Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Regulars
  • Content Count

    816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Paid a bod yn dwp last won the day on November 9 2020

Paid a bod yn dwp had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

430 Excellent

About Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Recently returned to RPG's after 25 years.
  • Location
    Aberystwyth - Cymru/Wales
  • Blurb
    Currently having my own RPG renassaisance. Games I grew up with included Runequest 2, RuneQuest 3, Tunnels & Trolls, D&D, and Warhammer 1ed.

    The Grognard files (podcast) Is largely responsible for getting me back into RPG's. I highly recommend listening to their excellent podcasts:

    https://armchairadventurerblog.com

    My first game back was Traveller on roll20 playing through the Traveller Adventure with the Grognard files posse. We've also played some short one off's with StormBringer, and Judge Dredd. Currently playing through D&D 5ed Storm Kings Thunder.

    RuneQuest was always my favourite game back in the day. Very excited at the prospect of the new edition. Every thing after RQ3 passed me by. I backed the RuneQuest Classic kickstarter, and proudly took part in the Free RPG day playing through the RQG quickstart game with GM @dimbyd

    Picked up the excellent Cthulhu 7ed and hope to play it someday.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I blame Yelm, making my monkey mind soft in the midday Praxian heat.
  2. This is working well on so many levels. Well done. looking forward to seeing the fleshed out Jonstown. Great images - Guessing that the city references we see depicted in a few of the pictures, and on the back cover is Jonstown? Excellent choice of cover artist. I really like how you’re mixing up different artistic approaches. That broken painterly/impressionist approach really gets the imagination going - lovely. Artists that capture light like that really make Glorantha shine (so to speak). More of that please. All brilliant though. Lifts my heart seeing Glorantha conce
  3. Yes lordAbdul on the money here. This is how I see it. Passions take you above and beyond what you’d normally be capable of doing - Not necessarily whether you will or will not be loyal. More a case of whether you’ll be loyal with real passion, and fire in your belly!...or feel hesitant, & slightly unsure due to your personal doubts, other commitments etc (represented by failure -10%). Passions are emotive and can distort working either way. But failure on a passion roll doesn’t mean you’re going to become the opposite of loyal and turn into an enemy. As lordAbdul said fumbles a
  4. Yep agree 100% On a side note, I like how they’ve left a couple free strike ranks after the Crimson Bat has finished its attacks, gives a chance to teach that Mofo a lesson! 🤣
  5. That’s a great entry price. Really looking forward to this. Sincerely hope it grows the game, I’m sure it will. I like the design ethos of keeping as close to the core rules as possible, rather then an overly abbreviated version of the rules. Really hoping for a clean, clarified and accessible starter set that opens up RuneQuest to a new audience. I’m guessing that will be forefront in the design of the new starter? There’s been such a wealth of feedback here since the original release of RQG, guessing that’s helped steer the designers in presenting this boxed set a new?
  6. Have to give the designers the benefit of the doubt here. There are elements like the 3sr intervals that have crossed over from RQ3, but I’ve yet to find any example where RQ3 rule cross over is problematic. There’s no overt reference to parry restriction that could feel left over from RQ3. The borrowing of the 3sr must be intentional in RQG. Maybe alarm bells were ringing because of previous rules clash’s from older editions in the core book? There are a few what I’d consider to be missing combat notes ( not too many) which I’ll add to the Q&A thread. Scotty rightly pointed out tha
  7. Yes it curiously seems to also fit with the RQ3 10 melee round
  8. I might well be befuddled as it’s late now, but I was thinking if there is no mention in the notes as to how to use the second attack, that they should therefore follow the rule on p8 and happen simultaneously?
  9. I’m also noticing a lot copy over from RQ3 in the RQG bestiary which reference parry, or the loss of parry due to making two attacks. Those bits aren’t relevant to how parry works in RQG now. Sure you can make exceptions, like the giant sweeping attack, but some of those like the Huan to are obviously referencing RQ3 rules, and are not relevant to RQG. Also the reference to attacks being 3sr apart was a RQ3 convention. Doesn’t break the game, but I wonder if it was intentional using that, instead of the RQG approach for the second attack?
  10. I’ve found the combat notes from RQ3, which shares the same 2 attacks as the Minotaur in RQG: ”A Minotaur can use either a head butt or a hand-held weapon in a given round. It could use both only as per normal two-weapon use, thereby depriving itself of the ability to parry that round” - RQ3 The note about the parry is really only relevant to how RQ3 worked. If you made two attacks you lost the ability to parry in that game, that’s not applicable in RQG. But what’s described there is not simultaneous attacks, yet we have that general rule on p8. It’s too problematic IMO and doe
  11. That ones comes straight out of RQ3. RQ3. It’s mentioned in case you presume you can use both of its listed attacks in a melee round. I believe the general rule in RQG (RQ2, & RQ3) is that you can make two attacks, if you have two weapons or forms of attacks, and enough SR’s available. Hmm...that’s really odd. I completely miss interpreted that - I was looking for a solution to explain how to adjudicate attacks that share the same SR. To my mind, whilst searching for a solution, it was specifying attacks which are listed sharing the same SR, as those are the ones that to me ne
  12. Have started a new thread on this topic here:
  13. Yes agree. That’s a very good way to rationalise things like claw attacks in RQ. 100% with you there - Unless the special combat notes say other wise that will be my guidance in future. The more I’ve thought about it the more problematic the ruling on p8 of the Gloranthan Bestiary is under “weapons”. Even with guidance of the individual creature combat notes (some of which are problematically missing), it still plays funny with the baboon. I’m pretty sure the baboon was never intended to have simultaneous bite and claw attacks as a “standard” mode of attack? At least in past editions
×
×
  • Create New...