Mechashef

The reason why I was trying to nail it down, is because that is not what is written in the earlier posts: Reading that, if we try and determine the effect of cumulative hits we get: Thus stating that even cumulative hits will not pass a combined total of more than 2 X location's HP on to total HP. Thank you for clearing up what it is intended to say (and I agree that the interpretation you intended to write is the correct one), but the section I've quoted does not mean what it is intended to mean.

So based on this, if Bazza's arm was at -3 (7 points damage to a 4 point arm) and his arm was hit for an another 10 points damage: His arm would be reduced to -4 HP (only one point more damage) because it can't go beyond X2 damage. His Total Hit Points would be reduced by 8 HP because up to twice the arm's 4 HP can be passed on to General Hit Points as damage from one blow. This results in a total of 15 (existing 7 plus 8 new damage) Total Hit Point damage and Bazza will die at the end of the round. Is that correct? Thanks again

Ok, I may be being a bit dense here but: Bazza has 14 Total Hit Points (THP) and thus normally has 4 HP in his left arm. He is currently injured with his arm at -2 (i.e. 6 points of damage). If his arm gets hit for another 4 points of damage, how much damage does he take? Is it: Both his left arm and THP are reduced by 2 or Both his left arm and THP are reduced by 4 or His left arm is reduced by 2 and his THP by 4 or His left arm is reduced by 4 and his THP by 2 or Something else? Thanks

This has been mentioned in another thread but I think it is worth bringing attention to again: P161 Of course the rule may be too crunchy for most groups to use. A wind STR of 7-12 blows out a candle and a STR of 12 gives a 10% penalty to missile attacks. A light wind is STR 13 to 18 (15% to 40% penalty and a moderate wind is 19-24 (45% to 70% penalty). Considering that the Dragon Pass area is the windiest on the continent, wind penalties to missile fire should be really common. The other "What the Heck" moment for me came from this forum not the manual. In the "RuneQuest Core Rules Questions" thread Jason, when responding to a question on Statement of Intent (SoI) wrote: So one of the quite contentious rules of RQ, one that seems strange to players of many other games and causes much debate amongst experienced RQ people isn't actually used by one of the authors of the rules!

I listen to a D&D podcast that features a couple of guys who have no connection to WoTC (and have no qualms about criticising the company). It features an experienced person explaining things to a much less experienced guy and answering his questions. They typically cover creatures, classes, races etc. In the first episode where he was explaining what D&D is, the inexperienced guy asked about similar games. The experienced one jumped straight to computer RPGs and totally failed to mention any other Pen & Paper ones. I'm still undecided whether is was through a general lack of knowledge about other games or a willful omission. I often find it amusing as the experienced guy has only been playing since D&D 3rd Edition (iirc). In one episode (on Demogorgon or Orcus - I can't remember which) he described how the demon lord's stats had changed from version to version and his attempts at understanding and explaining the older D&D AC structure (where lower AC was better) was comical.

Thanks people

Can these two spells be cast on the same target or are they incompatible? Sunbright: And Shimmer is incompatible with Countermagic, Protection and Spirit Screen. I can see arguments for allowing the spells to be compatible, and also arguments for them being incompatible. What are people's opinions? Thanks

I long ago house ruled First Aid so it could only be used once against each location, not against each wound/injury. It cuts down on lots of bookkeeping but still makes it a useful skill.

And if you play a non-human?

Yes. I agree. My guess is that “A” is the current official method and “B” is a series of copy and paste type errors.

The section on Increasing characteristics (P417 & P418) makes multiple references to Maximum rolled plus Minimum rolled, especially relating to POW. However there may be an alternative interpretation of Pages 417 & 418 (though it seems unlikely and if it is the case, should be explained better). Perhaps the species maximum is Maximum rollable plus Number of Dice BUT the value used to determine if the roll is successful is based on Maximum rollable plus Minimum rollable. For example, a species with a POW of 2D6+6 would have the same maximum POW as a human: 21 (18 plus 3 dice). However if the adventurer’s POW is 15, when checking to see if a POW gain roll is successful the following calculation would be performed; ((18+8) - 15) * 5% = (26 - 15) * 5% = 11 * 5% = 55% [where 18 is the maximum rollable and 8 is the minimum rollable] Compared to a human of: ((18+3) - 15) * 5% = (21 - 15) * 5% = 6 * 5% = 30%

I’m not sure it was ever officially resolved, but my memory could be wrong. Hopefully the text will be corrected at some point. i suspect option A is the official one as it is new and is in the main section of text. Which sux for elves.

