Zit

I like the idea in Revolution d100 which introduce the coverage with fixed AP. Just by reading the unit die of the attack roll, you know which part you hit.

How I see the thing is that a Humakti refuses to be called back to life without his consent or Humakt's consent, as written in the cult description. And when killed, this is Humakt's decision to call him at His side, so no Humakti would go against Humakt's decision. But travelling to the Underworld for a Heroquest, dead or alive, is another matter. I don't see why Humakt shall not accept his worshippers to be provisory dead and go back to life, as long as it is to serve him.

Aren't heroes those who break the rules and achieves deeds beyond normal reach ? So they could cross the Styx and remain alive, like Odysseus or Orpheus, while nomal people would be definitly dead. And to die in Glorantha technically means that your soul is separated from your body (or did thid change in the GtG?), so heroes travelling to the underworld with their bodies should gloranthawise not be dead. I would understand death as the force (or power) which cuts your spirit off your body and definitely sends it to the land of death. As for Heroquesting humaktis, you can consider that they did not use the power of death to go down there, so they do not break their cult precepts when going back to the overworld. I don't have any problem with living creatures visiting the land of Death. And I don't have any problem either with contradictions in mythology. All mythologies are full of contradictions. By the way, are gosts bound in the overworld dead or alive ?

What about Darkness creatures from the Underworld ? Or did they all flee as Yelm went to hell ?

Then this was not the rule as written. P. 60 of the RQ2 rulebook, "Stackable Rune Magic " : "As an example, if Ariella were to decide she needed another point of Shield to add to one she already cast...etc"

There are a few in the side comments (e.g. Size conversion in chap. 1 or bonus conversion in chap. 2). Many of the other ones are indeed more recommandations about how to keep some traditional D100 mechanics with Revolution D100 (e.g. Power overcoming, Characteristic rolls...), but this gives you hooks about what can be kept in the classical d100 rules when using a Revolution rule instead. Anyway, I am not sure there is a need for plug-in hooks for most of these rules, which could be applied like that on other D100 rulesets. My only concern is about the advanced combat: using the special effects while keeping the traditional damage/armour system may become too deadly. But I must admit that I did not try.

yes, that's what I said.

Right, this was the RQ2 rule. I don't know about the RQ3's. I thought RQ2 was asked for, I mixed up with another topic.

Yes, it would be different. Shield, unlike battle magic spells, is "stackable". Subsequent casting just add to the existing. In your exemple, this result in a shield 3.

If you follow the link on Alephtar web page, it leads to the paper version with no option to change to pdf only. So those who did not read this thread on this forum may not find the pdf.

Do we really need a rule for that ? Let's take the same base for both arms.

It is not clear in the rule indeed. It was clear in the Basic Role Playing booklet from the boxed set (attack or parry except for 2H spear - which you can easily extend to all 2H weapons I guess), so I've played this way. This unfortunately hasn't been cleared again in the RQ2 rules book. Later on, I house-ruled that if you have only one weapon, either 1H or 2H, you can attack and parry once each, but this was my own rule. I agree. This indicates also that Rurik's examples are wrong (but correct again with my house-rule ) I always assumed with the parrying arm (which is the left arm for most humans and the right arm for the left-handed Dragonewts), or it wouldn't make so much sense: this is the arm you trained with. I actually never really thought about it.

What about having Special effect Categories, each category being related to a Combat Goal. For example, "neutralize without killing" wouldn't allow deadly Effects. The player choses at the begining of the round (or of the Combat, and anyway only when changing his mind) what is the goal of his combat actions and therefore refrains from using any not suitable Special Effects, which limits their number and thereofre speeds up the choice. So there is a beforehand decision about the general tactics and an afterward decision driven by opportunities. Just a schnapps idea, as the Germans say.

however the countermagic let you know that your spell has been countered, while a Detection Blank does not. In the Warding rune spell description, it is said that a Detection Blank can prevent the defenses to be triggered, but does not mention the Countermagic, so I guess that the Warding will interpret the blocking effect of a Countermagic as an hostile event.

