EpicureanDM

5 minutes ago, David Scott said:

The more they win the more you are nearer to death. 

But remember that it's harder for them to win because they have to succeed on two Spirit Combat rolls in the same round in order to infect you or bump up the severity of the disease. So it's harder for them to inflict damage compared to other spirits and the reward for defeating them seems to be that you get POW increases from the lopsided fight in your favor.  

20 hours ago, Oracle said:

The Glorantha Sourcebook describes mainly the region of Dragon Pass, and therefore it is a useful (but in no way necessary) extension of the descriptions in RuneQuest - Roleplaying in Glorantha. 

I often see this well-intentioned, but misleading suggestion that books like The Gloranthan Sourcebook are "useful, but not necessary" for playing RuneQuest. That's technically true, but on the narrowest grounds. The Sourcebook or something like it is definitely required if you're interested in playing RuneQuest, especially the current edition. It's not required in the sense that you need the Sourcebook in order to figure out how to roll the dice. It's that there's no point in playing RuneQuest unless you're playing it in Glorantha. Avalon Hill tried that with RuneQuest 3 in the early eighties and RuneQuest fans rebelled against it.

The Glorantha Sourcebook is a great summary of the setting and seems designed for newcomers like you. I would consider it equally important to purchase as the corebook and Bestiary.

12 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

Another question, since I have only played RQ3: 

- Why do you win 3 POW when you beat a disease spirit, but not when you beat a ghost or any kind of spirit?

I would love for there to be a considered design answer for this...

Coincidentally, I ran a disease spirit for the first time last night. Here's how I handled your questions.

1 hour ago, Alexandre said:

This looks like RQ2, except that the rules on diseases in pages 154-156 of the rulebook are from RQ3, i.e. with  4 degrees of illness. I think I'll translate it as "the first success infects the victim with the mild form of the disease. Every subsequent success increases the degree of illness by one". 

I wasn't aware of the difference in the copy-paste error between editions on this one (if it is an error). My successful spirit attack used the acute form. Acute infection seemed OK since RQ's rules put an extra burden on Disease Spirits in combat. By my reading yesterday (performed as we played), Disease Spirits don't reduce magic points on successful attacks; they just infect their targets. To successfully infect, they have to succeed on a second Spirit Combat roll (another opposed roll) after they've succeeded on the first. They have to "hit twice" or, in old D&D terms, "confirm the critical." This rule defangs Diseases Spirits to my eye, so I ruled that the spirit just needed to succeed on an unopposed second roll against its own skill to inflict damage, i.e. the acute form of the disease. It still requires an extra roll, but avoids the higher difficulty of an opposed roll.

Why do Disease Spirits have to succeed in two combat rolls to inflict damage? Is it because diseases are harder to cure than lost MP? That could be handled by making Disease Spirits more rare rather than designing a punitive additional rule. Spirit Combat's already a bit dull compared to physical combat. Why make it harder for consequences of failure to be felt?

I also didn't appreciate this section of the Disease Spirit's description:

Quote

This infection requires another roll overcoming the target’s Spirit Combat skill, as if the disease spirit was trying to possess the victim. (emphasis added)

The emphasized text made it seem that there was a special rule governing possession that I had to find. I couldn't find any rules that require a spirit to make a Spirit Combat roll when attempting possession. In the rules about possession that I did find, there's always a reference to the target having 0 magic points being the necessary condition for possession. Such a target would be unconscious, so I can't see how the spirit would need Spirit Combat to possess someone in that state.

1 hour ago, Alexandre said:

However disease spirits only have POW!  (They don't even have a spirit combat skill quoted, but this is simply fixed by just taking the POWx5 default). The problem is that the spirit combat damage table makes no provision for entities lacking CHA. I don't think the intention is to have disease spirits do less damage than other spirit types, so I guess I'll just add a 3d6 CHA.

My understanding is that Disease Spirits don't have CHA because their attacks don't reduce the target's magic points. A successful attack just keeps stacking the strength of their particular disease. See my comments above about whether their means of damaging opponents is too limiting.

