Atgxtg

Yes, you should be able to. Unfortunately, a lot of the text in Chaosium products is cut & pasted from earlier products, often without other bits of rules that provide the proper context. And I don't believe the powers that be want to reinterpret the rules differently now.

Sorry, but that doesn't clarify the point nor is it fairly clear. The text in question is copied verbatim from RQ2 (page 19 in the Classic Edtion PDF). So it's not that this is a change or something new. Now, despite what is in the text states, that simply wasn't how the game was played, not even by Chasoium, since all adventures and supplements used the "tack in on to the SR of the melee attack" approach. Throwing a disrupt and attacking in the same round was done. As was throwing multiple disrupts in someone had the SR and POW (read magic points) to do it.

Except that traditionally, that's not how combat was run. It was (and still is) a common tactic for someone in melee to use battle battle to augment their weapon (i.e. bladesharp) or defenses (i.e. protection) and still attack and parry. Traditionally, the cast just added the MP cost of the spell to the SR of their attack. So someone who casts Bladesharp 4,who would normally attack at SR7, attacked at SR 11. Now you can make a claim that this is RQG, not RQ2 and that the authors want to do thing differently, except that the tricky wording between melee and magic was in RQ2, and the game simply wasn't run the way the rules seem to imply. I suspect the limitation was something from very early in RQ that got discarded in actual play once the SR system was implemented and worked. Generally, it's been run (in Chaosium stuff) that if the SR of the spell is low engough, it can be cast in melee by just adding the SR to the normal attack. If a spell takes too many SR a character mightnot have enough SRs left to get a melee attack, and/or they could get hit while casting.

Yup. But altering that level of abstraction isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just a different way of doing things. There is the continuous system used in Ringworld. It wouldn't be hard to add in modifiers for SIZ and weapon length. But it also has it's drawbacks. In normal Ringworld play keeping track on the current Action Rank can become a chore in a long battle with lots of combatants. Add in RQ delays for things like pepping an arrow or MPs expended in a spell, and it could become a nightmare> If I were going to attempt it I'd probably have the character start his action on his normal AR, and then be doing it until the AR where the action would be resolved. IMO it would be easier to run that way. So on AR 5 Marty fires an arrow, then spends 9 ARs reading a second arrow and then aims and shoots again on AR 19. But I don't know if I would want to go through the bother.

Not ignoring it, just addressing the fact that some missile weapons have an advantage because they are exempt from it. A high DEX character with a low melee SR gets his attack off early in the round, but a high DEX archer not only acts earlier, but might even be able to get off a second attack in the same round. And how that would work out if someone used shorter MRs. 30 sword swings in a minute is certainly possible, but 30 arrow shots is superhuman.

Check out Ringworld. There characters had an Action Rank, based on DEX, and they got to act every time thier AR came around. For instance if you had a AR of 6, could act on impulse 6, 12, 18 and so forth. Someone with AR 5 would act on impulse 5, 10, 15, 20 etc. I works but can be a bookkeeping headache on a long fight. Plus Ringworld didn't factor in for Weapon or character size.

Yeah, although with 2 second MRs, the archers should probably take DEX MR to reload. That gives you an average of 10 arrows a minute, about the same as it is now.

You don't have to, but if you don't it changes the way missle combat works and the balance between melee and missile. I'm not advocating doing so, but it would "work" functionally. It would change the way combat plays out though. Archers would have to drop their bows and draw melee weapons if engaged simply to keep up on the number of attacks. Not that that would be a bad thing, but it would definitely be different. Not necessarily. There is nothing wrong with a swird fight being over in 10-20 seconds as opposed to a minute or two. Frankly the 10-12 seconds is probably more accurate. But again, it would radically alter things. I wouldn't mind trying it as an experiment some time. but it would be a one-shot or short term game with new PCs. I wouldn't want to risk existing PCs with such a radical change.

Thats kinda a thing with RQ in general. Everything is so integrated that changes can start a domino effect of unintended consequences. You could alter the length of the round, but increase the time it takes to reload arrows and such. That would keep the rate of fire down to a reasonable level, but it will certianly change the dynamic between melee and missle combatants. Those will melee weapons would probably get an attack on rounds where the archers are reloading. Not that that's actually wrong-melee weapons are quicker. But there would be a bunch of other effects. If I were going to try and change the duration of a melee round, I'd probably go to six seconds first and double the reload time to 10SR and the casting time to 2SR/MP and see how that playtests before anything more radical. But overall I'd expect a big shift towards melee and away from missles and magic.

Yeah, small shields are used to actively parry and block, larger shields are relied on more for cover.

The conversion? Here on this thread. I'd love to fine tune it to better fit RQG instead of RQ2. Personally I think ENC could be tweaked a little, prices adjusted to better match RQ3, and the hit points of the hide and wooden shields should be upped at little. If people want to, I could make it into a PDF for the downloads section. I could even add my conversion guidelines. The original RQ3 article was in Heroes Magazine Vol 2 Num 2, but I could post the RQ3 stats.

