Paid a bod yn dwp

Book 3 solo quest. P 40, no. 131 ”…chosen skill by -20%…” Should be -10%.

Book3 solo quest. P25. No.69 “If you rolled over 90%, you failed and must reduce vasana’s chosen skill by -20%…” This should be -10%.

Book 3 soloquest. P21, no. 55 “if you roll over 70%, you failed and must reduce Vasana’s chosen skill by -20%…” This should be -10%.

edit: please ignore

Book 3 Solo Quest. P32 No. 96 - Text says “You swing down from Molon and take up a defensive position”. The problem is I was compromised in the abdomen in the last encounter…I know stupid right? Trying to be heroic! Ordinarily at - 4 hps in the abdomen I’d be unconscious and loosing hitpoints after losing twice the hitpoints in that location, but these simplified rules allow me to carry on for Sartar…I thought I should. I guess I play through this scene on the floor prone after dismounting? With the modifiers that entails. I know I’m an idiot…I’ll have to crawl my way through the rest of the battle 😂 Retracing my steps to the previous no 79 on p28, I had several options including healing. I could perform a maximum of two of the options. I chose to go straight to Kallyr on my bison. I think the issue here for me is that: once you go to seek out kallyr you can’t go back to perform the second choice at No79, p28. My stupidity aside, I now have to achieve taxing rest of the adventure crawling because I chose to charge to kallyrs aid instead of healing myself.

Book 4 Adventures. P9 Boxed text - Your first fight. “knockout or stunning “ Suggestion - Remove “or stunning”

Book 3, SoloQuest P23. No.58 There doesn’t appear to be any information on how many hit-points the Lunar hoplites have in each location.

Thanks for this. Two things: • p25 Some “Attack and Parry results” differ from the core rules. It doesn’t seem to be for streamlining purposes in the starter set. Is this intentional? • p61 Two Weapon Use - “wielding a one handed weapon in each hand allows for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry” - I still question this. This for me doesn’t make 100% sense in the context of the RQG rules, I still feel it needs rewording. Read directly It implies a limit on the number of parries. Where as in the RQG rules the only limit is the accumulative -20% penalty for every parry after the first. To interpret it as intended the reader needs to do a bit of a mental flip to remember the parry rules don’t work the same as the attack rules , which feels a bit awkward for a starter set and the intended audience. Perhaps it’s just me though? Is this open to misinterpretation? Edit: regrading my second bullet point, I’m sure there is a very clear explanation for this rule in the Well of Daliath. Here it is: “With two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry.” - Well of Daliath Alternatively you could take this approach: ’The only exception to parrying with two weapons is that you must decide which weapon leads the parry, and is open to any potential damage. Otherwise it follows the standard parry rules.’

Reprint? Great, must be selling well!

Yes. Part of me wonders whether this was an unintended change? For instance I imagine there could be a few early versions of the table knocking around on the computer? Quite an easy detail to miss and mix up. On the other hand, perhaps the designers felt the core table was too deadly for a starter introductory set, and deliberately toned down the critical results? Theres certainly no streamlining going on here compared to the core. My preference would be for consistency, but maybe playtests have pushed this small change for a slightly less deadly result?

Pretty sure the exclusion of ‘ignores amour’ is an error. It’s included in the attack and parry results table in the same book. However I guess if new players are referencing the attack and parry table anyway, that this will be picked up. I still think it’d be helpful to include it to help new players internalise the general rule.

100% agree. Love it. Reminds me of how River of cradles, SunCounty, Borderlands opened a window onto the setting with their covers. There’s a strong ancient feel. The distinctive personalities, interaction, and activities really bring it alive. Massive fan of the Starter set cover too, which for me is an instant classic. I hope Chaosium will continue to bring the setting alive with this product. It has to go beyond weapon statistics - illustrating examples of ancient armour and weapons would I imagine be a key aspect?

