Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. 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! 🤪
  2. Ok thanks to Scotty and persistence from myself ( I intend to make a baboon character) we have finally got to the bottom (excuse the pun) of the baboons attacks So to pull together the research and answer the OP, if you look at Scott’s reply above you will see that the SR’s have been calculated incorrectly in the RQG bestiary. If you follow Scott’s recalculation you get an average baboon that can attack twice in a melee round as per the baboon combat notes. The spear attack will be SR5, followed by the bite or claw attack on SR12. In RQG any number of parries /dodges are p
  3. Checking out the baboons statistic in RQG, it’s dex has shot up to 3d6+6! When did they get so dextrous!? Surely a mistake? Also the SR of 6 with the spear attack is in line with a baboon with a dex of 2d6+6, and not reflective of the stated 3d6+6 dex, which I’m pretty sure is how it should be if as I imagine baboons aren’t super dextrous. Interestingly if we say the baboons dex is supposed to be 2d6+6, then all the sr calculations including weapon are in line with how they are calculated in RQ2. Critically in RQ2 they have actually brought the overall spear attack SR down t
  4. Yes I actually agree with you. That’s how I would have interpreted it too. But the answer given by Scotty is more open ended. This has got me thinking, I’ve delved back into RQ2 and RQ3 for answers. Heres the issues with RQG attack entires as I see them: • The rule on p8 under “weapons” is clumsily written. If you compare it to the Dream Dragon entry which has many attacks listed on the same SR, taken literally the rule would mean the Dragon has 3 different attacks that can happen simultaneously (Same SR). There is no exception noted in the dragon description as required by the
  5. So to return to the op question, following scotty answer in the Q&A thread - the only limitations on use of listed attacks are circumstantial, and Strike ranks. If the creature notes don’t say other wise, attacks on the same SR happen simultaneously (see p8 bestiary) The Baboon could make a spear attack on SR 6, but there aren’t enough SR’s to also employ bite and claw attacks in the same melee round. However next round the baboon could drop the spear and choose to attack simultaneously with two claw attacks, and a bite (as there’s no rule to say otherwise. See p8 bestiary) - provide
  6. Hey if you need any manic fans to give it the once over before going to print you know where to find us. Happily buy now, if it’s of help. That’s looks AMAZING!
  7. Yes agree with playing what’s in front of you, but surely there’s a hard and fast limit to any combination? Guidance within which you improvise as you said? Seems likely to me that unless stated otherwise, that limit is two attacks (sr permitting) following the two-weapon ruling?
  8. How does that play out? • Melee Round 1 - spear attack, • Melee round 2 - knockback attack • Melee Round 3 - bite Or following two weapon attack rule: • melee round 1 - spear attack, and knockback attack • melee round 2 - bite, and claw attack. @Scotty Presumably unless we’re splitting attacks, or the creature description says otherwise, there’s a hard limit of two attacks per round (if two or more forms of attacks listed) following the two-weapon rule? So baboons would be able to use any 2 combinations of those attacks listed in a melee ro
  9. Ah ok so regarding the OP’s original question, and with Scotty’s direction above, the answer is just one attack, unless it’s specifically called out in the creature description. Of course if you have a super skilful baboon that meets all the requirements then they can split their attacks, but they would have to designate which form of attack they’re using. But if you’re following the Two weapon attacks rule ( seems harsh to penalise baboons for having claws and teeth) then perhaps we should be allowing them one of those attacks as well providing there’s enough SR’s at their
  10. Yeah - RQG core book gives the proviso for splitting attacks that: • You can have any split of the % so long as none of the attacks are brought below 50% - As a ruling I guess for simplicity sake you can just rule 50/50 split. Either way is workable depending on how much granularity you want I guess. Regarding Two weapon attacks I seem to recall two approaches: • Off hand weapon starts at 5% plus modifiers (in the core). • Off hand weapon is 50% of your standard attack ( think I may have read that as an answer from Jason?) Edit: just checked WoD - off hand weapon only
  11. Iirc this question came up with the dream dragon attacks. I can’t find the topic, but I believe it was answered in the core questions thread which is now locked, and unavailable for searching. My recollection was that unless stated other wise, you choose one of the attacks. With the Dream dragon this changed from RQ2’s two attacks, to just one in RQG after the clarification. Could be worth seeing how RQ2 handled number of baboon attacks?
  12. Think it’s one attack unless stated otherwise. Only limit on parry and dodge is the -20% cumulative penalty.
  13. Maybe too much to ask, but love to have a sneak peak at the cover. Happy to wait though for the full launch, of course 🚀
  14. Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! Apologies inappropriate flash back. Can’t wait to see what you’ve done with the new Starter. Very excited
  15. @JeffSlight tangent, but will we see more of Andrey Fetisov work in future RQ publications like the Sartar boxed set? His control of colour temperature created some lovely atmospheric compositions in the core RQG book. Love to see more of his work exploring Sartar and other regions.
  16. I used to think warhammer fantasy Roleplay would be very well serviced using BRP as a base, but i think it’s has a well established pedigree now with newer editions. Still I’ve no doubt it would work very well. Big yes to Conan, and a new StormBringer. A decent sword and sorcery game would be excellent.
  17. Yes but let’s see the cover!!
  18. Very exited for RuneQuest. I’ll take it all! Curious who the artists will be in the starter? Who’s got the cover!!???
  19. I can’t use foundry as the power requirements are too much. Roll20 works fine though. Granted eventually I will have to upgrade my computer, but for now I imagine roll20 has the bigger compatibility.
  20. Yeah like I said before. It still plays fine as a quickstart, despite a few minor inconsistencies with the main rules, it’s by no means game breaking. Though for the purpose of learning the game and internalising it, it helps if those inconsistencies are ironed out, rather then having two similar, but different rulings. For example having alternative attack and parry results. iirc the quickstart was put out when they were still finalising some the minor things in the rules, so it’s not surprising there are a few differences. It’s still a great little product and introduction to RQG as is. B
  21. Oh what was the problem? I have the print on demand as I ordered early. Not had a chance to look over it yet. Is there anything I should watch out for as an early buyer?
  22. Well I’ve picked through the QuIckStart with knowledge of what we now know to be the correct core rulings. A few more inconsistencies around the attack and parry results which I’ve added to the quickstart errata thread as I don’t think they were mentioned previously. Hopefully as others have said in future there can be a consistent experience across the quickstart, starterset, and core rules:
  23. Silly question but as the name suggests this is exactly what’s presented in the 2ed printing now?
  24. Yes I agree that future printings should aim to incorporate all the clarifications for a consistent experience, it’s only going to help the game. Making sure rules are consistent across products like quickstart, starter set, and core is desirable and helpful in removing barriers to comprehension.
  25. If ever the quickstart gets updated, I reviewed some of the rules in light of what we now have in the core RQG book 2ed printing and clarifications here on the forum. Here’s a few rule inconsistencies I picked up in the Quickstart. I believe only the two-weapon fighting point has already been mentioned: • p16 Two weapon fighting spot rule is incorrect and makes the same mistake the core rules did in 1st printing regarding number of parries. •p6 Opposed Resolution - “if both participants succeed, the winner is whoever rolled higher”. Suggest change to “if both participants succeed, th
  • Create New...