1 hour ago, Alexandre said:

Finally, one general question about spirits. To be in the Middle World, they need to be embodied in something or they need one round to materialize, right? You cannot have a spirit simply attacking a character without a 1 round delay (they have to come out from their binding object, at least). 

My Disease Spirit was bound into decaying skulls by broo in the Middle World. I ruled that it required the 1-round delay to materialize from the skull and attack. Your question makes me want to return to the rulebook to see if spirits bound in the Middle World do require the 1-round delay, though.

4 hours ago, jajagappa said:

My original inclination was to allow viewing of the Spirit World spirits, but have backed away from that. Just seeing those that are manifest/bound in the mortal world seems appropriate for those who are not shamans. A key difference with shamans is the fetch, which is IN the Spirit World, so effectively the eyes in the Spirit World (unless the shaman discorporates and effectively swaps position).  

This is probably where I'll end up. Give a full shaman's Second Sight more of a boost as a "class feature."

22 hours ago, gochie said:

I find the version where crits automatically take out weapon HP a bit too unforgiving. A dagger attack (with a normal STR modifier) could destroy a Broadsword in one hit? There goes all your sword enchantments...

You can find ways around this by assuming that a dagger critical doesn't look the same as an axe critical. We easily imaging an axe cutting through a broadsword thanks to a massive overhead swing. Dagger critical rely on finesse, not power. I would describe a clever feint by the dagger wielder causing the broadsword's tip to catch in the ground and snap from the wielder's own momentum.

On 3/27/2019 at 5:00 PM, g33k said:

There is the implication, yes.

But it's clear from the spell-description that they cannot see the otherworld(s) directly...

But maybe they CAN see the spirits, that spirits are "dual-natured" (to use a concept from shadowrun), SS-visible no matter which Plane they are on??!?

A lot of the discussion in the thread comes from my initial formulation asking if Second Sight allows spirits in the Spirit World to be seen. It implies that the caster can also see the Spirit World itself, which is famously casual when it comes to the rules of space and geography. I sort of like the idea of being able to see spirits currently in the Spirit World, but not the Spirit World. That's what I was aiming for with my original question. But this thread has me a bit paralyzed. There are obviously consistency problems in the text. 

20 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Second Sight specifically does not allow you to see the Spirit World. You can see spirits that are not in the Spirit World, such as bound spirits, possessing spirits, ghosts haunting an area, etc.

This is the best interpretation of the spell's limitations I've seen. That makes sense. Thanks, all.

It's name is so misleading. I've had to explain to three different players that it doesn't let them see spirits or the Spirit World.

I'm probably going to houserule it to allow it to see into the Spirit World at the cost of making the caster a little more interesting or noticeable to spirits in the area. It doesn't move the caster into the Spirit World, so antagonistic spirits would still need to materialize before getting frisky. 

Is there a downside that I can't see? I figure it slightly devalues becoming a full shaman, since the fetch serves as the shaman's eyes and ears in the Spirit World for "free." This change sort of borrows a bit of that benefit and gives it to PCs who might not even become a shaman. For the moment, this doesn't really bother me.

I've found that the best introductions to Gloranthan lore can often be found in the old Heroquest books. If you want a good, detailed explanation of Orlanthi laws and customs, buy Heroquest's Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes. It contains a section called "The Orlanthi Book" that provides the sort of details you're looking for. I've got a nearly-full collection of RQ and Heroquest material and _Kingdom of Heroes_ is the book that properly solidified Orlanthi customs and law for me.

On 3/23/2019 at 6:53 PM, g33k said:

Just so long as they recall that every rules-tweak their PC's can use, so can the NPC's!!!  😉

They learned that the hard way today in a fight with a mounted archer.

14 hours ago, g33k said:

But in the end... I don't think it matters.  No world-simulating ruleset can be 100% complete, or it would be the size of the world.  Players will always find exceptions and loopholes, and the GM will always need to issue rulings.  So, we have resolutions (at least 2, I may have missed some) that don't violate either RAW or (imho) common-sense / verisimilitude.  Pick one and play!  Discuss after-session if your group wants to HR the issue.

