Paid a bod yn dwp

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Everyone should look at the WoD for the rules on splitting 2 Weapon Attacks. They are a little different then I remember and and a little different than I thought as they made the translation to RQG. Both weapons being split must be the same (this was the part that surprised me) and off hand penalties apply

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 starts at 5% if you don’t have any preexisting skill in it. Other wise it’s 50% of your standard attack.
 

2 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I would think that unless the rules stated otherwise one would use the rules of adding the two SRs and if they are 12 or less one should be able to use both

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? 

Think it’s one attack unless stated otherwise. Only limit on parry and dodge is the -20% cumulative penalty. 

On 3/10/2021 at 4:04 PM, Rick Meints said:

If you want to know what the RQ Starter set will be like, it will have the same quality of box as the Call of Cthulhu Starter set.

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 🚀 
 

On 3/10/2021 at 4:04 PM, Rick Meints said:

I'm surprised you aren't worried that we'll go back to using Dobyski to do art too.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! Apologies inappropriate flash back. 
 

Can’t wait to see what you’ve done with the new Starter. Very excited 
 

@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.

On 12/2/2020 at 8:44 AM, DreadDomain said:

Well, that went down like a lead balloon. More than 80 views and no one would like to see RQ used for anything else even if only as a dream project... sigh ...

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. 

Yes but let’s see the cover!!  

Very exited for RuneQuest. I’ll take it all! 
Curious who the artists will be in the starter? Who’s got the cover!!???  

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. 

7 hours ago, Aprewett said:

Thank you Paid.

This game is on my wish list for this year, but I don’t have the time to catch all fixes.

So a list of all the bugs to watch for is gold. I did not get to read any further, as I wanted to post this straight away. Hopefully there is a good list of these with page numbers to help out a noob to the rules.

‘Thanks.

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. But if you want to start playing it with the core rules straight, those points pointed out in the errata thread should help. 
 

Edit: The Easiest fix for rules alignment is to use the attack and parry results table in the core also available with the Gms screen. 
 

On 1/21/2021 at 3:43 PM, Rick Meints said:

SoloQuest POD has been fixed and is available for purchase.

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?  

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:

Silly question but as the name suggests this is exactly what’s presented in the 2ed printing now? 

1 minute ago, Kloster said:

Yes. The real problems is for new players/GM, that will not automatically go to a Q&A thread on a forum: They buy and try to use the rules as they (try to) understand the rules, especially when they are not native english speakers (most of my players don't speak english, and are thus unable to search this forum).

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.

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, the winner is whoever rolled the better result.”

•p6 Opposed Resolution - “A tie (where both participants succeed but roll the same number)...”. Suggest change to “A tie (where both participants succeed but roll the same type of success)

• Dodging p14. Dodge is described as usable against all attacks from one source. In the core it’s applicable against attacks from any source.

• Attack, Critical Success p14. There is no mention of what special damage is until the following bullet point on special success. Some mention of twice or double rollable damage is needed here. Suggestion - “An Attack that is not parried or dodged does the weapons full doubled rollable damage...” or alternatively “An Attack that is not parried or dodged does twice the weapons full rollable damage...” or better still introduce the core book wording and meaning of “maximum special damage” to the text.

• Attack, Critical Success p14. Suggestion in bold to align with core rules “...takes the critical’s damage (maximum possible) directly to its hps, with any remaining damage going to the defender”.

• Parry normal success vs successful attack, p14 - “Parry weapon takes 1 hit-point”. In the Core rules parry weapon only takes hit point if dam exceeds weapon hit points. Suggestion - change to “Parry weapon takes 1 hit-point if damage exceeds weapon hit points.”

• Parry normal success vs unsuccessful attack, p14 - “if attack failure, parry weapon does normal rolled damage breaking it if it exceeds the weapons hit points.” In the core rules, this is toned down to only inflicting 1 hit-point on the attacking weapon.
Suggestion change to “if attack failure, parry weapon does 1 hit-point of damage breaking it if it exceeds the weapons hit points.”

