icebrand

Defensive Boosting should never have happened. Its so terrible it made me lose SAN

Hahaha i used to run a quite high level rq3 campaign and BOY WAS BABY GOR BROKEN... Like an NPC priestess with a fraction of the skills and %s of a PC could fight them and it was even scarier than a zorak zorani... (Zorak zorani with 15 rune spells gave the humakti with 150 a run for the money, uz are epic). Edit: misquoted i wanted to quote the post above sorry!!!

Im running borderlands! 10/10 one of the best rpg books ever! I replaced the duke for an exiled Orlanthi petty king. One scenario per season! Then the roleplay with settlers/nobilty/people @ horn gate, and the morocanth + agimori The map is amazing! By Revenge of Muriah have the PCs at rune level, or replacements ready lol. 5 eyes is... Dare i say impossible? With a party of 4 initiates (but also i use my NPCs very well, and our dungeons are no hidden rolls, and everyone including me plays to win). So depending on your group size/expertise you may want to add some easier adventures in-between, with the tribes and horns gate it's not hard to come up with something, If you really need.

Kyger Litor gets True Maul via Karrg, i can't remember if runelord (son of Karrg) only or free for all

Because it's the special magic of humakt? Because they have (used to?) Slash? Why wouldn't humakt have great party and heal body? Why would you play a humakti over a babeesterite then? Why are people taking special, iconic spells and giving them to every other minor god that shouldn't have it? /Rant Edit: sword trance was a mistake, change my mind

Yeah i gmed a decade+ campaign and characters had those numbers. It didn't help they had some plot armor as well. Now I'm brutal, plus i give XP/season so 200 checks is +40 years and everyone's been aging for like 20 years by then so it's all good.

I have no clue what you mean but... 300%? 300% in RuneQuest is unnatainable. Rq2, which is the most likely version to actually hit 300% requires an average of 200 experience checks *after hitting 100%* with an (pretty much unnatainable) 20 INT. Every other version is waaaay worse. In RQG, with a 20% modifier, you need 286 experience rolls, which means yeah, that's not happening legit RAW. Note that dropping the XP bonus / attack bonus a few steps *greatly* increases this time.

Well, prax is basically a wild west movie setting!!! (At least mine is) You have pol-joni cowboys and nomad natives and all!!! 🤪

Are there potatoes in Glorantha? What about other American stuff, like corn and tomatoes??? Where would this stuff grow anyway? If so... Do we have all the Eurasian produce?

Hi guys!!! Of course not only i want to know what you prefer, but also why!! I always used hit locations as GM, but i remember playing stormbringer and it was very nice and fast (though the random armor felt... Off) What are your experiences? Anyone changed any game (RQ, SB, CoC) to use the other option?