Agreed. I've got no problem making calls in the middle of play. My players are friends and don't sweat it if I get something wrong. Like most people who post on forums, I like kicking around the edge cases.

2 hours ago, g33k said:

I only do "Phase 2" movement when 2 conditions are met:

1 - The moving SoI involves moving as the entirety SoI, and never becoming Engaged.

2 - Every other SoI (missiles, spellcasting, position on the battlefield and chance to Engage, etc) has NO CHANCE to affect the moving character.

That's how I think of it, too, but worry (just slightly) about when to resolve non-combat actions that won't be affecting the acting character. My go-to example for the moment is lifting a portcullis while the rest of the party fights. If no one's can or will mess with the lifting PC, then should it be resolved in Phase 2? Probably not, since other intents could be predicated on the lift, e.g. We're going to move through the gate if the lift succeeds. 

Phase 2 is really such a weird little exception to hold onto from RQ2.

37 minutes ago, g33k said:

It also includes the tactical "state" of the battlefield... who is upright, who has fallen, how many Left Legs are laying around the battlefield, who is Engaged, who is not... and who is moving; and, because we need to know if a foe might be able to Engage them, aim a missle at them, target them with a spell, etc:  we need to know (or be able to determine quickly & easily) where they are.  Have they had time to complete their "I duck behind the doorway to crank my Dwarven Crossbow" action?  Are they sitting durulz for anyone to target?

I noted this week that in a way, games like 5e train us to think this way. Everyone acts in initiative order and each combatants actions are resolved neatly and entirely on their turns. There are relatively fewer "interruptions" that might crop up when someone's movement isn't resolved completely and their opponent's action is scheduled to occur. In a way, it's like watching Zack Snyder's movie, 300, with big action scenes filled with different folks operating at the same time while the speed ramps up or slows down.

12 minutes ago, g33k said:

Is the movement a NEW decision, a new SoI?  Because if it's a case of, "I have completed a prior action, and made a new tactical evaluation, and will begin moving to <X>" then I think a delay of DEX ranks is appropriate and correct.

It's more this, but without the "new tactical evaluation," which implies a character changing their intent and RQG doesn't allow that (and neither do I yet). I would prevent a player from declaring an SoI that included motion bleeding into a new round. I'd tell them to restate it or accept less distance travelled than they want. Here are some more detailed examples. In all cases, the PC is Non-Engaged so that we don't worry about having to disengage from melee.

Example 1: PC's DEX SR is 2. Character's SoI is, "I will move behind the nearby wall that's nine meters away and cast Heal 3." Actions will occur in that order. Under my potential house rule, PC starts moving on SR 1 and is behind the wall by SR 3. Otherwise, they start on SR 2 and get there on SR 5.

Example 2: Reverse intent from Example 1. Heal first, then run to cover. Heal 3 happens on SR 4 (DEX SR 2 + 3 SR for 3 magic points in Heal 3 - discount for first magic point). PC starts their move on SR 5 and they're behind the wall by SR 8. Otherwise, their movement would start on SR 6 (Completion of Heal 3 on SR 4 + PC's DEX SR 2) and end on SR 9. 

Given that DEX SR can vary between PCs, the effect seems limited to maybe allowing PCs to squeeze one more action into 12 Strike Ranks in some situations. It doesn't seem game-breaking, but there might be some more consistent implications that would mess things up. It's primary disadvantage, as @deleriad sort of hinted at, is that there's symmetry in using DEX SR as a base for calculating SR for non-melee actions (missiles, spells, movement, non-combat). I'm a fan of rules symmetry, so there's a pull in that direction.

I suppose I'm mostly concerned about whether average RQ PCs (DEX SR 3 and SIZ SR 2) would have enough SR to both move and act in most situations. That's a baseline expectation embedded in most modern RPG players' minds thanks to 5e. PCs will often be exceptional and have more slack in their SRs, but I'd like the baseline to accommodate the average combatant. I need to think through a few hypotheticals to see if sticking to RQ3's DEX SR symmetry will produce that sort of play. I don't remember it being a problem in RQ3, so it probably won't be in RQG. But the SR system's a shaky thing in RQG's design, so I'm cautious.