•Shields, p14.  I question the need to have separate shield parry results, as they should be the same whether weapon or shield, therefore unnecessary duplication? Having said that below are the shield points that need addressing.  

• Shield parry p14 “When a shield successfully parries a successful attack, the shield loses 1 hit point...” Suggestion - “loses 1 hit point, if damage more than its current hit points...”  to bring it in line with the core rules.

• Shield Parry p14. “If the attack is a special success and the parry successful, the shield takes the damage of the special success (rolled twice and added together)”. Suggestion change to ” If the attack is a special success and the parry successful, the shield takes the damage of the special success over its HP (rolled twice and added together).”

• Some of the attack and parry results from the core are completely  missing. I understand that the quickstart is abbreviated, but these results can come up in play.

• As with the core, missing an explanation that clearly states that parry and dodge are interchangeable in defence within a melee round, and that the cumulative minus 20% penalty applies to both regardless of what combination of the two is being used. Though only one defence attempt per attack.

On 1/17/2021 at 8:27 AM, Stephen L said:

Are they issues with that?  I only recall falling in the completely-wowed category. 

Quick start is a brilliant way into RQG. To my mind it’s easy to follow. Obvs by its nature it’s abbreviated. IIRC there are tiny differences in presentation of some combat rules, but it’s minor stuff * and the gist is all there.

It just goes to show how some of these things are a matter of taste, and I’m sure many make these sort of house rules. It all works, nothing is broken. Brilliant little adventure too.

* Edit: On closer inspection really really minor differences from the core rules. Some rules are necessarily abbreviated like special types of damage. Differences in the presentation of remaining rules are as follows :-

• Dodge is described as usable against all attacks from one source. In the core it’s applicable against attacks from any source.

• Parry Normal Success vs successful attack - Parry weapon takes 1 hit-point. Core rules - parry weapon only takes hit point if dam exceeds weapon hit points. 

• Parry normal success vs unsuccessful attack - if attack failure, parry weapon does normal rolled damage breaking it if it exceeds the weapons hit points. In the core rules, this is toned down to only inflicting 1 hit-point on the attacking weapon.

• Two weapon fighting spot rule is incorrect and makes the same mistake the core rules did in 1st printing regarding number of parries.

So in general the parry results are a bit harsher on a couple of results in the QuickStart, with a bit more chance of weapon breaking.

40 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

It is still not 100% fixed in the second printing

True.

40 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Wait, What?

Yep

On 1/15/2021 at 3:37 PM, Stephen L said:

Is rule clarity in RQinG actually an issue, or am I just amongst a small band of whingers? 

On the whole it’s great, but there have been a few points which I think have all been clarified. In fact I don’t think any RPG rulebook has been scrutinised so closely, a mark of people’s regard for RuneQuest. 

From memory the main points that stood out for me were:

• Two weapon fighting - issue being rules not updated for new RQG combat rules, in particular the new parry rules.

• Parry/Dodge not fully explained as being interchangeable. But hey I guess this may be down to personal taste. The official clarification is that you can interchange them in defence but the -20% cumulative applies to both regardless.

• Confusion on damage to limbs. Issue example error, and lack of an explanation for why limbs have different damage limits. Why the extra crunch? etc

• Special Crush damage lacking clarity. Turns out both damage bonus’s are “special damage” so both are maximised.

• One-Use Rune Magic. In process of being clarified in the new Red Book of Magic.

There may have been a few other example errors, but on the whole the book reads fine, and is 100% playable.   

1 hour ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Main book, page 314

Given that page 314 states for a non-fumble failure (hmm, no way to insert a quote block?)

"""
If the casting success roll is greater than the adventurer’s relevant Rune affinity, the spell is not cast, and there is no Rune point loss. If the adventurer is boosting the spell with additional magic points, they lose 1 magic point (no matter how many are being spent). On a fumble, the spell fails and the adventurer loses the Rune points intended for the spell.
"""

"""
Once spent, Rune points must be replenished before they can be used again.
"""

It would seem rather punitive to have a permanent loss on a fumble when plain failure essentially has no effect at all. Permanent loss might make sense if a failure resulted in the (recoverable) loss of the RPs -- as if the spell had succeeded -- but with no spell effect taking place.

