trystero

I'm sure: it's correct as written.

No; it's an elemental (singular), so it takes the third-person singular verb form, "lacks".

See its entry in the Axes table on p. 208 and description on p. 210. Vishi Dunn has one (p. 91). I will point out that the p. 208 and p. 210 references should probably capitalise the "a" in "axe" for consistency with the p. 63 reference and the other weapon listings: change "Dagger-axe" to "Dagger-Axe".

"Is" is correct; the total encumbrance of her weapons (a singular value) is the subject of the clause.

It is, though it still uses the RQ2 "Hit Points" name for the weapon's damage-blocking capacity rather than the RQ3 "Armor Points" name. I think the new mechanism is the best of both worlds and a good improvement over both 2nd and 3rd editions.

In RQ:G, you can make an intentional knockback "attack" which does no damage, but you can't knock a foe back by hitting them for a lot of damage with a regular attack. You're correct that Aimed Blows are still in the new rules (p. 197); I'd missed that. The Sickle-Sword description on p. 210 says, "this sword has a curved single-edge blade used for slashing and for disarming an opponent" (emphasis added), but I don't see any rules for disarming opponents.

Things I miss from RQ3: knockback for attacks doing damage > SIZ in melee, more-granular skill category modifiers, having a skill named "Sneak" instead of the more cumbersome "Move Quietly", the simpler formulae for both total Hit Points and hit location HP), the missile hit-location table, aimed shots, disarm attempts, a more systematic approach to attack/defense result interactions (e.g., my critical hit does maximum damage and ignores armour no matter what your parry result is), spirit and sorcery spells taking 1 SR per MP instead of the first MP being "free". Things I don't miss from RQ3: Fatigue Points, ENC penalties to spell-casting chances, Sorcery skills as casting-chance limitations, POW sacrifices for specific castings of divine/Rune spells, one-use divine/Rune spells for initiates, confusion over whether you could resist spells (or overcome resistance) with non-personal Magic Points. Things I expected to miss but so far don't: Appearance characteristic (which we often just called "Appeal"), melee rounds of 10 SR, separate Attack and Parry skills for weapons, weapons having AP instead of HP, mail ("chainmail") as an armour type, shields named by shape instead of just size. I will probably end up house-ruling some of the RQ3 rules into RQ:G, though I'll try it as written first.

p. 53, Homeland Characteristic Modifiers table: There is no entry for the Pol-Joni; I assume they have no characteristic modifiers, but they should still appear in the table. Also, the Old Tarsh and Lunar Tarsh entries are reversed (Lunar Tarsh appears first everywhere else in the book).

p. 6, second column, paragraph ten: "Some D4s have the result number at the base of the pyramid, while others have it on the bottom"… don't "base" and "bottom" mean the same thing in this context? Suggest changing to "Some D4s have the result number at the base of the pyramid, while others have it at the top".

p. 57, second column, tenth paragraph: "if a bonus would make a skill start below 00%, write in 00%" is confusing, since bonuses add. Suggest changing to "if a skills category penalty would make a skill start below 00%, write in 00%".

Back cover, second column, paragraph six (fifth bullet in list): There seems to be a word missing before "sorcery": "A guide to the Runes and other types of magic, from spirit magic, sorcery, to incredible Rune magic…". Suggest changing to "A guide to the Runes and other types of magic, from spirit magic, to sorcery, to incredible Rune magic…". (I also think it's a little weird to say "Runes and other types of magic" and then mention "Rune magic", but that's not an error, just a matter of taste.)

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'd completely missed the rule on p. 57. So I have a 0% Act skill, but can still benefit from the 01–05 rule (p. 142), since it's not an untrained base-00% skill.

Index: not all page-number entries are hyperlinked. In the entry for "Melee Weapon", for instance, pp. 61, 65, 300, 302, and 305 are not hyperlinked (but the other page numbers listed in the same entry are).

I'm rolling up my first RQ:G adventurer (a Sartarite Humakti, why do you ask?), and hit my first rules question: if I have a Communication category modifier of –5, and no bonuses to Act skill (base 05%), is my Act skill 0%, or is there a rule somewhere that I can't find that says it can't go below 1%? I see that situational penalties, such as the one for darkness (p. 224), never lower the chance of success below 5%, but I'm not sure whether that applies to permanent skill levels.

p. 200, first column, paragraphs seven and eight: "Any subsequent parry is at a cumulative –20% penalty for each additional parry" and "Subsequent parries are at a cumulative –20% penalty" are superfluous. May I suggest dropping paragraph eight and recasting this portion of paragraph seven as "Each subsequent parry suffers a cumulative –20% penalty", omitting the redundant "for each additional parry"?

p. 415, second column, fourth paragraph says that for an experience roll, "A modified roll over 100 is always a success", but p. 416, first column, fifth paragraph says that "a result of 100 always merits improvement". Suggest changing "A modified roll over 100" on p. 415 to "A modified roll of 100 or more".

Seconded. I miss my RQ3 category modifiers (and I'm never getting back the brain cells I devoted to learning those).

Can you please cross-post this to the corrections thread, just to make sure it's not missed?