Nope. The example is if someone took 4 points of damage the weapon is reduced by 45 points. Not that every parry only reduced the weapon by 4 points. I think you might be mixing up BRP/Elric rules with old RQ here. In RQ2, if you parried 12 points of damage you weapon took 12 points of damage off it's hit points. In other words weapon hit points work just like character hit points. It is not an example, it's the rule (pg28 of CE, quote bolded). Theres no example of this anywhere in the book. Actually you could (wrongly i guess) interpret this as weapons taking a MAXIMUM of 4 damage per round, irregardless of actual damage done. WEAPON DAMAGE ABSORPTION Weapons absorb damage on a cumulative basis: 4 points of damage taken in 1 melee round will stay with the weapon throughout the fight and be added to any further damage it may take. When the damage taken exceeds the amount the weapon can take, the weapon is broken. Yes, he does get to roll damage, unless he is using one of the two exceptions I noted above. Yes, i made an example of the rules. Weapons are better than shields vs long hafted or small weapons. Thus if you are using a boradsword and parry an opponent who is also using a boradsword then if the successfully attack they do get to roll damage and will damage you weapon, doing whatever they rolled to your weapon's hit points. So if they do 12 points of damage your 20 HP sword is reduced to 8 hit points. And after the round finishes, 4 damage stays with the weapon. Parrying several blows in the same round can break it faster though. This is RAW, as quoted above. Only because the troll is using a long hafted weapon. If he were using a mace or battle axe instead, he'd break your weapon after one or two parries. I don't understand what you mean; yes, the troll doesn't roll damage because it's long hafted. If this case it's better to parry with a weapon than a shield. Also the weapon doesn't break after two parries as per rules on pg28, unless the damage equals or exceeds its current HP. Says you. Generally single combat is defined as combat between two people. That's not the same as a duel. It's combat. Single combat is a duel between two single warriors which takes place in the context of a battle between two armies. (Source: wikipedia). But call it a duel if you like. But you also state that people cannot kill an elehant in melee. Peopel have. Citation required. What's your source??? To be perfect clear, I'm speaking about 1 person using melee weapons, vs an elephant actively fighting them. Sneaking doesn't count. Poison doesn't count. Ambush doesn't count, ranged attacks don't count. You're missing the point. In RQ@ only Runelords are supposed to have combat skills over 100%, yet many large animals end up with skills over 100% due to STR. The T-Rex in Gateway Beastiary with Bite at 180% being a prime example. As I said, animals with over 100% is against the rules in the core book, so this is an oversight. Not surprising. Pretty much anything that has happened before the internet, film recording or such isn't going to be documented with accounts or people doing it. You probably aren't going tobe able to google any accounts of the Duke of York killing a boar on a hunt either. Or soldier accounts from the various battles fought against elephants. But my uncle hunted boars with dogs and knife, this isn't a stretch. Meanwhile, defeating an elephant in a 1v1 fight with melee weapons is completely unbelievable, and i seriously doubt it ever happened more than a couple of times (freak accidents). Soldiers fought against elephants on 1v1 a grand total of 0 times, since, you know... Soldiers fought elephants in battles. Also, if someone killed an elephant there would be a tale about it, like the duke of whatever killing a boar (only that the elephant is a much more impressive feat) While some accounts might exist, they probably isn't that much that has been translated into modern tongues and posted on google somewhere. So your argument is "it probably happened"??? What makes you think Gloranthan elephants are magical? Because every animal in Glorantha is, and elephants seem like they would be. If hadrosaurs are intelligent, why not elephants? Also there's elephant hsunchen (i think I read about those, don't know if canon), so at least they existed if they are currently extinct and i wasn't reading fan content How do you know that? Has there been anything printed on magical Glrothan elephants anywhere? You just make it up out of thin ass and give it whatever abilties you wish. The same you just made up out of thin air how a normal person with a melee weapons can defeat an elephant in single combat. Mulitple large critters have the same problem. I think is is an oversight, not in terms of accidentally going over 100%, but that the authors didn't consider that situation until Gateway Bestiary. Which is why Steve and Sandy corrected that in RQ3. Not is isn't. Just becuase it big doesn't mean it is good. Want further evidentce, why do you think they capped the STR bonus to attack at +10% in RQ3? But you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say only RuneLords have skills over 100% then you say you like how T-Rexes have skills over 100%. I like T-rexes at 100%. I already said its an oversight; i don't follow RAW when RAW is wrong, and if a bestiary contradicts core at basic game mechanics, then bestiary is wrong. It's the same thing. If elepahts can eaily hit people becuase the elpahnts are 50-100 times bigger, then humans should have the same benefits to hit something that they are 50-100 times the size of, like say a cat, mouse or rat. And hitting something they