Paid a bod yn dwp

Is this the kind of thing you’re looking for? The last Province, issue 5 August/September ‘93 Dead Reckoning - A RuneQuest scenario by Andrew Cowie It was a UK publication.

Yes the big two volume edition. I’m sure it’s a tall ask for those with the guide already, but to me it seems like the ultimate coffee table book and worth a revisit at some point. There is some excellent art in there, and they did a great job at the time , but what Chaosium are producing now has stepped up a notch or two. Maybe in a year or two when the library of art work for Glornatha is even greater perhaps a new edtion of the GTG would be more tenable? I just feel that the artists they’re using now are really producing a consistent and very powerful presentation of Gloranatha that appeals to me much more. I still have favourites from the GTG (the Red godess depictions for instance).

I wondered whether Chaosium might entertain a new printing of the Guide to Glortantha updated with some of the wonderful new art we've seen from the RuneQuest line, and other new products such as the Gloranthan sourcebook? There's some cool images in the Guide to Glorantha for sure, but I feel with the new art in products such as RuneQuest, there's an even stronger presentation & feel and for the setting. I imagine that many Gloranthan fans have already bought their hardcopies, but perhaps some may be persuaded to look again with a new presentation, and maybe new Gloranthan fans maybe persuaded to invest with an even richer presentation? The new Chaosium books have been so well done, and I think it would pay (at least artistically) to revisit the guide at some point with the library of new artwork now at hand.

Ok - one more question. I’ve bought all new RuneQuest products to date. I’ve also bought the 1st printing of the RuneQuest corebook. I intend to buy the slipcase, but I’m also interested in perhaps buying the second printing of the RuneQuest core book, as it sounds like it has improvements over the first printing ( and also I really RuneQuest, and I owe myself a birthday present) Would it be possible for those with the 1st printing already, to buy the second printing with the slipcase using the pdf coupon discount? Or to put it another way are there any discounts available for those with the 1st printing, wanting to purchase the 2nd printing?

Oh I’m even more tempted! I did think some of the images in RQG were a tad too dark. The trolls in the Big rubble image comes to mind.

That looks Very good. Will it be easy for those of us with PDF’s of the GM pack, and bestiary to apply the pdf discount onto to this? I’ve already got RQG core in hard copy. Half tempted to buy again for the updated printing...but by no means essential. Slight discount could push me over into the buy again category Seriously this looks excellent.

I would say that in your example that reducing an attack to a minimum 5% chance Attack/parry is punishment enough. Unless theres another target to attack (split attacks) then any unused % is superfluous. So effectively the rules make a 5% cap on any such reduction. Ok it doesn't scale completely, but you gotta give em a chance, however small. You're effectively already making your opponent look like an ambitious 10 year old Attack & parry are part of the same skill in RQG and therefore any reduction applies to both, and the section in RQG does indicates that as well. Attack & parry are the same skill. If they attack your superior (over 100%) skill then its going to still be reduced by your parry. Think thats the point of having a unified attack/parry skill, it should take out unnecessary complexity from game play. Ok I see... so parry in RQG doesn't need to follow *split attack* rules. It now follows the -20% rule for each additional attack after the first parried. I would say yes definitely reduce their two parry chances simultaneously with attacks (though that penalty is divided between the two opponents) keep it as streamlined (as possible). Attack & parry are the same skill so both should be affected in this case( regardless of splitting attacks rule, which I think is a red herring here). Your superior skill should still count.

Yes perhaps, though I think part of the reason for the Q&A is that it’s easier for Jason to see the points raised without having to wade through a long thread. I get the impression that time is a rare commodity for a small team Edit: Best of both worlds. Make a clear succinct post with bullet points on the Q&A, and put a link to this post there as well - I did the same for the hit point questions which had contradictory answers from Jason in the Q&A. If Jason can clear things up there, then that will free him up, as we can answer future newbie questions on his behalf.

Yep the question needs to be put to him again on the Q&A thread with the points raised here. Be good to see the points succinctly put there be someone in the know - We owe it to RunewQuest ✊

I’ve updated the Q&A thread question on this subject

Yes, it could either be a single hit or culmaltive hits that trigger the x3 condition in those particular locations. I think that’s what the text is describing here. I presume cumulative hits to the vital locations are effective because of the vulnerability of those core hit locations relative to limbs...but also a big single hit is going to be devastating there.

@Tupper I was curious and looked again at RQ2, there’s no first aid skill there. Which makes sense - I was surprised when you pointed out that first aid could be applied to each wound received. Meaning it can be applied potentially multiple times to a hit location. And also require more book keeping. I think what they’ve done is add the RQ3 first aid skill directly to RQG. RQG as you know uses the RQ2 approach to hit location damage - with the quirk that limbs only take damage up to x2, but can still be hit after that with damage only going to total hit points. RQ3 didn’t have this quirk, so I think *first aid* made more sense in that system. I think that’s partly why your finding the damage rules in RQG a bit odd in relation to first aid healing. It still works, but perhaps that was an unintended consequence of the designers combining RQ3 bits into a RQ2 engine, where previously damage was healed per location, not per wound?

Yes that would make the most sense. Hopefully chaosium will pick this up, as I’ve come across a few people who’ve struggled with this section.

The section on limbs is I think clear on this. Limbs as an exception are capped at the x2 damage limit. Once they get to x2 limit they no longer take damage to location. But can still be hit, with damage passing on only to total hit points. It’s quirky but I think the intention is to refelect their relatively less vital nature.