Minor wounds affect only strike ranks for that one round except if the location stroke already suffered a Major Wound, in which case the dammage reduces the Life Points as well. If I'm wrong, the author will correct me.

I played once what we called a "Squad Leader Dungeon". Every player played a WW2 squad leader with some specific abilities (tank driving, speak the ennemy's language...) + his own platoon. We used the Squad Leader (a tactical wargame) rules and material. It was a heavy perparation for the GM but as player I had fun. I don't know ow to use it for RQ, may be using the Heroes War and change the scale.

I'm not sure this would anyway make an interesting game. If the PC's are just spears in the shield wall, just tell the battle and go back to role playing when it is over. I think PCs shall have someting interesting to do, like take and hold a door, infiltrate, climb a wall, find and capture a specific ennemy target, defy a ennemy champion, explore a craddle...

I have no doubt you are doing your best, but what about DHL, <2kg within europe, €9 -about US$10- (€7.90 if you order 100) ? But I may have missed smg, like VAT or whatever. "Päckchen" https://www.dhl.de/en/paket/preise/preise-international.html

Compared to what I've seen in another thread on this forum, it does not look that much expensive. That's even less expensive than DHL within Europe. Now if you pack several books together, it will cost less per unit.

Welcher Laden ? Das nächste mal, wenn ich nach Berlin muss die Zeit finde, komme ich gern vorbei.

Where are you in Geemany ?

My feeling about the rules, is that the approach is sometime so different to what we are used to, especialy with the D100 systems, that we have to change our way of thinking. The difficulty resides in this, more than in the rules themselves. For example, I had to struggle with the spell durations until I understood that the rules simply write down the way powers are practically played, without requiring to count rounds. I wanted seconds or minutes, but It is actually more or less like "once the spell is not relevant for the action anymore, it dispells". Same for Time Scales, which don't have a very fixed duration, except for Advanced Combat. I understand the time scale as beeing related to the adrenaline level. I think that conflict require some practice, but the rules introduce them step by step. I'm using them for a campaign (the example in the SRD is from this game), and it is a powerful engine to avoid arbitrary GM decisions, involve all the palyers and make from an episode a memorable scene. Actually, once you know how it works, the difficulty may be to refrain using it too much ! I think that the application of the rules is simpler that their reading, but I haven't tested everything yet. I would like to.

Historical gaming (I mean truly historical, not just history-flavoured) is more simulation than pure fantasy, so in this case. if you want it be acurate, you cannot completely go any way you please. The main interest of historical gaming, as I see it, is indeed to recreate the World as it was conceived at that time, and not with our modern understanding or our own truth.This means that the myths and beliefs of the simulated culture are gamewise true, either Mesopotamian, Jewish, Christian, Animist, Tengriist or whatever. Before thinking about which equipment was available, you must start to try to think like the people living at that time. One big point (the main one ?) is how do the beliefs interfere with the perceived reality and how to translate this into a game rule. It becomes difficult when different cultures are beeing confronted, like in your exemple with the sun and the moon. You have then to introduce some relativism while keeping game balance, which obliges to see both beliefs as a different representation and conception of the same universe, without hierarchising them or having one being truer than the other one. For the Babylonian, there is a sun god (Shamash) and a moon god (Sîn); For the Jew, there is only one god (Yaveh) (*). For game balance and fun, the powers a polytheist worshipper can get from one of his gods should not be more or less powerful than those a monotheist whorshipper get from his single god If you play an Egyptian Râ-priest, it is gamewise unfair to have him be beaten by any Jewish Priest NPC just because his god is more powerful than yours , and conversely. (*) well, it is actually not so clear, but I won't start a discuiin here

Yep. Thanks.

Is it allowed during a Conflict to use a double Trait to roll for effect or to defend, if appplicable, without considering the 2nd Trait as a bonus bead, hence not requiring to have spent a round with a support action to gain it? I would say it is.