Zit

it does only because you can use a stronger bow. So you'd need rules for bow design, like in wots. Or you could simply propose a foot composite bow by increasing the range for nomad bows with the same min str than for long bows. Core rules may not be the right place for more detailed rule.

I am not an expert, I only had to do some research about that. My modest suggestion: It is not such an easy question: bows of the same design do not have all the same strength, there are several types of arrows for different purposes and sources differ. Moreover, building a bow and arrows to beat records is not the same as building an efficient weapon. Making fixed stats for bows is actually a simplification. It is however commonly agreed on, that other things being equal, composite bows are more efficient than long bows: while the maximum recorded range for long bow is 328m (some suggest 370m), composite are said to have made it up to 500m, and even beyond. But all this with very strong bows and arrows made for distance shooting, both of which not being optimal for warfare. Long bows were normaly built for foot archery with a higher draw weight than composite bows used for horse archery (in average 110-120 lbs. vs. 80 lbs.): I think the reason for this was more practical than technical. Things compensate each other, so the simplest is to give the same maximum range of 250m for both with a standard war arrow. As for arrows, allow +50m but 1d4 for long range light arrows and -50m (and other or extra effects, like slash) for short range heavy arrows –this is more or less what you did.

OK, I start this one. I haven't read everything, but a few points are unclear to me: - I haven't found any shield stats, except in the Design section. Did I miss something? - Weapon Tables, 2H weapons: do the Mights bonus in the Notes column include the 2H +1 bonus? - same question for bows in the Might column - The range for the longbow seems overrated to me (300m vs. 150m for a composite bow, while AFAIK, they have comparable performances).

Question about Toughness: the rule says 2x Size class + STR bonus, while it is 6 (=2xsize class for human) + CON bonus on the character sheet. What is true (I guess the character sheet)?

an idea for a scenario?

Yes, this allows for easy introduction to Glorantha without obliging your players to devour the Guide. I would even say, it makes the discovery of this setting even more interesting, step by step, from inside, with the feeling that there is much more in this world than what the PCs currently see and believe. They shall be teased. Borderlands for instance is a ready-to-play campaign, which makes it easy to start in Glorantha.

that's the proudly announced chainmail bikini rule

Despite my suggestions, which were no more than that, I agree with you. However, since several improvement rolls are allowed for a single skill, I'd limit the "ticked skill free improvement" to one single chance (learning through experience). Further improvement shall be through training as well.

I'm ok with all your proposals, incl. the current rule. Alternatives could be : 1 - increase the cost for unticked skills, like x2 points for unticked skill. 2 - increase the gain for ticked skills and decrease it for unticked (which is almost the same as above), like 2d4 resp 1d4. These alternatives makes it lighter to manage and can still be combined with the research time. It took some time for me to understand why this "complicated" way to roll the skill increase in the current rules. I understand it as being aimed at never wasting an improvement point and allowing a faster increase for low skills. I would however make it simpler : roll over current skill => 2d4 (or whatever) increase. Roll under current, => 1 point increase. Cost : increasing the improvement points is aimed at making it more difficult to improve higher skills. Rolling over the current skill as well. The former is bookkeeping, the latter is statistical. But both do the same : may be you can remove one of them. At the end, my alternate proposal could be: - 1 improvement point for ticked skill or 2 points for an unticked skill allow for and improvement roll, whatever the skill level - roll over the current skil : 1d4 (1d6 or 1d4+1 or what you like) skill increase. Or why not a invariable number (like RQ2's 5%) : after all, what does it really bring to have a random increase ? - roll under current skill : 1 increase Question : shall a ticked skill stay ticked over sessions until it is increased ? But as I told, the other solutions are ok as well.

I understood infiltrate as beeing able not to be noticed, like everybody could see or hear you but nobody takes care of your presence, may be mixed with some hiding skill. I may have misinterpreted it. Speaking about stunt, where in the rules is clearly defined what it is ? I may have missed something and it is not completely clear to me.