4 hours ago, Mechashef said:

Questions

1) Does Bazza end the round in melee range of Gabby?

2) Can Gabby attack Bazza when he arrives (presumably SR 7)?

3) Gabby doesn't need to parry and thus her player doesn't need to roll and possibly fumble.  Is that correct?

4) Assuming Gabby can attack, can Bazza attempt to parry?  

My answer will likely mix RQG's and RQ3's SR designs a bit. I'll try to point out where I'm deviating from RQG when I'm smart enough to notice.

1) According to RQG, Bazza messed up his intent since, as you point out, he's limited to half his Move rating if he also wants to attack or act in the same round. This is where experience playing RQ would help avoid this mistake. Most RQ GMs would recognize Bazza's mistake and correct him before his intent is locked in: "You can't move more than half your Move rate and still attack in the same round. Do you want to declare a different intent or stick with it? If what you really intend is to get into melee range with Gabby by the end of the round, then you'll spend 5 SR, arrive on SR 7 (Bazza's DEX SR + 5, but I'm not sure where RQG ever states that movement begins on your DEX SR. That's a rule from RQ3 and maybe RQ2.), and just defend for the rest of the round." GM and players should openly discuss and agree upon what the SR sequence will be for the PCs before you start rolling dice. It avoids mistakes like this.

2) According to RQG, Bazza used 5 SR to move and can't attack when he gets to Gabby since he used more than half his Move rating during the round. I would interpret her intent to allow her to attack on SR 7 right after Bazza arrives. At the start of SR 7, Bazza arrives. Before SR 7 ends, Gabby attacks.

3) According to RQG, yes, Bazza can't attack Gabby so there's no need to parry an attack from Bazza.

4) According to RQG, yes, Bazza can parry. The timing for parries and dodges occur outside of the SR system, sort of like how Augments and Inspiration can be performed at any time and with no prior notice or declaration. You can interrupt the SR system at any point to parry or dodge.

20 hours ago, deleriad said:

Now remember that in RQ3 SoI's are much looser and can be adjusted/changed by adding your DEX SR.

Yes, no changes to SoI is another change from RQ3 that we're aware of as we play RQG. I don't mind it, but if I'm going to hew closer to RQ3's SR system, I should remember it. Do you think that what I call the "Universal 5 SR Penalty" in RQG performs the same function? In RQ3, the Preparing a Weapon penalty (what I call the Universal 5 SR Penalty since it applies to other things like spellcasting) shared the same cost as changing your SoI (3 SR). If I wanted to add RQ3's flexible intent, I could apply the Universal 5 SR Penalty, I suppose.

20 hours ago, deleriad said:

The attack happens, someone loses a leg, the wave state collapses and the SR sequence resumes.

It's funny to see that metaphor since I privately dubbed our problems with sorting movement and SR as the Quantum Character Conundrum.

20 hours ago, deleriad said:

Mostly my RQ3 days consisted of me saying "you want to get to the balcony, that's about 8m away so you'll get there on your DEX SR+2. The trollkin with the loaded sling will fire at you while you're running. The other one is getting another stone so won't be able to fire until SR 6." Unless other people were involved, I would often batch a series of actions around one person or area rather than counting all the SRs.  We would generally play with some figures, various dice for markers and a sketch map to one side showing the area so distances were always somewhat approximate. A round often consisted of a bunch of discussion about what players planned to do and my feedback on what I thought that might entail, at which point they might adjust. 

That's a great jog to my memory of how we did it back in the day and for how we've been doing it in RQG, since I've been trying to use my RQ3 instincts to muddle through in opposition to what RQG's text tells me. We haven't reached the point of using figures and dice, but we're all over the sketch mapping. Our rounds are also front-loaded at the beginning as PCs figure out their SoIs and we negotiate or confirm common agreement on what the SRs will be. Once we have that, the SR sequence is locked in and we roll it out. I haven't needed to batch actions together yet, but that's a good technique to have in back of mind should the need arise.