Oh great, there goes the Moon.

I did a conversion of an old RQ 3 article for shields. You might want to take a peek at the thread. It worked out to AP, cost and weight multiplier for different construction types. I don't have RQG, so prices are probably off the most-I just went with RQ2 pricing.

Or just have to deal with the effects of RPG economics. What tends to happen is that since players aren't playing shopkeepers, prices are of the "that feels about right" type, generally when looked at from the viewpoint of modern day people (because we are). It holds up fairly well, too, as long as players are adventures and don't look too closely at the prices. It when you have people trying to make a living with the economics that things become bizarre. You could always limit weapon damage to specials, criticals and fumbles.

I was doing something like that. I put Thrust (STR) and Power (POW)on a table the way mass is for SIZ. The idea was to be able to stat up everything on the same scale, as oppose to adapting the scale to pick a particular setting.

Probably because most RPG authors aren't economists or accountants. That's probably a good thing. Imagine an RPG where PCs have to roll after every battle to see how much their equipment has depreciated. 😁. I could just see a Rune Lord trying to prove that some treasure wasn't income, and thus he didn't have to give his cult their standard cut.

Year ago I read something by DC that claimed that Superman had some sort of (subconscious) hypnotic power that distorts how people see him as Clark. That was supposed to explain why nobody recognized him. It's a silly explanation, but at least it was an attempt to address the obvious issue-made more obvious by TV and film, where the audience can't miss it. Personally, I'd just say that Ka-Els baby blankets had some sort of perception filter built in.

Of the fact that if damage is considered minor nicks and scrpaes until the final blow that brings a character below 1 hit point, then why does it take sos long to heal up those nicks? Such as the fact that a low CON character has a better chance of surviving having two limbs cut off during the same battle than one with a high CON, and that he will probably (it used to be certianly) heal up from it faster, too.

That probably depends on just what "damage" is and how it is handled in the game. In a game like RQ, where taking any damage has a hight chance of impairing, disabling, or killing someone, then yes, it does really matter. In a game like D&D, where damage is abstracted with little or no effect or consequences from damage (it's just the total amount of damage that matters) then no. The game mechanic needs to be vieved in the context of the whole game. Yeah, but point reduction isn't great either. One of the problems with it is that most damage scales aren't linear. That is an attack that does 2 points of damage isn't necessarily hitting twice as hard as a 1 point hit. Otherwise we'd be rolling lots more dice for some weapons, and would need a way to justify why and how a human can be killed by and/or surving beig hit by a butter knife and a .50 caliber round. So we get a compressed damage scale. This causes a problem that is really noticeable with firearms. In real life, chances are, if a bullet penetrates the armor, it will have enough force/energy/whatever left over to penetrate the target and inflict just a serious wound as if the target were unarmored. Each +1 point really isn't the same. In such cases, a pass/fail success method probably is better than a damage reduction model. I think it really comes down to what amount of abstraction people arehappy with, and where. Bringing another RPG into the mix, HQ abstracts emerying into one number, and even gets away from concepts such as hit points.

Yeah, but they arn't actually "tin" or "copper". Maybe someday someone will clarify just how close the analogues are. Is Glorantha iron magnetic? Is there magnetism on Glorantha? I bet the Mostali would know.

Yeah, I read something where Jonathan Tweet mentioned that. D&D 3E with OGL Ancients even moreso. IMO it fells more like RQ than MRQ!

LOL! I wonder how Kong will travel in the "remake"?

Which Gloranthan Bronze isn't.

Bags of holding. it actually got to the point where the containers themselves become a problem. But then, I'm the GM who once put a lifesized (SIZ 16) statue of solid gold (magically strengthen) in adventure to see how the PCs would do about it. It has a mass of around 1.5 metric tons (SIZ 52), worth about 40 million RQ3 pennies.. Being an work of art. the PCs didn't want to break it up-more because it would fetch a higher price as a work of art than as lumps of gold. That I can understand a bit. Medieval weapon prices were intentionally kept high by law (to keep them out of the hands of the "riff-raff"). So a pound for a broadsword is okay. BTW, if RQG prices really bug you, get a copt of the price lists from Harn. Harn uses standard medieval LSD pricing, and has a longbow priced at 36d.

It's not a bad idea. It's just that something like this usually ends up with people discussing why they prefer one system to the other and blurring fact (ie.e RQ has fixed hit points while D&D has increasing hit points) with opinion (i.e. fixed or increasing hit points suck!). It's hard through since discussing the merits and drawbacks of one game mechanic to another (i.e. fixed hit points tend to make combat more gritty and opponents are always a threat, while increasing hit points make combat more cinematic and allow the players to take more risks and get away with it) will involve some level of personal preference.