This is unclear as the book is not consistent and depending on where you look it is either: A: Maximum rollable plus the number of dice or B: Maximum rollable plus minimum rollable (Unless I haven’t noticed that it has been corrected). For technique A, any addition is considered a whole extra dice. So for option A, a stat of 3D6+1 would have a Maximum rollable of 19 and 4 dice, for a species maximum of 23.

Thank you people. Some very helpful answers. Now I have the image of an old veteran clan warrior training some of their young warriors: Veteran: "It is important to always remember that warriors of our clan never flee from battle" Young warrior: "Is that because it would bring dishonour on the clan?" Veteran: "No. It's because we can't work out how to do it!"

Yet again this probably falls into the category of whatever the GM decides but I'm curious as to what the general consensus is. David and Ella are in melee combat. Frank is outside of melee and armed with a bow. David's Statement of Intent (SoI) is that he will flee. Ella's SoI is that she will attack David with her broadsword and parry with her shield. Frank's SoI is that he will shoot two arrows at Ella The rules for fleeing state: SRs are: David has a Dex SR of 3 Ella has a SR of 2 (Dex) + 2 ( Siz) + 2 (Broadsword) = 6 Frank's SR for his first shot is 2 (Dex) Frank's SR for his second shot is 2 (1st shot) + 5 (reload) + 2 (2nd shot) = 9 When does David's movement start and when does Ella's attack take place? In most cases it isn't important, but if Frank shoots an arrow at Ella on SR 2 it could have an effect. Is it that: David's movement and Ella's attack are assumed to occur at SR 1, that means Ella's attack has been brought forward 5 SRs. That would presumably also mean that if Frank shot an arrow at Ella on SR 2, then he would have his normal chance of hitting her because he is no longer firing into melee. The same would apply to his 2nd shot on SR 9. They are in melee all the round and David can move his full movement rate at the end of SR 12. Ella can attack on SR 6. Frank gets his attacks on SR 2 and 9. Both his attacks would use the "Shooting Into Melee" rules. Frank could incapacitate or kill Ella before she can attack David (or David before he can flee). David starts moving at his Dex SR of 3 and Ella's attack is brought forward to SR 3. Frank's 1st shot on SR 2 would use the "Shooting Into Melee" rules, while his 2nd shot on SR 9 would have his normal chance of hitting Ella. Frank could incapacitate or kill Ella before she can attack David (or David before he can flee). David's movement is delayed until SR 6 which is when Ella's attack occurs. Frank's 1st shot on SR 2 would use the "Shooting Into Melee" rules, while his 2nd shot on SR 9 would have his normal chance of hitting Ella. Frank could incapacitate or kill Ella before she can attack David (or David before he can flee). Some other option. Thanks

I was surprised to learn that Tolkien's elves were called gnomes in his earlier writings, and also seem to grow in size as he reimagined them as elves. And Gandalf can call himself a wizard if he wants but he is really a demigod or and "angel". While there may be an argument for Gandalf the Grey being a wizard, Gandalf the White is definitely not. Middle Earth's approach to magic is probably more alien to D&D than RQ's approach is.

I know a D&D player who when experiencing RQ declared that all RQ characters are Clerics/Paladins. Obviously it isn't true (and I have discussed it at some length with him) and depending on which versions of RQ and D&D you look at there are more options available, but his point is that the default RQ character is someone who obtains magic from their God and either has a martial focus (Rune Lord/Paladin) or a non-martial focus (Rune Priest/Cleric). Sure there are sorcerers (a type of wizard) but only from RQ3 onwards and they are often sidelined and always feel like they have been begrudgingly bolted on to the system. Shamans are different but he sees them as a Witch Doctor type of cleric. So his view point of view is that instead of being classless, RQ is mainly a game of 2 closely related classes (Cleric/Paladin). He does enjoy playing occasionally and does really like how the Clerics/Paladins of RQ have much more variety than the Clerics/Paladins of D&D.

Hyperlexic, that seems reasonable, though sometimes the GM will adjust the SR based on the situation. There are a at least a couple of people working on SR examples, so hopefully soon there will be some good documents available. However what will probably happen is that a couple of brave people will release a set of examples. They will contain errors, some of which will be easily corrected, others which will have no clear answer and result in long debates. I know the examples I'm working on have shown me how much I really don't understand, despite having played for many years. I think that many of us have often played in isolation from other groups and have merrily played using our own house rules or incorrect interpretations. This is Ok. But hopefully if RQG proves to be successful it may make more appearances at gaming conventions and it would be good to turn up at the table knowing the correct rules.