are thousands of tmes larger than should be even easier. Ok, let's see... Elephant = size 6000, speed 11m/s Human = size 75, speed 3m/s Cat = size 3, speed 13m/s An elephant can hit you because humans move "one and a half human" per second. A human can't hit a cat because the cat moves 7 humans per second. The cat is very agile and strong compared to it's size, the human is not. An insect can move as fast or faster than a human, while being very small, thus hard to hit. Proportionally a worm moves as fast as a human, i doubt you would have any troubles hitting that. A fly on the other hand would move at supersonic speeds if it were as big as a human and still maintaining it's mass:speed ratio. No it doesn't. Humans are much stronger relative to an insect. A human can pick up an ant, but an ant cannot pick up a human. human can also outrun one too. Yes that's what I said *relative strength*, which is the mass: strength ratio, and not absolute strength, which is what you say. Insects are absolutely and overwhelmingly stronger pound per pound, as you already know because... Now if you want to talk about what would happen if humans and ants were the same size, well humans would be a lot stronger and tougher. Insects can lift several times their body weight only because they are so small. It's call the cube-square law, strength doesn't change as fast as mass. Yes, that's exactly what I meant. In this case it means it's trivial for an elephant to hit a human, and very difficult for a human to hit a cat. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing elephants freaking out and killing humans. It's plain to see you ain't dodging shit, they pick you up and kill you like it's nothing. The only way to survive is run away and pray it doesn't decide its you who it wants dead. Some instects can. SOme can fly too. But not all instects, and even the ones that can move quickly, don't move all that fast. What about all the insects that don't make six foot leaps? Flies are't all that fast. Ant's and spdeirs crawl. Yet people do miss them all the time. Flies have 360 vision and insane maneuverability and acceleration. Also if you miss a spider it's called "fear"; theres no way a spider can avoid a healthy person with average coordination. I mean you can kill spiders by squashing them with your finger and they don't even get to bite you. It's also trivially easy to slap a bee midair (don't do this). Because bees are slow. Uh, no. Cats are small and agile but not superhumanly so. A cat can jump 5-6 times it's height. That's a human jumping 9meters+. If that ain't super human, what is? Also, a cat moves FASTER than a human (in absolute speed). An untrained housecat is almost as fast as Usain Bolt, and a trained one owns him hard (they clock 48km/h vs 38 bolts average). Cats have (super) human speed at 1/20th the mass, of course they are hard to hit. A jaguar the same size as a human isn't all that much better phsically, and yes people have killed them in melee. Probably not recently, but it was done. A jaguar is pound per pound the strongest of all panthers, and they can grapple with anacondas at least as big as them. They have also the strongest bite of any feline, more than lions and tigers (which are like 2x the size). Oh, it runs at 80km/h. If you believe jaguars are not much better than a similar sized human, then you know nothing about jaguars... And yes of course you can kill them, because weapons. Thing is, weapons that can kill a jaguar don't do much to an elephant. And a human is stronger compared to it's mass than an elephant (or ant). Compared to mass, humans are stronger than elephants and weaker that ants. If you disregard mass then it's the other way around. You can't be "stronger than both" because the elephant can lift/carry several hundred kg and humans can't, and ants can lift/carry several dozen times their weight and humans can't Depends on the location. Limbs that are disabled do not render the character unconscious. Even if a limb is mained or severed the character is still conscious and can heal himself (RQ2 page 20). Incorrect again, you should read the rules you quote. 3. Location Receives 6 More Points Than Available A limb hit for 6 points more than it can take in a single blow is severed or irrevocably maimed. Only a 6 point Healing spell or potion applied within 2 full turns, will reknit the limb. NOTE: This applies even if the points leading up to this severing would not ordinarily be counted under number 2 above. Thus, if a character with a 2 point arm is struck for 8 points, he takes only 4 points of damage against his Hit Points, but the arm is maimed, Of course, the character is also functionally incapacitated. A head, chest, or abdomen hit for 6 more than available is an instant death. That would be a problem. Yes I have and yes you can sidetstep one. The same way you dodge evertyhing else. Yes it gets a lot tougher when you are dealing with something so big that is is essentially doing an area attack, but...we back to my insect analogy. Your analogy is flawed because as i already explained, insects are (usually) much faster and can move dozens of times their length in the blink of an eye. The ones that can't are trivially easy to hit. But you still have to find them right spirirt and overcome it's Magic points. It has half the MP as the spirit variant, and If your temple doesn't already have spirit names on a book for priests to summon... Then you travel to one that does, you getting a 8+pt spell, it's worth. Also having to MP vs MP is irrelevant, because otherwise you get nothing and need to try again. Like, i fail to see what's your point here?

