. What I did was give a base damage dice from STR+SIZ. I think it was (STR+SIZ)/5, nearest. So an average person used a d6 . Then weapons shifted the damage p or down steps on the die ladder. A shortsword might be +1 steps (1d8 the damage average as 1D6+1), a broadsword +2 steps (1D10, the same average as 1D8+1, a greatsword + 5 steps (1D10+1D6, or 2D8) and so on. Or I might have did damage by weapon and shifts by STR+SIZ. it's been awhile. It was nice in that it smoothed the damage progression, and got rid of all those plus that make it impossible to get a graze, and stabilized the damage for large creatures so that they could get glancing strike too. An attack that did 1D6+9D6 (10D6) got changed to something like 6D10

I believe Crush specifically states Damage Bonus not Damage Modifier. So someone with a negative Damage Modifier won't have to double it, because it's not a bonus.

The Mostali probably do. Hazarding a guess, my money would be on a spring that gets primed on the energy from the shot bolt. The whole thing might be wound up, in advance, with enough stored energy to fire the whole magazine, or even several magazines. Mostali have some sort of clocks for fixing the machine, right?

The curve also helps to keep the center of mass close to the rider, which I think is important with longer weapons, especially those made of bronze.

Ow! Point given. I never knew it was hard to beat with a saber.

Very D&D ish, although with RQ you're probably doubling dipping with actual 2H weapons, since they do more damage than their 1H counterparts than in D&D. For instance a greatsword does 2D8 compares to 2D6 in D&D.

Technically a Katana isn't a perfectly fine one-handed cavlary sword. A Tachi is, but that has to do with how you wear them as opposed to how you wield them. But the Katana is not what one normally associates with thee term bastard sword. Most bastard swords are straight doubled edged swords. Even going with the katana, wielding it one handed pretty much negates all the benefits of a bastard sword. Not really. For one thing bronze is heavier, for another it is softer, and thirdly it doesn't hold the same edge. For another the shape of the blade is a factor. Calvary sword tend to be curved as it helps when mounted. The can be great, as long as the opponent isn't armored or blocks or parries with something. Flesh is pretty easy to cut. I think something like a kopis seems effective.

Most Chinese swords would be classified as broadswords in RQ terms. The RQ broadsword has "a blade of about 1 meter long" , and most of the longer Chinese swords seem to be post-bronze.

I just call a spatha a spatha. . A bastard sword is probably not a good calvary sword, but rules-wise they are. oh, historically, one of the other reasons why bronze swords tended to be short was that longer weapons tend to bend and break easier than short ones. Basically the lever effect that makes such weapons hit harder means that they end up taking more damage in the process.

I can think of a few reasons. First off you don't have the same historical reason for the Bastard Sword in Glorantha that you had in Europe, namely to get through the progressively better armor. Secondly, there's been some doubt recently as to how prominent and effective the bastard sword was. Some view it as being inferior to either a greatsword (to short, light and not as effective)or a broadsword (to big, heave, and not as easy to wield). But earlier versions of RQ had Bastard Swords, so we must assume that their removal probably has to do with a shift in how Glorantha is viewed. Either that or the effect of some heroquest. I believe the former, but the latter would be a nice surprise.

Bezainted, Studded Leather, Ring, all much the same in RQ terms.