Heh heh yes after I posted I noticed the character holding up the damaged tunic. Really nice touch 👍

Gorgeous cover. I’m really digging Ossi’s work. Captures the everyday and fantastic. They look pretty relaxed right before the Krasht encounter

Book 1 Rules. P27 Second bullet point: “A critical success does double maximum damage.” Should this be “A critical success does double maximum damage, and ignores armor” ? I understand there is streamlining here with the special damage for the starter set, but ignoring the effect of armour seems fairly fundamental to learning the concept of a critical hit in RQG. Should that not be included? edit: Also worth noting that the attack and parry tables in the starter set do reference ‘ignores armor’ for critical hits.

Yes I agree the wording on two-weapon use is a little misleading in the Starter Set. "Wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand allows for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry" - RuneQuest Starter Set. Rule Book p61 The well of Daliath description is a better starting point: “ With two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry.“ - Well of Daliath I’m no wordsmith but a succinct alternative to fit in with the existing text could be something like: 'Wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand allows for two attacks (one with each weapon). Either weapon may be used to parry alternately if desired, following the standard parry rules.' Or 'Wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand allows for two attacks (one with each weapon). Either weapon may be chosen to parry a single attack, following the standard parry rules.' Or 'Wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand allows for two attacks (one with each weapon). Either, but not both, weapons may be chosen to parry a single attack, following the standard parry rules.' Or 'Wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand allows for two attacks (one with each weapon). Either, but not both, weapons may be chosen to parry an attack. The -20% malleus for subsequent parries applies regardless of weapon used.

Rule Book. P26. Dodge Result table: Special Dodge vs Special Success - “Attack is dodged successfully” Suggestion: Remove ‘successfully’ to be consistent with the rest of the dodge table wording.

Haven’t played in Dimbyds Notchet game, but I know he’d done quite a bit of work on something in Notchet. Very likely it was him, but can’t be 100% sure.

Rule book, p20 “and a Power or Form Rune may be used by to augment any skill being used in accordance with that Rune.” Suggestion: Remove “by”

Could have been @Dimbyd?

Well spotted. Yes, it appears that the results for critical attack vs special parry, and critical attack vs Normal parry have been altered from the core book version to be “inflicts special damage” instead of the prior “inflicts maximum special damage” . What’s the reason for this change? Isn’t it better to have consistency here? Is this because the original tables in the core and GM screen are deemed incorrect? It doesn’t seem to be an attempt at streamlining for the starter set.

Rules book. P61 Two weapon use. The text talks about “multiple attacks in a round” being possible when skill is above 100%. I’m guessing this is the splitting attack rules for skills above 100% which is talked about in the core book? The issue here is that the section in the text refers you to p60 for an explanation, but that section does not explain multiple attacks for skills over 100%. It only talks about reducing opponents skill for each % point above 100%. “An adventurer with a skill above 100% may perform multiple attacks in a round, if there are adequate strike ranks to perform such actions (see Skills Over 100%, page 60).”

Couldn’t resist! Wallet made for a last gasp use of the resistance table to resist purchase…the very reasonable price and U.K. postage already had a plus 60% in the starter sets favour. That was before the many other pluses due to outstanding contents. Wallet was crushed in the stampede 🤣 What a great set. Looking forward to receiving the physical and playing through the solo. Will have to get my GM hat on for this.

Yes that’s how I see it too. Unless you’re splitting attacks, you have one attack per melee round. The restriction on combining magical attacks with melee attacks is a way of maintaining that offensive balance - one attack per melee round - that’s my interpretation.

Initially we had 2ed GW edition. Later I bought into the GW 3ed. As Nick says RQ3 was split up into 3 books for the GW edition: Runequest Advanced Runequest Monsters The first book “RuneQuest” was available in softback and hardback. Later on in the early nineties during the RuneQuest renaissance, AH republished the RuneQuest 3 rules in a combined softback book, with an errata included at the back. The illustrations and layout were the same as found in the AH Deluxe box set. You can probably find the errata on line (maybe even on this forum) if you’d rather go for the box set or GW editions. The latest edition of RuneQuest Glorantha is IMO a good balance between RQ2 and RQ3 with some new aspects added like passions, runes, and tweaked magic. It’s my favourite RQ rules edition to date. Easy to borrow from too. But if RQ3 is your thing and a rule set without the Glorantha background is important then probably best to stick with what you know.