I might start using FATE's Zones as a way of sketching out battlefields. Each zone would require approximately 4 Move to cross, turning it into a D&D-like "Move or Double-Move" framework. For now, I'll stick with RAW and to-the-meter distances unless it becomes too crazy.

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

This is exactly what I envision for the next time I will GM RQ: Taking RQG, replacing all the combat chapter by the RQIII one, adding a few things (the various specials effects, for example) and changing what is necessary to be integrated with the rest of RQG.

I'm trying to avoid this if I can (but it's cool if that's your plan; it's tempting to me!). My preference is to try and play the new edition with minimal tweaking. Those tweaks will definitely come from RQ3, though.

I'll provide you with a proper reply later tonight, @deleriad. Thanks for the details above.

24 minutes ago, deleriad said:

To be precise, RQ2 consisted of three different timing system.

Melee SRs - used for determining who goes first in melee combat.[1]

DEX SRs, used to indicate order of actions in non-melee combat. (i.e. missile or magic attacks)

Movement: used for dealing with movement and actions that don't interact with combat.

This conceptual separation between when to apply Melee SRs and DEX SRs helps to crystalize why RQG's clashing with my RQ3 experience. We see the legacy of RQ2's treatment of movement in your quote by Phase 2 of RQG's combat round, Movement of Non-Engaged Characters.

Thanks.

24 minutes ago, deleriad said:

In RQ3, the authors embraced the impulse side of SRs and the game started to bog down. I mean I played RQ3 for more than 10 years in multiple campaigns and it works OK providing you handwave most of the interactions into yes you can/no you can't/add X SRs to your attack.

I only have a couple of years of RQ3 experience, but it's what I'm leaning on to sort out RQG. I'm pretty close to settling on something close to this, but you've got practical experience on where it can break down. Could you share that experience in more detail? Where will the problems crop up (if they do) and can they be resolved without handwaving (it's OK if that's the answer, I just want to avoid unnecessary brain damage)? It might be helpful advice to have in my back pocket when similar issues arise in my RQG game. 

24 minutes ago, deleriad said:

It seems to me that if you took all the most immersion breaking failures of an initiative system and married them up with all the most cumbersome elements of an impulse system, what you end up with is SRs. If you look at all the ground-breaking elements of RQ1/2 that were copied and influenced RPG game designs for the next 40 years, the one thing you don't see is the SR system. There's a reason for that. 

Probably the wisest comment I've ever seen on this topic.

I'm generally in favor of subordinating my ingrained play instincts to a game's design if it's trying to get me to play in a new way. I've played a fair amount of Torchbearer, for example, and that game makes very unique demands on modern TTRPG players. But it all hangs together when played RAW and its unorthodox design assumptions work together with the rest of its design.

I like having my assumptions and habits around playing TTRPGs challenged. But I have to believe that new, challenging playstyles has been thoughtfully considered and designed. Integrating movement and SR doesn't feel that way in RQG (or prior editions, I suppose). I keep struggling with how to make it all hang together without some awkward bits sticking out.  

And before we get utterly sidetracked, does anyone have any feedback on the idea I posted above?

2 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

The other rule I'm considering involves the ordering of movement and the PC's other action(s) in their SoI. If a PC declares that they'll move before doing anything else in the round, why not begin that movement on SR 1 regardless of their DEX SR? Absent a particular rule in RQG stating otherwise, is that a better or worse idea than starting on the character's DEX SR? I'm honestly not sure, so I'm interested in feedback.

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

If you want to replace the Strike Rank system with an Impulse system, go ahead, but it's probably better if you don't call them SR in that case, because it leads to this kind of confusion.

If only we had a proper example of play from RQG's designers showing us how they handle movement within RQG's Strike Rank system! I went looking for this and found an actual-play session on YouTube GMed by Jason Durall. This was a promotional session for the game for a group of D&D 5e players who had never played any version of RQ before. When combat arrived, he practically threw out RQG's SR system and ran it more like a free-form AD&D session. If you looked closely, you could see the influence of SR in how things were going, but it wasn't rigorous. I don't think any of the players would be able to tell you how SR work in RQG after that fight because of how Jason ran that game.

