styopa

I've converted this to a little more useful word and pdf doc, just awaiting Dave Morris' reply to my tweet if I can post.

That's a great link/find - thanks!

Sort of a silly criticism. Isn't that pretty much the cost/benefit risk of raiding ANYWAY? The only difference with Glorantha being that a substantial part of your force's strength (their magic) is near-instantly recoverable right when you get back, if you simply *time* it right. Otherwise the equation is precisely the same as IRL raiding, which was pretty common. If anything, this potential for quick-recovery would make raids generally more vicious, as a raiding tribe wouldn't necessarily have to be so conservative in what they send at first for exactly the reasons you describe.

From the QS: Small elemental: 3m x 3m x 3m = 27cbm (the size of a 10'x10'x10' room!) "In combat, the earth elemental uses its volume to engulf its opponents, opening a pit beneath a foe with a maximum volume equal to its own volume. " Yet "A small earth elemental simply engulfs the victim’s legs." If it makes a pit that's 10'x10'x10' (basically), but only engulfs a victim's legs, HOW BIG MUST THAT VICTIM BE??? That would suggest that your average humanoid would be at least 6m tall?

BUT...I would point out this is a fantasy game. There are *many* circumstances where you're fighting things in melee that ALSO are utterly unconcerned about your melee attacks. Mindless undead, golems, berserkers, or even players who believe they have sufficient armor/magical protection to utterly disregard the attacks of their opponents: why do we 'assume' they they're ducking and dodging (and penalize them therefore like all melee combatants) when they wouldn't be?

Which would imply that the base skill disparity of 05% vs 20% is not nearly enough, and that skill GAIN rates also would vary by weapon. It certainly doesn't take a lifetime to be an ass-kickingly awesome archer in RQ. (Or any system, which is why there is little to no real choice between bows and crossbows in most games.

We actually knew about the errata...and disregarded it. We as a group thought it made sense that with a 1h article you could do one 'thing' a round, and with a 2h you could do 2 'things' a round. It made the choice of weapons a much more interesting one than 'just pick the highest damage my STR/DEX can handle".

FWIW in the QS rules Medium Shield and Broadsword have the same AP. :|

I think you've gone full Ouruboros on that one. If you're going to do opposed rolls, I think it's more intuitive to simply have them roll vs STR*5 (or *4, or *3 or lower, depending on how drunk they are) than to x-ref their stats on a table then roll against those stats.

The addition of allowing multiple parries in a round (with the -20 cumulative penalty) really does sort of obviate the value of a 2nd weapon for parrying purposes. I would disagree that the relatively tiny additional capability of being able to parry in the same SR as being much of an advantage. Sure it's an advantage, but that's a pretty edge case. Having a shield for parrying purposes, well & good, the shield has substantial utility vs missiles, but a main gauche if you can just keep parrying with the rapier anyway? Not much point, really. No pun intended.

Dunno what the RQG full rules will finally say (almost certainly it'll be more fully explained there than the abbreviated qs rules), but IIRC RQ3 rules (which I think were basically the same as RQ2?) were: A 1h weapon can attack or parry in a round, not both. This is typically why a 1h wielder will also bear a parrying item like a shield or main gauche in the other hand. 1h wielders with a parrying item in the other hand cannot attack and parry in the same SR, nor parry 2x in the same SR. 2h weapon can attack AND parry in a round, but not do both in the same SR. EDIT: I just looked in RQ2 (which is likely the primary driver of whatever RQG will have): TWO WEAPON USE 1. Any Adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for 2 attacks, 2 parries, or 1 attack and 1 parry. ... 5. When attacking with 2 weapons, the second attack is made at a strike rank equal to the strike rank of the frst attack added to the usual strike rank for the second weapon. Thus, if the character has a strike rank of 5 for the frst weapon and a strike rank of 6 for the second, the second attack will come at strike rank 11. If the 2 strike ranks add up to more than 12, then both cannot attack in one round. 6. A character using 2 weapons at 100% or more with each weapon may attack one foe twice at full attack percentage (once with each weapon). He may attack 2 foes twice at ½ normal attack percentage (each being attacked once with each weapon). Or he may attack one at ½ attack ability with one weapon and the other at ½ attack ability with that weapon and with full ability with the other weapon. REMEMBER - The character must have suffcient strike ranks to encompass all of these attacks. If the character’s strike rank is 6 with each weapon, then he can only make 2 attacks (at strike rank 6 and strike rank 12), and no more. So the weapon in the offhand can be used for a second attack, IF THERE ARE SUFFICIENT SR for it, and it will usually come quite late in the round. If your SR sucks, basically an offhand weapon is really then only useful for parrying with OR if your primary gets shattered/lost/etc. I'd rule that you can switch an offhand to main hand in combat in your DEX SR at no risk, or you can do it quick in no SR for a DEXx5 check. EDIT2: to answer your comments about the offhand attack penalty, in RQ2 the offhand weapon starts at a base of 5% and is trained/advanced as a separate skill from the main hand attack.