I got schooled here! So, you can cover hit locations AND parry, thats a new one for me (dont get me wrong, i always knew how this worked, its just noone ever was attacked by missiles while using this option AND parried a melee attack. Hard nopes! (one for you, one for me haha 😉, i guess we out% each other at our favorite flavor of RQ?) So if you parry a 12 point attack with your 20 HP sword, the sword only takes 4 pts of damage, and you now have a 16 point sword. Next round you parry 12 and now you have a 12-point sword, and next round it breaks; with 15 points you parry 1st attack and then you still have a 16pt sword, the 2nd attack breaks and the 3rd one you take 3 pts. of damage. Also, if im parrying pretty much ANYTHING but a sword my sword has virtually infinite HP (since the attacker doesnt even get to roll damage). Meanwhile the shield user took 3 pts of damage each time they got hit by 15, and if im fighting a troll with a polehammer the shield user died (or is on the ground, bleeding to death) at the 1st strike and i took 0 damage. Keep in mind that: So parrying with a weapon isnt as bad as it sounds, and if you have weapon + shield you are better off parrying with a weapon many (most) times, since it works like in BRP and if you parry you parried and the opponent doesnt even get to roll damage, while they do vs shields. Yes, using arrows is hardly considered "single combat". Single combat is a 1v1 melee fight and a honor thing. Also i specified melee several times, but i understand it gets lost on our 5000 word essays err... i mean posts XD Yes, a RuneLord with magic is a super hero, and i see no issue about them manhandling any beast. Shimmer+Natural Defense (add coordination if you dont already have 21 DEX) + weapon skill over 100% should make it so pretty much any beast in the game has literally 5% to hit you (dont even need all that if you have good enough %s). Of course fighting an elephant will be always glorious because it has 5% chance to send you to your god every round, and you arent most likely killing it in less than 3 rounds unless you are a troll or something. I couldnt google a single instance of one single person killing those kinds of animals with spears. You can kill them with groups of people of course. Well, depends, is it a *magical* elephant from glorantha, or is it a *boring-ass* regular elephant from earth? 1st one can do all sorts of fancy maneuvers (and can probably speak and use magic too). 2nd cant, its an animal and won't even try, unless its playing, and then it can do all kinds of tricks a human cant because it has superior strength (?) As you yourself note, the skill cap is 100%, and thats a misprint (or most likely an oversight). And 100% is pretty well justified for a t-rex. Remember you can lower its % with defense / shimmer and weapon skill. And as you already know, only runelords have weapon skill, and this is awesome because i dont want non-runelords downing t-rexes in melee combat. Insects are too small. The elephant is trying to hit something 50-100 times smaller. The insect is 10k-100k times smaller than you. The insect has 100+ times more relative strenght, agility and speed than a human Insects also move several times their body lenght in the blink of an eye. An elephant wouldnt be able to hit a human that could leap buildings either. There are many, many, many animals you can easily pick up (many reptiles, for example); a cat has several times the ability of an olimpic level athlete; A jaguar is way stronger, faster, more agile than a human while weighing the same, and a house cat is proportionally better than the jaguar at everything (it is stronger compared to its mass) Having a hit location destroyed means you just died, because you dropped to the ground and will bleed out unless you get healing. Also theres an elephant walking vigorously over you. Well, sidestepping an elephant? Serioulsy? Like... have you seen the size of an elephant IRL? theres nowhere to sidestep, theres elephant all over; sidestepping a car sounds easier (and the car doesnt have a trunk, tusks, and is harder to turn around). Like, lets go bigger, how do you dodge godzilla? YOU DONT, because everything where you are and an area 10x what you can move in the time godzilla stomps its gone. Well, the elephant is smaller, but i dont think you can "dodge" it (you may be able to outrun it if you are a high performance athlete though). The matador is not fighting a bull. The matador is fighting a bull that has been exanguinated (aka stabbed by 6 people with pikes), had petroleum rubbed in the eyes so it cant see, had its horns shaved (they remove several cm so the bull cant aim). They also drug them, and soften them with other methods (like hanging them upside down and beating them in the kidneys). No matador is going 1v1 against a bull with a sword, because theres a very real chance they aint seeing tomorrow if they do. Crushes are supposed to be unreasonable and are FINE. Theres no issue there. Slash makes sword the best weapons by lightyears. You now have the same damage of a spear (difference is 3 pts on special, and non-existing on crits), but your weapon is easier to take out on impale, has more HP, and can damage other weapons. Its a joke, really. RQ can do horror pretty well 😉 but its more like a sword and sorcery, Glorantha can easily be a crapsack world if you think about it! Players can be heroes and slay evil and stuff, but we are playing RQ and i know they always die horribly at the end... Check out Divine Summons Spells. You can stack command cult spirit (2) pts with your summon spell (spellteaching in this case). The spirit is controlled without a roll, so it aint possessing anyone. Also spellteaching is 1pt non stackable, with just 1 point you can access all the magic of your cult. A 4 point variable spell is 500+1000+1500+2000 in RQ2.

My inner monologue: i have several years of martial arts training, of course i can hold my own against a girl fencer, or at least keep my distance!!! What actually happened: oh, so i died 3 times in 2 seconds? Damn...

That's pretty dependant on a lot of stuff; no offense to SCA/HEMA dudes, but how many world class fighters do they have? Do 3 random guys beat an UFC heavyweight champion in a fight? Do 3 random dudes with a saber beat an elite fencer? (I tried this in real life, and we got our ass beaten btw)

Yes, as an optional rule Yes, they call it that now, but it is RQ2. You seem very focused in technicalities. How does this stuff matter at all? But is isn't a better name. The game is RQ2 and has been since 1978? That's like... Your opinion. To me the name is better, and one would assume Chaosium thinks like i do. CE has some small extras btw, it's not just a reprint. Player book page 63 allowed you to cover specific hit locations with your shield (for full value). Passive armor at half value was in effect for shields slung on the back, and was also used for 2H spear & shield. If you get passive defense it's 1/2 armor. Covering hit locations isn't free, so the armor isn't passive. Your previous wording implied (to me; i have low% in english, and may have fumbled) shield gave passive armor in addition to blocking (that's why passive armor is only when on the back, aka not in use) Not really. A medium shield can stop 12 points on every parry. The best weapon can't stop 12 points more than once. Yes, they most definitely can, check RQCE pg28 "weapon damage absorption". The best weapons for parrying have 20hp. So i parry 12, and my weapon now has 16hp. So i can parry 12 damage 3 times before my weapon breaking; maybe i cast repair on my weapon before it breaks? Do note that if damage is 15 instead, by the time my weapon breaks the dude with a shield is most likely unconscious on the ground (if they had average hp). No it isn't. Elephants are not master combatants. They are just big and strong. T-Rexes shouldn't automatically hit with their bites just becuase they are 6 ton monster with the STR to match. Uh... Yes they should? An elephant has little to no trouble casually picking you up or stomping you. There's no "dodging" an elephant, and even if you could (which is pretty unbelievable), what are you gonna do? Because your spear ain't long enough or tough enough to go through its skin for a killing blow. Have you seen the weapons people use to kill them??? Also a T Rex just eats you, you don't move away because it's much faster and bigger, people defeating a t Rex in single combat is the realm of super heroes. Again, your weapons most likely aren't big enough for a killing blow. In fact, now that I think about it, their STR scores are probably unrealistic. Strength changes in proportion to the square of the length where as mass changes with the cube. SIZ progression fails hard, not an STR problem. Also, keep in mind that the biggest thing in CE (dream dragon) barely reaches 100% with an almost perfect rolled STR. Peak dragon SHOULD have 90%+ imho. The most % in a dinosaur is deinonychus @ 70% btw, and they don't have a great SIZ. Unless you put in a super duper huge giant, but then... It should totally have the hit%. There's no way you would miss against a human the size of a newborn. There is no land animal that a single human cannot beat in single combat Please do cite me some sources about a single human defeating elephant, rhynoceros, hippocampus, saltwater croc, in melee combat (shooting them with a .50+ doesn't count) This claim seems WILD to me. Plate isn't going to do much for you if an elephant steps on you. Plate or no plate, if an elephant wants to step on you... You are kinda sol? Like, what are you gonna do, it runs faster than you, and if you manage to move aside, they can just stomp on you while you are on the floor (because i imagine you at least dropped to the ground, or are you gonna tell me you can just aikido dodge an elephant?) Or, you know, picks you up with it's trunk and throws you and you die. But it could be worse!!! In DND a full plate would be several orders of magnitude better (45 to 15% better, depending of your DEX and not counting unarmored defense classes, magic, etc) Yes evidence that disproves your point. Bulllfighting is a show. If the bullfigher wanted to a needed to kill the bull more quickly they could. But the whole thing is drawn out to entertain the crowd Yes, it's a show. No sane bullfighter would fight a grown bull without it being sapped of it's strength, because they would most likely die trying. Please read up on the barbaric stuff (literal torture) they do to the animals before the barbaric show. A bullifght is also a good way to illustrate the differences between RQ2 and RQ3. In RQ2 the bull gets around +20% to it attack from high STR, and the bullfighter's cape is, well, worthless. The bullfighter is probably toast unless he has a phenomenally high defense stat. Can't find a bull in 2e, but a bison (which is a specially bred cult animal trained as war mount) has 50%, i would assume a bull, which should have either similar or less STR and is not war-trained to have more. Also, in a gloranthan bullfight the bull would be sapped of it's strength (dullblade)* and the bullfighter has it's cape (shimmer focus) + training (at least some defense). * In my glorantha people wouldn't do that unless for training because CLEARLY there's no honor in winning such a rigged contest, and the god would not see this as a good sacrifice. Either kill it at the altar or fight it a full strength. Keep in mind that normal, non magic stuff in our world is definitely magic in (my?) Glorantha. Could you clarify that a bit? Better that what? RQ3, RQG, Strombrnger? All three? YES 🤪 RQ 2/CE has a ton of stuff i consider better, like: Faster character progression with more chance to succeed in checks and 5% increases, which also means easier math. Simplified successes (only normal, critical and fumble unless your weapon can impale (please never use the slash optional rule, it's broken and destroys the game, crush is fine) As I said, skill names are more adventurous! Map making, lockpicking, set/disarm traps, find healing plants, speak with herd beasts sound way better than craft: mapmaking, devise, plant lore, animal lore. It's weakness is chargen, which u fixed with INTx10 personal skill points from BRP. I also use increased characteristics, one skill for attack and parry and extra parries at -30% for a more heroic feel -its still pretty much a horror (sword and sorcery ackshually) campaign- Better than RQ3? I'd disagree. RQ3 handles high level 1 on 1 fights as good or better than RQ2 Between defense and attack over 100% coming off of parry, RQ2 slows down a bit a high level. You disagree because you like 3 more. RQ2 is most definitely faster than 3 in my experience. Better than Strombringer? Early editions of SB, with the riposte rule handed high level 1 on 1's marvelously. Perhaps it is the closest in feel to a cinematic duel. I vaguely remember ripostes, but i haven played sb since the 90s... There was more to it than you mention. First you had to find a spirit with the spell you wanted, at the point value you wanted. No you don't, that's why you have spellteaching. Then you had to beat it in spirit combat, which wouldn't be quite as easy as you make out. Plus you run the risk of being possessed by the spirit and possibly dying. Its laughably easy for someone that can actually use a 10pt spell (Aka a rune level) to defeat a 10d3 spirit. You ain't rolling much above 15 with those dice. Am i the one whose rusty with rules? Please go check Gods of Glorantha, cult spirits will not posses you if you fail. The cost being about a month's pay was hardly a pittance. In fact adventueres tended to get more treasurein RQ2 than in RQ3. You don't get THAT much more. In RQ2 a 4pt spell is worth a few years, not a month worth of wages. Then, if everything wen't as you wished, you got the spell, but that probably mean't you didn't have INT left over for much else in the way of spells. Nor much POW left over to cast anything else, either. I'd say that overall Bladesharp 10 wasn't worth it. Bladesharp-10 is clearly not meant for a starting character, but a rune level, which should have close to 0 issues casting it, defeating a 15 pow average spirit, or getting the money. If you want to stayat initiate-appropriate spells, rq3 is trivial compared to 2, both as starting spells and getting new ones. Bladesharp-4 in 2 is worth 5000L and 4 instances of spellteaching. Bladesharp-8 is worth 500L (can't remember the exact price, was it 60/pt?) and 1 instance of teaching. Rq2 characters do not get 10x as much money. Was quite possible in RQ2. You just had to roll good, or play a troll. A character with 21 STR (14+ and strength spell) and 18 siz has +1d6. It's literally impossible to get +2d6 RAW. And trolls are glass cannons at high level, their extra damage gets more than compensated by their inability to use iron and taking double damage from it Yup, I'll agree with you 100% on that. RQ3 never handled the cults as well as RQ1-2 did. Just about everything that made the cults so interesting in RQ2 got dropped in favor of getting the most stuff out. We never got RQ# Longform writeups of most cults. But we were free to use Cults of Prax with RQ3. Which Is what I think most of us did. 3rd edition is totally better you guys! I mean, most of us are using the 2nd ed book but i swear 3 is better!!! (Not your best argument btw) Not really. Remember Glorantha has pantheons with associated cults. So if you were a member of a Lightbringer cult, if Orlanth not not have a spell you wanted, Lhankhor Mhy or Challla Arroy probably did did and you could go get the spell from those cults. The only real difference there was that RQ3 emphasized where those spells were really coming from. Not really, you can only get spells from associated cults as per RAW. Good luck getting any good spells with 75%+ of the cults. Of course almost every one of us allowed PCs to get spells from any god in the pantheon instead of associate cults, but that's not what the book says. Not unless you were Arkat. I think you forgot the various obligations that came with the ranks. Namely that you can only give 90% of your time and resources to one cult. Yes, there were ways to be associated with multiple cults, but that was true in RQ2. Even then, you were limited by the relatioships between the cults. No one was going to be a memeber of Humakt and say, Zorak Zoran, unless they were Arkat. No, i meant runelord+priest of your cult. Like rune lord+ priest of Orlanth, or lhankor mhy, or whatever. Also some cults literally lost the option to runelord in.

I have the same multi-quote prowess as a drunken telmori on wildday, but here it comes! > Now as for shields in RuneQuest, you actually get attack and damage stats for shields in RQ3, not in RQ2. ackshually shield damage appears on RQCE pg113 (appendix c, optional combat rules). > BTW, It's RQ2. There is really nothing that make it "classic" compared to RQ or RQ3. "Classic" is just a rebranding/marketing trick. Like with Coca-Cola. Well, Chaosium sells it as classic, i bought classic, and i think it's a better name than RQ2. "RQ" doesn't work since that can be like 10 different games. > Not at all. In RQ3 shields are better defensively than melee weapons, as shields not only parry but count as cover and passive armor. Plus, as an off hand weapon, they can parry on the same strike rank that you attack with your weapon, something that you otherwise cannot do. As far as I remember passive armor only works if the shield is on your back (so, it doesn't matter) and cover only works by declaring and spending your action. I don't have my rq3 books on me, but that's what I remember. Also in 2nd Ed you can totally party and defend with the same weapon in the same SR, and it makes very little sense that you can with a 2h weapon but not with a 1h weapon in 3e. It's not that the shield is better, but they made some weapons worse. Also it's a really fringe case that doesn't really come up that much unless you are gaming the system. > Then you're not all that familiar with RQ3. No, I'm very familiar with RQ3. > Two Handed Spear & Shield is an option in RQ3 and even goes back to RQ2. The tactic was in RQ3 and even used in some latter BRP supplments for handling ancient soldiers who mostly got by with a helmet,shield, and maybe greaves. That's a rule I'm aware of, but can't remember it well since it didn't come into play much. It wasn't very practical in normal adventuring scenarios. > Standing there with a bit of wood or wicker in front of you whiel someone shoots at you is never your best option. Weren't shields historically kind of very good against missiles? a guy with a CON of 4 can survive having both his arms severed while one with a CON of 18 cannot. The guy with the 4 CON will heal from it faster, too. This holds true for both editions? Weapons are very fragile, two or three parries will trash a weapon Shields are indestructible. HMmmm... Armor is indestructible on both editions. Shields are indestructible in 2 because they absorb less damage than weapons, and are kinda an armor piece. Btw I'm not sure equipment durability is worth the extra bookkeeping... > Large creatures were combat masters due to thier incredible STR bonuses to melee. This is realistic. Big bears (like grizzly and polar) are possible to defeat in single combat (and there's at least one report of a guy killing a grizzly barehanded, but the bear choked on the guys arm and died, so that's a fumble). Anything bigger is pretty much impossible to defeat, there's no scenario where a single human defeats a rhyno / hypo / elephant in melee combat. These were hunted in groups and "exploiting" the animals instinct, not dodging it's attacks. Also you have bullfighting as evidence, where a highly trained, morally reprehensible human fights a beaten down, exanguined, scared and young bull and even then when they fail they sustain grievous injuries or death. > If you want to prove that RQ2 is superior in some way or other, you got to back it up with evidence of how RQ2 does something better Better is relative and based on personal taste. For example, i like RQ2 skillset better, since there are fewer skills and they have more adventure-y names to them. Also RQ2 handles high level 1v1 fights better, and high level vs low level 1vX fights are much more heroic. Battle magic i also like way way way more than spirit magic (which removed all the "broken" spells to immediately allow fireblade without concentration, or bladesharp-10 (defeat a 15 pow average spirit and pay a pittance... What a joke), or characters with +2d6 damage bonus (permanent if you got sorcery yo!). Cults are much better too, gods of gloranthan is a joke compared to Cult compendium (Or even cults of prax). Yeah yeah, they have 60 gods, but each has like 10 lines of text. battle vs spirit magic cult access is also BIG, since RQ2 lets you build whatever character you like, while 3 has a very small selection on almost all cults. Also you can be runelord *and/or* rune priest in almost every single cult, and the ranks have better perks, like increased pow gain and magic resistance > It rather difficult to get complete coverage without curling up into a ball behind the shield. But that actually sounds like a good strategy if you are facing some ranged dude(s) and can't retaliate. Would you let your PCs get extra cover if they do this?