I'd rewrite slightly for clarity: If engaged in combat, you can defend and either attack or cast spells (not both) If not engaged, you can cast a spell (attack or otherwise) and then engage and attack a foe physically

The weapon skills printed on the second page of the RQ:G character sheet are an odd mix. Some are listed by weapon category (1H Axe; 2H Axe; 1H Mace; 1H Spear; 2H Spear), others by specific weapon (Broadsword, Kopis, Rapier, and Shortsword, which are all specialisations of 1H Sword; Pike broken out from 2H Spear; Composite Bow and Short Bow, both specialisations of Bow), and others are ambiguous (Dagger, which is both a category and a weapon within that category). The rules seem clear that every weapon skill is a specialisation: that is, characters have 1H Axe (Battle Axe) skill, as shown in the Vasana's Saga sidebar on p. 62, rather than just 1H Axe skill. So why not just print the categories with blank names (as was done for Ride, Craft, and other skills which require specialisation) instead of this confusing mix of broad categories and specific weapons? Melee Weapons 1H Axe (_______________________) (10) 2H Axe (_______________________) (05) Dagger (_______________________) (10) 1H Mace (_______________________) (15) 1H Spear (_______________________) (05) 2H Spear (_______________________) (15) 1H Sword (_______________________) (10) Missile Weapons Axe, Throwing (_______________________) (10) Bow (_______________________) (05) Dagger, Throwing (_______________________) (05) Javelin (_______________________) (10) Rock (_______________________) (15) Natural Weapons Fist (_______________________) (25) Grapple (25) Kick (15) (This listing follows the sheet's example by not showing every category; the blank lines would still be used for less-common categories/weapons.)

How about here?

For those of us who purchased the PDF through Chaosium.com, how will we know when there are updated/corrected versions available? OneBookShelf (DriveThruRPG, RPGNow!, _etc._) sends e-mail when a purchased title has been updated; does Chaosium do the same thing? Thanks!

On p. 199, the wording in the Attack & Parry Results table entries is inconsistent (e.g., the attacker "does" damage in some entries, "rolls" or "causes" it in others), which I think will lead to confusion. I've attached an Excel spreadsheet with my suggested revisions, which attempt to keep the wordings of the entries as consistent as possible. More importantly, the table doesn't always agree with the text on pp. 197–8 and 200. For instance, the "Parrying a Critical Hit" section on p. 200 says that a weapon or shield parrying a critical hit suffers double normal damage (i.e., 2 HP if its current HP are exceeded) unless it's a weapon parrying an impaling or long-hafted weapon (in which case it suffers no damage), but the Critical Attack vs. Normal Parry table entry just says, "Defender's parrying weapon HP reduced by the damage rolled", with no mention of any of this. I've followed the p. 200 rule in my suggested revision. Similarly, the Summary of Combat Results sidebar on p. 200 says that a critical success on an attack roll "ignores armor and does maximum special damage plus damage bonus", but the Critical Attack vs. Special Parry and Critical Attack vs. Normal Parry table entries both say that the attacker rolls special damage, rather than inflicting maximum special damage. No damage-reducing effect is described in the text for special or normal parries against critical hits, so I've again followed the p. 200 rule in my suggested revisions. As these examples make clear, it would be helpful to specify whether the text or the table takes precedence in the event of a contradiction. I realise that it's hard to summarise a 25-entry table in the text, but the attack/parry results need to be clear and consistent. (MRQ suffered from exactly this problem in its first edition, and I don't want to see RQ:G have the same issue.) Here are my suggested revisions in text format, just in case the spreadsheet isn't helpful: Critical Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to random hit location. Critical Attack vs. Special Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to adjacent hit location (usually arm), with no armor protection. Critical Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 2 HP if damage exceeds its current HP (0 HP if parrying impaling or long-hafted weapon with a weapon). Defender suffers unblocked damage to adjacent hit location (usually arm), with no armor protection. Critical Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location, with no armor protection. Critical Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls maximum special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location, with no armor protection, and rolls on Fumbles table. Special Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Special Attack vs. Special Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to random hit location. Special Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls special damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP per point of excess damage. Defender suffers unblocked damage to adjacent hit location (usually arm). Special Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location. Special Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls special damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location and rolls on Fumbles table. Normal Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage in excess of its current HP. Normal Attack vs. Special Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Normal Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender’s parrying weapon blocks damage equal to its current HP, loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Defender suffers unblocked damage to random hit location. Normal Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location. Normal Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location and rolls on Fumbles table. Failed Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage. Failed Attack vs. Special Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage in excess of its current HP. Failed Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attack parried or deflected. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Failed Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker misses. Defender misses. Failed Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls normal damage. Defender suffers damage to random hit location and rolls on Fumbles table. Fumbled Attack vs. Critical Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage. Fumbled Attack vs. Special Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP per point of damage in excess of its current HP. Fumbled Attack vs. Normal Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon loses 1 HP if damage exceeds its current HP. Fumbled Attack vs. Failed Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender misses. Fumbled Attack vs. Fumbled Parry: Attacker rolls on Fumbles table. Defender rolls on Fumbles table. Attack & Parry Results, revised.xlsx

Very minor layout issue: pp. 432–437 passim: In all the tables in the Conversion Guide appendix, the em-dash cell entries are not indented, while all other text cell entries are. This results in a ragged appearance; it would look better if the em-dashes were indented to match the other text.