Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. This is great thanks. Wonder if anyone has done a conversions of Strangers in Prax to RQG? Feel like I’ve got unfinished business there.
  2. @Dragon @trystero Starting a new post as I know the mods want to avoid discussions in the core rules question thread...so RQ3 - Damage is only 1pt to weapon/shield if it exceeds the AP of the weapon. Although a failed attack vs successful parry does do damage directly to the attacking weapon. Then there’s the targeted attack on weapons mentioned above. RQ2 is deadlier for weapons which always take damage directly when parrying. Although shields get off lightly in RQ2 and don't take damage at all. RQG I prefer RQG here as it models more dramatic weapon breaking (and shield breaking) moments on critical attacks, not just parries. It strikes a good balance between RQ2 and RQ3 IMO, with less damage to parrying weapons from standard attacks, balanced by considerably more for critical attacks. Looking forward to future shield and weapon shattering gaming moments ( but not too regularly)!
  3. No. This is just specific to critical attack vs normal attack. The table is fairly clear on the different results
  4. Ok - this is what I interpret as happening based on the table of results on p200. A Critical Attack vs Normal Parry The parrying weapon takes full critical damage directly to its AP This is based on the alternative wording. Other examples below in the table use the wording “over it’s AP”. So the usual rule of only damage over its AP is ignored, the weapon takes the critical damage directly, with a good chance of breaking the weapon. This also ties in with Jason’s comment about the weapon taking critical damage, in the sense critical damage ignores armor. Any excess damage damage (beyond the original AP of the weapon before the attack) goes to the defender, ignoring any armor on the hit location. This all seems to be confirmed in the Q&A by Jason that I posted further up the thread.
  5. Yes the tables seem to be your point to reference here. I have the 2nd printing, not sure If there were any changes between 1st and 2nd printing to the tables? Gm screen and RQG core 2nd printing seem consistent in their results. And Jason has confirmed the tables are correct. Edit: In fairness its just the section on "parrying a critical hit" p200 that is poorly worded. The rest all seems to tally with the Attack & parry results table on p199
  6. Jason wrote this in reply on the Q&A. Does it help? : edit: heres the link to the Q&A: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-players-book-print/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-qa-by-chapter/cha4028-runequest-roleplaying-in-glorantha-chapter-08-combat/
  7. @PhilHibbs Heres the link to the RQ3 errata. Its basically clarified that you can attack & parry with the same weapon, but not on the same SR.
  8. Yeah that’s what I used. But the GW editions didn’t have the errata in. I got the errata in the later Avalon Hill combined softback ( early 90’s)it was at the back, and gave me an ah! moment.
  9. Regarding missile fire: For each missile you fire you factor in the DEX SR. So if you fire twice in a melee round (presuming you are ready and loaded): 1st attack on Dex SR... Then reload +5sr ....Then 2nd Attack + Dex SR
  10. Yes RQ 3 felt a bit stricter mechanically with how SR’s played out and what you could do in each SR. It gave the impression that each SR represented a single moment in time. RQG/RQ2 emphasis is a bit different, emphasising SR more as a looser way to sort out the order of actions, not so much an account of the time in a melee round. have to say I prefer the freeer approach of RQG/RQ2. Though suppose they both played out similarly
  11. That was removed/corrected with the errata. That sentence must have been from an earlier draft of the rules that was left in by mistake. It was corrected in the later errata. It always sat oddly for me as it wasn’t referenced in any other parts of the text.
  12. My vision of Clearwine in the Sartar Companion was not really thought through - and I did not have access to Greg's old sketches of Clearwine from his game. The version presented in RuneQuest is correct. Love the conception of Dragon pass places in RQG. It’s everything I always hoped it would be and more. Maps are just brilliant. Thanks 🙏
  13. You could attack and parry with the same one handed weapon in RQ2 and RQ3, but parry followed the same rules as attacks, and was subject to the same split attack rule - only one parry allowed unless you had 100% + and split your parry. Rq3 wasn’t 100% clear but later had an errata that clarified this. Guess we’ll be seeing an errata for RQG at some point. edit: think the boxed set of RQ2 had a supplementary “basic roleplaying” booklet which had the rule that you couldn’t both attack & parry with a one handed weapon, but that was contradicted in the main RQ2 rule book.
  14. In that case I’d definitely house rule it a bit. Suggestions so far: 1. Only allow a free attack on the opponents you’re currently targeting in combat. 2. Only allow a maximum of one free attack. 3. Allow multiple free attacks but with a cumulative -20% (same as parry) 4. Consider an SR penalty for each free attack beyond the first. Maybe some combination of the above? Personally i’d probably be inclined to go with “only allow a maximum of one free attack” as it’s a reactive action, but the target is also moving/running away, so only a slim chance to get one free attack in.
  15. Yeah that’s in line with the reactive RQG parry concept. Works for me
  16. Isn’t It only the ones that you are engaged with? Maybe with split attack you could be engaged with two/three max? But most would only be able to engage with one opponent at a time. All the same I might be inclined to house rule that you’re allowed only one free attack, and if engaged with more then one opponent you have to choose which to use the free attack on.
  17. Just noticed this on the Q&A: More specifically one of the last points where Jason mentions that a reckless disengagement allows the opponent a free attack ( can’t be parried or dodged) , which happens immediately, and doesn’t effect the characters standard actions that round. So potentially you can still use your standard actions ( including attacking) without any SR impediment from the free attack. Don’t think it’s spelled out that way exactly in the rule book, but I like the interpretation. Is this how others play it?
  18. Yeah at first I thought that, but rereading his statement I don't think he means that. We'll see what he says.
  19. Pretty sure this is what Jason has said the rules are supposed to be. It solves the issue of having a ludicrously high parry relative to your split attack. Whether you use the higher or lower value of the split attacks as the parry starting point ( still waiting for Jason to confirm his thinking here in the Q&A) , it remains a simply penalty that changes relative to the split attack %.
  20. For me it makes sense that it would affect your ability to parry with the same weapon. After all you’re trying to do an awful lot in one round. Sure we already have the culminate parry penalty, but the starting parry shouldn’t be so much higher then the attack chance IMO.
  21. I’m really happy to see Chaosium fleshing out dragon pass in such a compelling way. That really needed to be done. The maps are superb.
  22. Really looking forward to this. edit: there’s plenty I’d like to see covered, but Notchet and the Holy Country are right up there...Bit of lunar love would be good too.
  23. I guess the penalty would only apply to the weapon when parrying, not the shield
  24. Yep that’s the gamble. I could also imagine other time limited situations where splitting attacks could be the best option. For instance you have to try and take out more then one opponent in melee round to stop someone from escaping, triggering an alarm/calling for help, or just protecting allies
  • Create New...