Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Regulars
  • Content Count

    823
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, so pleased that these locations in dragon pass are being brought to life in this way. Plus city settings are cool. The right decision for the starter set 👍
  2. Yeah, I’m pretty flexible with the rules in game. But there’s a bit of a disconnect when you have a crunchy set of rules to learn with goal posts being moved from product to product. Nice to have a clear base line from which you can deviate if you want to, it also makes it easier for new players to assimilate the rules. I expect this won’t be the case with the starter, and I agree the quickstart was before the final core rules were settled on. But just flagging up as it’s something I noticed from the QS. Definitely a case for abbreviation in the starter rules though, not arguing
  3. I really enjoyed the Quick Start adventure and format, but a few small things like the summary of parry vs attacks were slightly different to what ended up in the core. Whilst I understand the need to abbreviate rules, I don’t think this particular variation in the QuIckStart helped new players. In this instance, the core is no more complicated, and probably easier with the chart/table. Will the starter set use the same basis as the core rules here?
  4. Newtling? There should be the alternative Newtling perspective Borderlands campaign. Repelling the attacks of the dry skins!
  5. That cover is still a very strong image. Amazing the amount of work that goes into writing these books. Thanks for sharing
  6. I blame Yelm, making my monkey mind soft in the midday Praxian heat.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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! 🤣
  10. 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?
  11. 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
  12. Yes it curiously seems to also fit with the RQ3 10 melee round
  13. 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?
  14. 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?
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Have started a new thread on this topic here:
  18. 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
  19. Sorry missed the “?” there. Yes, that’s it. Your average Baboon wielding a 1-handed short spear should be calculated from the following: Dex SR 1 Size SR 2 1-handed short spear SR2 Claw/Bite SR4 (see unarmed attacks) So short-handed spear attacks on SR 5. Claw/bite on SR 7. That means in practice, short-handed Spear attack on SR7, followed by Claw/bite on SR12.
  20. Yes as mentioned SR’s in RQG are just a way to sort the order of actions, not a literal measurement of time. It may help to consider the different system in RQ3: In contrast RQ3 turned them into a more specific measurement of time, mostly because they introduced movement into and throughout the melee round engagement. RQG like RQ2 doesn’t do that. Movement is only calculated in RQG as a means to find out at what point you arrive at the fight, after which the melee round is a more abstract engagement, and there’s no further need to calculate movement by SR. RQ3 continued to measure
  21. Yes. This confused me as well. That’s definitely out of the RQ3 rules, not RQG. Scotty made a comment elsewhere about giving the baboon a 2-handed spear so as to allow them a parry as well. Was scratching my head a bit & wondering what I was missing, but you’re right that’s 100% RQ3 rules. Grateful for him pointing out the SR mistake of the baboon, hadn’t thought to check out the claw SR as well, now they play how they were supposed to. But yes, I wouldn’t allow 2 claw attacks. Spear followed by claw/bite, yes definitely as per the combat notes. Claw and bite probably not, unless
  22. Yes I can see now flicking through the RQG bestiary, the main design issue with the RQG Bestiary is that it’s missing quite a few of the combat notes for creatures, that were originally included with creatures in previous editions (mostly the RQ3 ones) For example the Lesser Hydra is missing it’s combat notes, as is the Dream Dragon. I haven’t checked the whole book but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a few more missing. I feel that’s a shame as those kind of notes are really helpful for new comers to RuneQuest. We shouldn’t presume that new gamers know how a lesser hydra attacks
  23. Heh heh yes! I think it was a combination of things that led us on a merry dance - the error with the baboon sr calculations, the dragon not having accompanying combat notes, and the interaction of those things with the rule under “weapons” on p8 of the bestiary. Baboons were in a fluster! 🤪
×
×
  • Create New...