Akhôrahil

I have long maintained that the underlying reason for how unintuitive the SR system is is that it can’t decide whether it’s an initiative system or an action point system, and tries to mix them.

Actually, that’s an interesting point. My reading went like this: You explicitly add the SRs from the move to ”any” action (this is then part of the ”normally”) - what the rule says, in my original reading, is that you shouldn’t consider whether someone has ”arrived yet” for melee SR purposes (although the next part says you should for missile and spell purposes - you may be able to rush an archer before he gets to fire). For instance, let’s say your movement adds 6 SRs as you engage (yes, you need move 12 for this to even work, let’s just ignore this for now). Your opponent will still attack you at SR 5 if that’s his SR, even though under one (unsupported) interpretation you’re not even ”there” yet at SR 5. If your own melee SR is normally 4, then it becomes 10 in this case, and you strike last. ”For each unit (3 meters) of movement an unengaged adventurer makes during the melee round, add +1 to their strike rank if they wish to take any action” (my emphasis) I mean, in a way your interpretation would make more sense, but I don’t quite see the rules supporting it. It would be an easy and reasonable ruling to make, though. Note that in this case though, all movement into (a new) melee become ”free”, which might seem odd (you’re still limited to half move, but this could easily be 8 if your PCs love Mobility as much as mine do). And it would mean that completely different things happen (even at the same distance) if you rush an unengaged or an already-engaged target (there’s no doubt whatsoever that my original reasoning would apply if you joined an established melee), which is a bit weird (you could potentially end up in a situation where you wouldn’t have time to attack an engaged target, but you would have time to attack an unengaged target…) I hadn’t even considered your interpretation before though, so thanks for bringing it up. It probably makes for a better actual rule, even with some movement weirdness. I’ll probably run it like that, and it could even be the intention, just awkwardly phrased. And it makes me like the simplicity of Move Action + Attack Action even more. 🙂

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Not necessarily, if you only move a little and you have better SR than the opponent even after adding a few SRs. But often, yes. It seems to not hold true when you’re mounted, though, as you don’t seem to spend SRs for mounted movement. Or, presumably, in chariot combat. Also, I think RAW is a better term than canon, here. Source: ”Any time two fighters meet in melee, no matter how long they’ve traveled to get to that meeting, strike rank should be figured out normally for them.” And also just how the basic system works - it isn’t fully or even mostly an Action Point economy, although it partly is.

This clearly isn't intended by the rules (you would only be allowed half mount move for this), but it's a reasonable house-rule.

By one reading, you could charge with the full move. Rules text: ”A mount carrying an adventurer engaged in melee moves at its normal movement rate unless the mount itself directly engages in combat (such as a war horse making a Kick attack or a bison making a Butt attack).” So you might get the full normal move from your steed, if it’s not Itself attacking. Since this makes proper charging possible, it seems reasonable. In this case, with 36 m of move out of which you only need 20, you might even be able to get yourself into position for the straight line charge in the same round, although the GM may have opinions about the turning circle of a bison if you try to push things.

This probably works. In this case, I would add the houserule that you (D&D style) get one Move action (of your regular move) and one Attack action, but that you can sacrifice your Attack action to either Move twice or Run.

This is the only interpretation that makes any sense in RQG (since otherwise charging and mounted archery simply wouldn't work),but yes, it could have been clearer.

I think you’re misunderstanding the question - how could you *ever* charge (for Lance bonus) with a bison under the rules? First off, in order to get the charge bonus, you would have to move more than half of your (or in this case, the bison’s) move, so you wouldn’t get to attack. Second, you would also spend so many strike ranks moving that you wouldn’t have enough left to make the attack. This can presumably be sidestepped if you make some of the move in the round before, but that has other problems - for one thing, as it has to be a straight line, your target could just step out of the way (barring formation fighting). Hence the part of the question that asks whether the rider spends SRs in the same way as the mount. Which I think the rules at least suggest that the rider doesn’t, and that this movement is ”free” for the rider. (Mobility spell solves the 18 movement part.)