@Jeff @Jason Durall We’ve put the damage rules through their paces and have found them to be difficult to settle on a consistent reading ( we’ve really tried ). Could you please help confirm what the intention is? We suspect an example may be incorrect? Is damage to all hit locations capped at x2, or is that just intended as a limit for limbs? It reads like it’s just intended for limbs but the example above muddies the water.

Yep it’s a colourful way of simulating an horrendous hit

Hmm...Yes I glossed over that in my Eureka moment. This example doesn’t work consistently with either of our possible approaches. It clearly states he takes 9pts to the head, but then as you point out he only takes 8pts damage to total hit points. If you interpret it either way the example is incorrect. It’s incorrect if we go with the x2 cap, as the head has taken 9pts, and it’s incorrect if you go with uncapped (x3 max) as Total Hit points have taken only 8pts. If we give the writers benefit of the doubt and the 9pts mentioned is before any reductions due to a x2 cap, it’s still a bit of an incomplete example. I’m starting to see why some people have found this a difficult section to digest. The x2 cap for limbs is stated pretty clearly. The x3 max for head, chest and abdomen is the default limit before the location has been pulverised/maimed/severed. After x3 it’s no longer there to take any more damage. .

Yes agreed. Two-handed weapons don’t get an extra attack, they just come with a bit more damage. RAW - if you attack with a shield you can’t parry with it in the same round. However this doesn’t apply to weapons, which can parry and attack in same round. With two weapon fighting you can attack twice, and still parry a single attack once (and other attacks with culmaltive penalty) But as always feel free to tweak to your tastes

Following on from my post above - I’d always assumed that the x2 damage restriction to limbs applied to all of the hit locations. A careful reading has shown that’s not the case. Now I look back at RQ2 and the wording is the same there. It’s talking specifically about “limbs” , not Hit locations. A lot of confusion could be avoided if the rules were a tiny bit more explicit about this distinction, and stating clearly the maximum wounds that each hit location can go down to. The distinction is there in the text, but you have to be very mindful. I think perhaps its helpful to think of the damage rules for *limbs* as a sort of exception to the general rule, which Head, chest and Abdomen follow.

@Tupper I think I've had a Eureka moment... *Assumes Miss Marple persona* Going back to your original question, You were unsure if the special effects from big hits were brought on by a single, or cumaltive hits. We established that it was dependent on hit location limbs - Single blow (x2, x3) Head,Chest, Abdomen - cumulative, or single blow (x2, x3) This reading is based on each hit location description being its own mini rule set, with no cross over under the main heading. Reading them at face value - If its not mentioned in the text it doesn't apply, which I think is the style of writing in RQG. The problems we've encounted have been to do with applying the same rules to each hit location under the main headings. Following that logic through, the same can be inferred for the question: What is the limit that a hit location can go down to negative wounds? Its dependant on the Hit location Limbs - x2 Hit points Head, Chest, Abdomen x3 Hit points * Its a technicality and in practice your character is probably dead before they reach x3 wounds in the chest through cumulative hits, but it makes sense of the text and how its structured. It follows that if we use cumulative hits in the first point for head, chest, Abdomen to trigger special effects, that a logical limit of x3 negative maximum will be a necessity for those locations too. So I think Jason Duralls seemingly contradictory answers on the the Q&A thread are actually right ( if a bit confused about the distinction). We'll see what he says when he answers the question I posted there. * Note this would mean that its only the limbs that stop receiving damage directly once they reach the x2 limit. Head, Chest, Abdomen will continue receiving damage up to the x3 limit. It would also mean that whilst limbs can't take more damage in a single hit then x2 - The Head, Chest, and Abdomen don't have this damage restriction for single blows, as it’s not mentioned in relation to those locations. This models the limbs being not quite as vital as the core hit locations. Multiple smaller wounds to the core hit locations can eventually lead to *maimed* condition (death by a thousaund cuts).But the limbs follow a different rule needing the x3 to be delivered in a single hit to trigger the *maimed/severed* condition. Edit: Reading through the examples of play seems to bear out my conclusions. The example doesn't suggest that the damage to the head is capped at x2. He's taken 9 points to the head, which is 1pt more then would be allowed under a x2 cap. So this points to damage going into x3 max in the head. The final confirmation for me comes in the sub headings and how they're worded. - Damage Equal or Exceeds Double the Locations Hit Points, and Damage Equal or Exceeds Triple the locations hit points. If damage followed the same rules for all hit locations, then the headings might say something like *Damage Equal or Exceeds Double the Locations Hit Points in a single blow*. As such they don't, which to me suggests there are divergent rulings dependent on hit location, as i suggest in my think through above. ....I rest my case Your Honour

Also if you wanted to target a specific area In combat you could use an *aimed shot* . RAW this would be to target a hit location, but if it fitted with the story/play style you could be more specific and aim for an eye.

Yep that’s How i play it. Just debating cap to cumaltive damage - x2 or x3 Jason’s given contradictory answers...no biggie though.

For clarity Ive asked Jason Durall to clarify the x2 or x3 limit on max damage to hit locations on the Q&A thread. Waiting for an answer...

Yes agreed. It even says so on p192 of RQG: ...and regarding parries, p194 of RQG it says Which for me seems like a fair, and colourful way of dealing with the increased difficulty of parrying multiple attackers/attacks. As SR's don't represent seconds then this seems a good way of modelling reactive parrys in a round, with diminished chances of success with each subsequent parry. Like you say it would be easy to factor in other restrictions if you wished depending on circumstance. Guess it depends on your style of play. Isn't the rule for simultaneous hits resolved by highest Dex or best Dex SR modifier? Other wise they both hit at the same time.

I was looking at minimal edit, to fit in with what is already covered in the other bullet points, which brought me to this option: