Simon Hallett

Works fine against one spearman, but not so good against a shield wall. I have tried this (with longsword and sax) and you get skewered by your opponents buddies...

My big issue with the Swordbreaker is that it only really works if your enemy helpfully attacks you with appropriate weaponry. Fine against a renaissance swordsman with rapier and main gauche, but poor against the spear and shield combo used in a lot of Gloranthan mass combat. It is of course possible to play Dragonewts as so alien that they refuse to adapt to the tactics of their opponents; it just doesn't feel right to me. If you do give them shields, triangular to accommodate a Beast Rune (as per soltakks) looks good, and of course you can always turn the shield the other way up to accommodate a dragonewt rune. As an aside, I think the RQ3 Vikings supplement gave Viking shields a sword breaker option (where blades had chopped into the side of the shield), so with a bit of imagination your dragonewts' shields could do that as well.

Aha! Well, that is a different kettle of saurians. I think you will need assistance from one of the game designers to 'canonically' extrapolate dragonewt tactics, weapons and armour for mass combat. In the old (RQ2) days they had shields. Foot troops would be largely skirmishing crested scouts armed with bows, slings or javelins. They would use short sword and small shield in melee. Most of the beaked warriors would be mounted on demi birds and wielding klanth with medium shield. Nowadays I am not sure what they would look like when going to war, but I am sure someone 'in the know' will have already thought about this.

Hi Estarriol, This is an opportunity to do what you want in your Glorantha. In mine, the dragonewts are currently a bit like Samurai, so rarely use shields in one on one combat. In pitched battles however, facing heavy missile fire, they often use large 'pavise' style shields until they have closed to melee range. If you are feeling particular Japanese, the dragonewts might have 'Sode' style samurai shoulder guards strapped over their natural scales, which are in effect mini shields! I am sure you will get some excellent 'Canon' advice on this thread as well, but the key is to go with what feels right in your game. (For example, at other times my dragonewts are more like Aztec warriors with their obsidian edged club swords, and then they use shields without batting an eyelid !) Have fun!

Hi Terry, One rule I have found for 'inanimate' objects held by a character is for Dullblade back in RQ2. If a weapon has a spirit in it, the spirit can resist the spell. That suggests that the person holding the weapon cannot resist. This description does not however get into RQ3. In RQ3, it does say casting Fly on an unwilling target requires a resistance roll, but that is on the person themselves, not necessarily their clothes/pack/weapon etc. Neutralize Magic pits itself against the magic points in the spell, presumably even if that is a spell cast on a weapon carried by a person. It does not have to overcome the magic points of the person who is carrying the weapon. As ever, things are open to interpretation, but I think inanimate objects are fair game to effect without having to overcome the magic points of their owner.

If you love art Phil, why not commission your own unique frontispiece from Dave Dobyski?

This is a good point, although my players rarely have the luxury of engaging at extended ranges. In my scenarios there always seems to be something on fire and billowing smoke, fog, driving rain, noxious fume from the neighbourhood chaos monster etc. so they normally don't see what they are fighting properly until it is about 10 metres away! Definitely something to consider in those long range 'Agincourt' type engagements though.

I am pretty sure I dated the one on the right of Mr. Bray's picture at one point...

Thanks for all the responses so far guys. I will generally stick with the single target/person rule, multimissile acting a bit like a three round burst from an assault rifle. When my poor PCs are horribly outnumbered by a tight packed crowd of monstrosities, I will let them use a 'shoot into combat' type rule. ...and if one of my players is sufficiently entertaining, I might let them get away with 'doing a Rambo' in full auto mode every once in a while! Cheers.

Thanks for that... ... that all makes perfect sense. Always pays to read carefully! The random locations on the target (rather than all striking the same place despite a similar trajectory) can presumably be accounted for by your enemy dancing about as he gets filled full of arrows!

Just out of interest, my group has always played that you cannot split multimissile across multiple targets. I take it that is the general consensus? I had a trawl through the fora, but could not spot this specific query. It is probably just me being thick that I cannot see this explicitly in the text. I noted a Rune spell that did make the missiles independently targetable, (I think on Simon Phipp's website), but I wasn't sure if that was from a canon source. Cheers.

he main reason I like points like this is that I hope it encourages people to do a bit of primary research for themselves which may enhance their game. Most of the crusty gamers,, re-enactors and HEMA dudes on here can make their own judgements, but I think these apparently minor points are interesting for newcomers who may not have studied military history or ever wielded a weapon. For example, a quick look at a cataphract, (an early heavily armoured warrior for those who don't know already), shows him happily using a lance without stirrups. But hang on a minute, he is also using it 2 handed! So we not only have another weapon being used 2 handed on horseback, it is a technique which doesn't allow you to use a shield, with significant in game consequences if you go down that route. A few centuries later, your problem is solved by the clibanarius, now with shield and stirrups. So it all depends just how 'ancient' versus 'early medieval' you want your game to feel. No one is going to shoot you either way! I have never tried to write my own 400+ page rule book, so I am sure it is real easy to miss some odds and sods, but I quite like having the little glitches pointed out so I can have a think how I want to apply a particular rule. By the way Soltakss, I love your website. Fab stuff.

Hi Creativehum, It is also worth noting that having nearly 40 years of various rules kicking about in your head sometimes makes you interpret things incorrectly, as you graft on how you think things should work rather than actually reading the rules! I am absolutely sure that the designers intend RQG to stand firmly on its own (once the odd correction and clarification is made). S.

The multiple parry rule has been ported over from Stormbringer. There was a form of multiple attacking in so far as any successful parry could be followed by a riposte, but only for people who were masters of the weapon. This actually potentially fits the game quite well in terms of the 'attack and parry are integrated so have the same percentage' vibe of the new rules.

Jason you are right, it is nice to get a few bouquets among the brickbats. Overall I am delighted with the product, and I will say nothing more at this point so as not to ruin that sentiment! You are lucky if 1% bother to say 'that bit is done really well' but the 'passionate enthusiasm' really kicks in when you see a bit you don't like! I think the sheer volume of comments shows how engaged everyone (0.K. 99%) are with this product, and generally they just want to polish it even brighter. So 'thank you' from me as well. I have enjoyed RQ since second edition back in the early 80's, and this new line will give me tons of new stuff to play with. Cheers.