Historically, there was no practical stopping of musket balls, but a breastplate could stop pistol balls. When you demonstrated this, it left a mark, the so-called ”bullet proof” (yes, really).

D&D and Pathfinder will be severely difficult to dislodge from the first two places.

Warhammers and rondel daggers will penetrate through plate. This is fairly immaterial in Glorantha though, as except possibly for dwarves, no-one will be fully covered in armor.

Shark Tooth sword. (But it’s not hard to imagine what happens to it if you strike metal.)

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/gloranthan-documents/greg-sez/doggods/

I run it that if you lost them from something mundane, like exhaustion or disease, you regain them through rest as though they were HPs. It seems weird to me if you never recover naturally from mild diseases. I also like to give people CON damage for exhaustion or exposure (because regular damage is so trivial no-one cares), and then they deserve natural regain. I don’t believe any of this is RAW, though.

You can also roll special/crit while he doesn’t. This is the more likely way.

Another factor here is that you really don’t want to fail your Spirit Dance roll for the Fetch, so that one should ideally be at 95%. One year makes a substantial difference.

We had a recent Shaman initiation, and he got out without losing a single round and winning a couple (which was admittedly lucky). 175% sounds overwhelming, but it really isn’t. Spirit Combat in excess of 100% is to be expected, and getting in a Special augment has good odds when you work on it, so I would expect the would-be shaman to enter with something like 125-140% Spirit combat. Since win-win is probably the most likely roll, playing defence is pretty doable. If you try to iniate right away with your starting Apprentice Shaman, things will be harder, but this seems like malpractice by your teacher.

No, this is the Hagodereth heroquest - not all that glitters is a Gold Wheel Dancer. It’s based on Talastari mythology. https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/websites/moondesign-com/jeffs-old-blogs/bearded-storm-and-hagodereth-and-wyters-2/

I mean though, it's literally the name of the spell and it says it's an oath... 🙂 "Contractual Obligation" sounds more like an Issaries spell. I would agree that it's probably used most when you either want to make a point of how serious things are, or when you're not sure about the other party. And oaths without the spell are still to be taken seriously.

This is my take on swearing on the River Styx: There are many different ways to take an oath, and one we know about is the oath to Humakt, backed by the Oath-spell. This "merely" kills you if you break it (and then bad things happen to you in the Underworld as an oathbreaker), but this seems to be considered right and proper among the Orlanthi - taking this oath is surely a sign of honor and dedication, and praiseworthy. But then there's swearing on the River Styx, and this simply isn't the done thing - it seems that it's too much, even for this culture. Too much - when the kosher option is to get killed outright and doomed in the afterlife. What I take this as, is that it's not merely a case of "these are the consequences if you break it" - instead, it twists Fate around the oath, binding the user to it. As a comparison, it could be like the combination of the Oath of Fëanor and the Doom of Mandos... possibly squared. This is what I mean by saying you surrender your free will - it's now replaced with the driving force of that oath that should not be taken. I don't think Argrath could turn aside from it, or prioritize anything above it. He's being wielded by Fate, now.

I think one of the problems here is what we see happening in the comic - he swears on the River Styx, and that essentially means revoking his free will and any concerns whatsoever apart from that oath (this is the reason no sensible person swears that way, or is expected to). This is why, as you say, he's a mere object now, a plot-point that walks like a man. He gave himself up 100% to Fate, and this is what happens to you when you do that. It would be a tragedy, except for all the damage he does. It doesn't help that the whole White Bull thing is essentially Dances With Bisons, where he has to show the Praxians how to do their own culture properly.

Although at least he has the occasional friend. Argrath doesn't have friends - he has tools.

Book of Heortling Mythology is your best source, but she’s in King of Sartar as well.

Wilderness Goddess of Dragon Pass (where she is known as Velhara) and Balazar, at the very least. Sometimes identified with Orogeria, although this always strikes me as a bit odd. Mother of Odayla and Ormalaya (Orlanth the Hunter), although myths seem to sometimes differ. It stands to reason that she’s in some way associated with Ladies of the Wild (Bestiary).

For wild nature specifically, there's the Lady of the Wild. But that's still just a subset.