Deceive is IMHO definitely a perform Trait, but you may include it into the Acting trait. Agility : it makes sense to split from Athletics. STR+DEX ? Or DEXx2 ? It is not a long-lasting activity, so I'm not sure about CON. But this is a detail. Increasing the number of skills incrases the number of available slots and decreases the cost for learning them, too. How far does it change the balance, if it does ?

Communication includes Traits like Insight or Deceit, which are definitely INT-based skills. CHA is required to send information, INT to receive ans handle it. BTW Paolo, is there a -provisory- list of all the traits ? It would be easier than searching for them in each skill.

in RQ2, priests gain POW the same way than others with an experience roll but with a +20% bonus ([25-POW]x5% instead of [21-POW]x5%). I don't know how it is in RQ3. You can see rune spells as powerfull wild cards in the hand of a priest, who does not unconcernedly deplete them and who anyway knows a lot of additonal standard magic spells. Well, in RQ2 at least. But I'd also be more flexible with regaining them. A couple of days in a temple or a local shrine could be enough to get all them back again, without computing days and points.

Is that a problem ? Craft, drive, operate and pilots are clones. Perception and Knowledge as well. Close combat is anyway an athletic activity. Or you may split Atheltics in two different skills, one based on craft the other one on agility ?

Could also even be a communication trait instead of a skill. But it may disturb other rules using it as skill (e.g. what to do with the [Mount] Trait then ?).

Good and usefull job, thanks. I thought about opening a post abotu that topic here as well . So the indications in the HQ:G rulebook are only... indicative. Do you think there is any consequence for a Praxian to have a minority rune ?

I'm tempted to propose INT+WIL for ride. It is more a question of feeling the mount's reactions and mood and subtly impose you will to have it trust and listen to you. So it involves interaction and communication rather than raw aglity. Anyway would be WIL better than CHA, except may be for intelligent mounts. The 2-pence advice of a part-time rider.

I never understood why this nice, simple and straight forward rule had been left.

If I remember well a life demo by Rick at Bacharach, this is exactly what he showed and said.

A lion shall be class L (around 200kg, according to Wikipedia)

Rules cannot solve everything, role playing and background help. Regarding troubadours, as far as I know, it designs someone, male or female (trobaritz), who composes -or knows how to compose- poems in the Occitan language. He must not be an interpret. Many nobles were troubadours (ex.: Guilhem, Comte of Poitou and Duc of Aquitaine, or even Richard Lionheart, even if not among the most famous ones), and actually the very first ones where probably nobles. This concerns of course people who has been at least raised in Occitania, probably not in England. So you can make your troubadours very different from minstrels! You may like to write it "trobador", as in the Occitan language.

What about a RQ2 revival session at Bacharach next year ?

. I won't argue on this, although I completely disagree, but in general, too much politically correctness is not only arguable, but can kill creativity. For example, any list of Traits or features for a specific culture could be interpreted as a prejudice (I must admit it is difficult to find any prejudice of this kind in the core rules). So we shall stop somewhere. This is a more relevant question : does a rule bring something to the game, and what. In our current example of dimorphism, if this is "a cultural thing that everyone assumes is true", no woman, who belong to the "everyone", shall be upset because of such a rule. But do we need it anyway in game and MGF terms ? That said, I don't care for this dimorphism rule.

OK. I think at least a few classical stereotyped characters shall be in the core book. My bard is ready, I'll send it to you per email with some comments in order not to influence anybody. The charater creation using the quick characteristic is really amazingly fast !

Let's try it. I'll make a bard, somebody makes his one and we compare. BTW, the bard is limited to "barbarian, human". Bards should be available to almost any culture in different forms (celtic bard, germanic skald, greek poet, medieval troubadour, nomadic manashi, modern pop singer...). BTW again, in the profession table, "culture" column, I think there is a confusion between species (human, dwarf...) and culture (barbarian, nomad etc...), even if you actually mean "human" = "human of the kingdom of [...]" etc. This corresponds to "civilized" in many rpg, but this is a bit contempting for the barbarians and nomads. Do you intend to have modern or sci-fi professions in the core rules, since there is the according equipment ?