Including the success categories, I see four levels of cost here:

• Critical Success: spell succeeds, NO RP COST (spell is free)
• Normal Success: spell succeeds, at REGULAR RP COST (recoverable via worship)
• Normal Failure: spell does not go off, NO RP COST (absolutely nothing happens)
• Fumble: spell does not go off, at REGULAR RP COST (ie; recoverable via worship)

In contrast to the second quote above, the RBoM, page 9, on one-use spells explicitly states

"""
The Rune points used to cast spells designated as ‘one-use’ in the Rune spell or cult descriptions cannot be replenished.
"""

The four levels of cost for one-use spells (still page 9) come out to be

• Critical Success: spell succeeds, NO RP COST (spell is free)
• Normal Success: spell succeeds, at PERMANENT RP COST (not recoverable)
• Normal Failure: spell does not go off, NO RP COST (absolutely nothing happens)
• Fumble: spell does not go off, at PERMANENT RP COST (not recoverable)

Note the symmetry between one-use and reusable spells: 0 RP, x RP, 0 RP, x RP. The difference is that one-use spells have permanent RP loss while reusable spells have recoverable RP loss.

 

Yes agree. That’s the point I was making. The rules aren’t unduly punishing One-use spells on a fumble, It’s just that the defining aspect of one-use spell is that the rune points are spent permanently when casting, and by extension fumbling.

1 hour ago, Russ Massey said:

Changing this to a permanent loss is not a clarification - it is a change to the original rules.

That’s just clarifying what already happens with one-use spells (at least by the RBM clarification) Looks to me that It’s just following the One-Use ruling, that all spent rune points are lost permanently.

I guess (no book to hand at the moment) that standard rune magic just looses the rune point on a fumble, but is recoverable at a worship ceremony? 

Spell Trading p82. Final bullet point:

”The original “owners” of the spells can still cast them after trading them, provided that the spell was not a one-use spell and that all other requirements for the spell (Rune points, cult status, etc.) are still met.”

This suggests contrary to the new explanation of one-use spells p9 that the spell cannot be cast again after trading by the original owner, is this correct? 
 

Should it not be explained (as on p9) that it’s the Rune Points that are permanently lost and not the spell? The spell can actually be cast again by the original owner provided they have rune points left to cast it ( all be it at the high cost of permanently loosing the rune point)?

One Use spells , p9. Bullet point 3

“If the roll is a fumble, the spell is not cast, but the Rune points are spent permanently and cannot be replenished. The spell can be re-attempted again if sufficient Rune points remain.”

Shouldn’t the last point here apply to all casting results (pass, fail, fumble, & critical) and not just be signalled out for the fumble result? I can see why it’s more pertinent to mention it with the fumble result, but it leaves a bit of room perhaps to question whether this also applies to the other casting results or not.

One-use spells p9, bullet point 4.  Spelling error, should be “apply” not “appy” 

”If the roll is a critical success, the spell is cast (a resistance roll may appy)”

On 12/30/2020 at 11:14 PM, DreadDomain said:

Sure, I can like or dislike the ruling and play it however I like at my table but that's irrelevant to my point above.

Yes I agree. It makes the ride smoother when you’re digesting all the rules to know what exactly it’s supposed to be modelling.

My two clacks worth, I’d put a little paragraph in to explain what’s happening thematically, emphasising 

• the unique dedicated runepoint and why it is so,  frex what makes it so special to the god to only be awarded as one-use

• that only this rune point can be used to power the one use spell.

• the dedicated Rune point can’t be used to power other spells, unlike other rune points. 

• that it’s the special rune point you need to re-sacrifice for, and not the spell itself, who’s casting rituals are not forgotten.