Aha, now I understand. Thanks for explaining. While I love offering players meaningful tactical choices, I find that particular one seems to hit my gut as manipulating mechanics a little too much? Then again, I guess IRL you could be declaring your intention to counterattack at the moment they attack (it's a very fencing thing) but then you a) ALSO sacrifice your ability to parry in that SR, and b.) may be forgoing your attack entirely if they choose to do the same thing...this is would end up that staple of the cinematic mano-a-mano duel, circling each other waiting for that attack to counter. Is this getting too far down in the simulationist weeds for even RQ combat? Or are such things as feints and counters already 'wrapped into' the melee attack? I kind of think they are? IF NOT, I could then also see that someone could even declare a feint attack on their normal SR, with an actual attack at least DEX SR later, the feint being resolved as a full usual combat roll (with the chance of fumble, and chances of getting your own weapon damaged, etc) but NO damage (to target or parrying item) is done on the attack, WHILE allowing the feint-er to still parry in that same SR. (Thus drawing the feintee's ACTUAL real counterattack for the round, leaving the feint-er the ability to actually attack later without the risk of a simultaneous counter. Of course the later attack coming on a different SR would still allow the feintee to parry since it's a different SR than they (the feintee) had actually attacked.) I guess the net result would be to turn two attacks with no parries into two attacks WITH parries. Is that worth it, gamewise? As a GM, while that might seem interesting and clever, it also seems fiendishly complicated to manage. IMO. IMO I'd only penalize the player their DEX SR as a 'reaction' delay instead of their full melee attack SR. IMO after you've passed the melee SR you're basically 'ready' in my view.

That would be my RAW take, but imo it's not MGF either. It's inherently more fun to roll dice, generally speaking. Having both contestants - or the GM - rolling against each other right there on the table is SO much more inherently engaging (as well as offering a broader array of possible results, whether that's specifically useful in this case or no) than just a "roll to succeed" for one of the opponents. Not to mention, if it's two pc's armwrestling each other, which would you have roll on the resist table. I know the result% are exactly the same, but one player would be doing something, the other just waiting for a result.

Inceptionquest.

Making the "save that last RP" super-critical...if you run yourself to zero, well, no chance to worship and get RP back until you find a temple.

Not sure what you mean by 'outside the context of'....? It's like a junior aimed shot, giving one a limited ability to redirect the blow, for less of a penalty. I like the flexibility and tactical decisions that rule presents. In some ways it's way better, as you have a limited ability to redirect BUT suffer no penalty to hit. One of the things I dislike about the latter version (wait until 12 and strike at half) is that it disproportionally penalizes people with really good strike ranks...which seems counterintuitive. People who were going to swing at SR5 are really penalized (waiting 7 SR), while someone at SR12 anyway really only has the to-hit penalty.

I don't think Rune Points necessarily HAVE to be replenished each week (or whatever) - just the missing ones. So if you're going 20 days away from a nearby temple, well, you husband your points until they're critically needed. Of course, there could be a sort of 'in the field' worship ceremony that high cult poobahs could do that could also possibly restore (some?) RP on high holy days but not at a formal temple. (And for Urox, isn't really every tavern pretty much a temple?) The logic of the system would encourage raiding enemies on the day before or early during one's high holy day, so you could blow ALL your RP and get them restored almost immediately.

I agree in principle, but then we have to remember: we who have played RQ for in some cases decades hopefully aren't the key audience. In a sense we're easy: we're probably going to buy most RQ products anyway (I paid full retail for daughters of darkness...). The goal,I hope, is more to produce a rules set that introduces a new generation of players to RQ who may have never even imagined there was fantasy life outside of d&d5e. In that sense I think passions and runes are interesting tools even if I as a gm may not even use them.

Yes, absolutely - crit, special, success, fail, fumble for each participant 1 and participant 2. That's what made it so bloody hard to calculate.

I see your point about the statistical spread. More dice in play means more of a bell-curvy result vs a straight roll vs resist (which is a linear probability). Good point. So which would you use for an armwrestling contest? Is there a context in which you'd ever use the other?

Fwiw, The results of those cases could also just as easily be resolved with the same chance of success with an opposed roll. I'd say a big chunk of why the resistance table remains is nostalgia.

Not really intended to be serious, since the entire topic sounds very much like a playground argument over which superhero is tougher.

Not to mention that Passage (if one wishes to use it) needs to be cast simultaneously for MORE RP. Seems extraordinarily complicated for the results. Just to toss it out there, perhaps instead (with some alternatives): LOCK: casts a magical lock on a portal, door, or container. STR of the lock is the caster's POW.** 1***, D*, T *Duration could be the RAW listed 8 weeks, or it could be as long as the caster doesn't regen that RP? **Alternately, it could be tied to a Rune, based on a successful Rune check by the caster - using one of the essential runes for the spell (Harmony, Movement) the spell casting itself can count for this check. In such a case anyone trying to pass the LOCK would have to succeed (deliberately declaring it, ie "I'm opening it evoking the power of Harmony" or whatever) at that Rune check to pass the LOCK. *** Caster may always pass their own LOCK. Additional RP spent allow the caster to name another individual who can pass the LOCK freely. On opening effort: Success: the LOCK is bypassed for that individual (only) for the next 15min. Caster knows lock has been bypassed. Special: as success, but caster doesn't know LOCK is cracked. Crit: as special, but the LOCK is dispelled. A fumble means that individual cannot try again today. Caster knows it was tried & failed

http://www.glorantha.com/forums/topic/king-broyan-and-the-crimson-bat/

FWIW I checked, and insofar as my weak statistics-fu is concerned, the percentages basically track surprisingly closely - STR 17 vs STR 15 on the resist table is a 60% chance of STR17 winning, 40% of STR 15 winning. As opposed rolls I came out with something like 59.8% win for STR 17, 39.4% win for STR 15, and 0.8% ties. (I did NOT check against stats over 19...just, no.)