I have been listening to a few D&D podcasts and one thing that may surprise many people is that combat in D&D 5e often takes a similar amount of time to RQ. The primary reason seems to be that most of the time taken in combat is not game mechanics. Each time a character acts in D&D combat there seems to be three phases (regardless of what the rules claim and I'm sure these aren't the official names). Statement of Intent (SoI) Combat mechanics roll/s Narrative description of the effects of the combat rolls If anything, SoI seems to take longer in D&D. The actions a D&D DM may allow often seem to be more extensive and convoluted than in RQ and these sometimes take a while to describe. Combat mechanics in theory are much faster in D&D than in RQ. However due to the plethora of combat options due to feats, spells and other special abilities the mechanics resolution phase can take longer than I'd expect. Players with characters of classes they are very familiar with do resolve their turn quickly, but even experienced players seem to often refer to manuals to get the correct rules when playing classes they aren't familiar with. Describing what actually happens due to an attack obviously varies from GM to GM, but it often seems to take longer than the actual dice rolling. Descriptions such as where the successful attack hits, a visualisation of the result, and role playing the reaction of the defender all take time. Added to all this is of course that once characters get up several levels and are facing opponents with significant hit points, it can take many rounds to defeat them. Like many of you I have nightmare stories of RQ battles that seem to last forever in an endless cycle of countered attacks and I'm not going to claim that combat in RQ is faster than in D&D (but then again I've heard similar stories in D&D when fighting regenerating creatures). What I will claim is that in many cases the difference is not significant.

I agree they aren’t called fumbles, and generally are just a guaranteed failure, but iirc, rolling a 1 on a death saving throw counts as two failures. The DMG does have a variant rule which encourages the DM to be creative about the affects of a natural 1 or 20. So arguably a fumble system, even if it is mostly optional.

I have noticed that the two games have become more similar over the year, with D&D mainly picking up features that RQ (and many other games have. I'm not claiming they were taken solely from RQ, as many other games also have these features). Some of the features that D&D has gained over the years that brings it closer to RQ: Critical and Fumbles Skills Creatures now have attributes such as STR, CON, etc Every character can do magic (Sure feats aren't called magic but they are in effect a type of magic) On the other hand, the RQG concept of inspiration and its limits of use per "session" is very similar to the classic D&D concept of only being able to do special things a set number of times per day. I also find it interesting the current versions of both games have made a big effort to make Charisma a more useful stat, making it no-longer the dump stat it once was.

Another situation, and I'm aware I'm probably really getting into areas that fall into the "whatever your GM rules" arena: Bazza has a Dex SR of 2, a Siz SR of 1 and a weapon with a SR of 3, for a total SR of 6. Gabby has a Dex SR of 1, a Siz SR of 1 and a weapon with a SR of 2, for a total of 4. Their weapons and shields are in hand (prepared) The combatants are 15 metres apart Statement of Intent for Gabby is she will stay where she is, using her sword and shield to attack or defend against anyone who comes into range Statement of Intent for Bazza is that he will move to Gabby, attacking her with his sword and parrying her attacks with his shield. Bazza's SR is: 2 (Dex) + 5 (Move) + 1 (Siz) + 3 (Weapon) = 11 Gabby's SR is: 1 (Dex) + 1 (Siz) + 2 (Weapon) = 4 However Bazza cannot attack Gabby. The 5 SRs used for moving is greater than half his Movement Rate (half of 8 is 4) so he cannot move and then engage in melee or cast a spell. (or so I understand). Questions 1) Does Bazza end the round in melee range of Gabby? 2) Can Gabby attack Bazza when he arrives (presumably SR 7)? 3) Gabby doesn't need to parry and thus her player doesn't need to roll and possibly fumble. Is that correct? 4) Assuming Gabby can attack, can Bazza attempt to parry? Thanks again for your patience.

That would be my interpretation too. Thanks

That is fantastic news. I have just started working on one but it has really just illustrated how much I don't fully understand. I look forward to your guide. Thanks

Thanks people. It looks like it doesn't have an answer which is universally agreed on: As an extension of my original question, it is now Davo and Macca battling and their weapons are prepared, Davo has a Dex SR of 3, a Siz SR of 2, a weapon SR of 2 and wants to move 4 SRs to close on Macca and then attack. Macca has a Dex SR of 2, a SIz SR of 1 and a weapon SR of 3 for a total of 6. Macca also has a skill of over 100% (or uses a weapon in each hand) and wants to attack twice, (normally once on SR 6 and again on SR 12). If Davo's actions are calculated as using Move SRs first, then he arrives at Macca on SR 4. Macca can then attack on SR 6 and again on SR 12. If Davo's actions are calculated as Dex SR first, then Move SRs, he arrives at Macca on SR 7 (3 + 4), Macca can attack on SR 7 but his second attack would then be on SR 13 which isn't allowed so he only gets to attack once. Which way should it go? Thanks