Relying on my vast melee combat knowledge from years of watching YouTube... Apparently (don't quote me on this) you are not supposed to block, but deflect/redirect instead (at least in single combat). Also attacking with the shield is normal, not an exotic maneuver (again, according to YouTube melee fighting dude). I like classic because shield and weapon mechanics are different. In rq3 shield is strictly worse than melee weapons until you go big enough for them to be overpowered (16+ ap you may as well just roll parry and save yourself the damage/location rolls). The cover thing worked vs missiles only afaik, and mathematically it wasn't the best unless its your only option. Also the rules are wrong, I'm pretty sure the big shield covers way more than shield arm+2 locations, you can literally see it on YouTube. Also according to this novel i read the Romans had a turtle formation (testudo) that wouldn't be defeated by archers hitting 60% of their shots on unconvered hit locations.

I never liked shields in BRP. Classic is the "best" at it (personal opinion), but it still makes "noise" to me. I toyed with the idea of giving weapons "absorb" and halving the HP (so they would end up pretty similar to RQ3) and then double the shield absorb as HP (and let them break like weapons) but this caused issues with impales vs shield (nothing unmanageable but it got less elegant real quick) so i never tested this

The problem here is that this is about rape. If her son was murdered for example (which, for many people it may be a harder to deal trauma even) no one would think she's a victim. Rape is horrifying and one of the worst things ever, but you do not get to end the universe... That's... Several million times worse?

It wasn't nitpicking, afaik ALL broo are automatic Malia initiates, that's why they are immune to disease. I don't have the books with me now, but i can check later

Yes, that technically!!! Nice plan by the way... But i have a better one!!! Just run them through with a spear! You then burn the corpse for 100% guaranteed chaos cleansing. The only good broo is a dead broo.

My regular-ass, so feral that doesn't even speak Broo reproduce like that. They "just" eat the regular people, but will only sex them under extreme circumstances when no more attractive prey (like a cow) is available. I run RQ since 1997 and had thed appear a grand total of 0 times, i feel she's bad for the game to be honest (and it's not like any of my current players has cult compendium)

Well, if we get technical that could be a warcrime hahahaha

Prior to the Lesser Darkness Thed was an important goddess. She was the wife of Ragnaglar and, with her husband and Mallia, schemed to introduce chaos into the world.By Ragnaglar, Thed had many children — the broos, scourges of the world. https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/gloranthan-documents/prosopaedia/deities/t/thed/ (emphasis mine) So its ok to end all existence because you suffered a trauma? You might want to think about that a bit.

How is this functionally different... I'm sorry my english ain't good enough, let's try this; we have two women: Amy is a normal person that gets raped. It sucks and this should never have happened, since it was bad and unfair. Thed is a powerful goddess. She willingly cooperated with two other powerful gods to destroy reality. This destruction isn't a Thanos snap, but a horrible conflict where chaos devours everything. Yeah, she got raped either before or after... or in the middle of it. Who cares? If anything, she got off easy and is still a blight upon the world, unlike ragnalar and the devil.