My own RQG group also consists of 5e players who've never played RQ in any incarnation. I had to teach one of them how to roll percentile dice! He'd never done it before in any game he'd played since he started around ten years ago. He finally understood why one of his d10 had two numbers on each face ("00, 10, 20..."). These are the types of players who might form RQG's new audience. They keep coming to this forum because they can't figure out what I call the "Waiting Warrior" problem. 

I honestly wonder whether any of RQG's designers do play their game RAW. If they're not, then they need to demonstrate how they do play it so that forum regulars can help resolve this confusion with a unified voice rather than kicking it down the road. If Jeff and Jason can't make RQ's SR system play smoothly for new RQG players without falling into old RQ2 habits that handwave movement within the SR framework, then that would be nice to know.  

3 hours ago, Sumath said:

It's not an impulse system. It's an acknowledgement of what SRs are:

DEX SR - reaction speed

SIZ SR - physical reach

Weapon SR - weapon reach

There is nothing in-built to the SR system to account for the effect of movement and positioning of combatants.

The fact that SRs are added for movement is an acknowledgement of this.

But all movement is relative. You cannot say it affects the order in which the mover attacks, but not anyone else whose position is changing relative to the mover.

I'm very much in sympathy with this. Some stalwarts in this forum cling very strongly to this "ordering vs. impulse" distinction. It might have made sense to gamers in 1980 when it was designed and released, but it clashes with the mindset produced by modern TTRPG design principles.

It's crucial to acknowledge how awkwardly movement has been shoved into the SR system in RQ2, RQ3, and RQG. It's ironic that I'm often the one banging on about playing RQG RAW considering how shaky the design work is around integrating movement cleanly into the SR framework. I'm looking for the exits from RAW when I should be trying to make it all hang together. But I can't see how it does without some houseruling or handwaving.

8 hours ago, g33k said:

I do not think the RQG rulebook states any definitive RAW on this.  But it is IMHO the only valid interpretation:  as you strip away things that could add SR's -- move to longer weapons, readed weapons, missile weapons, etc -- the one element you can never eliminate is your DEX based SR.  When all the other elements add zero SRs each, you go on your DEX rank.

That makes a lot of sense, but this thread (and others I've seen like it) show that movement within RQ's SR system brings a lot of conceptual baggage with it from system veterans. If your interpretation is the commonly accepted one when there's a gap in the rules, then I'm glad to adopt it. No problem there. But I like exploring other options...

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I've never explicitly thought of a rule like that, but I can't think of any way that you could act before that, except for rune magic or divine intervention. Are you thinking of parries or dodges, that a character can't defend against an attack that happens before their DEX SR? I wouldn't rule that. So no, I wouldn't play that way, and I don't think I've ever seen it even suggested. It would be a pretty rare situation anyway, maybe a Diminish DEX spell could bring it about.

The other rule I'm considering involves the ordering of movement and the PC's other action(s) in their SoI. If a PC declares that they'll move before doing anything else in the round, why not begin that movement on SR 1 regardless of their DEX SR? Absent a particular rule in RQG stating otherwise, is that a better or worse idea than starting on the character's DEX SR? I'm honestly not sure, so I'm interested in feedback. If they move later in the round, their movement (limited to half their Move rating since they aren't moving in Phase 2 of the combat round) is completed 1-4 SR later.

I realize this treads on the "ordering system vs. impulse system" debate for RQ's SR system. Frankly, I see threads like this one cropping up somewhat frequently in my relatively short time in this forum. They all eventually orbit this debate. The impulse-system framework seems to produce fewer clashes with modern players' expectations of play than the ordering system. I still don't quite see the difference myself and I've been paying far more attention it than most RQ players out there in the world. So I'm thinking of this in "impulse" terms, at least as far as my still-shaky grasp of the debate defines the term. But this topic keeps coming up and that indicates that there's a problem in the rules that keeps tripping people up.

6 hours ago, Psullie said:

I play that character start acting in their DEX SR, so Davo will start closing on SR 3,...

How many folks playing RQG use DEX SR as the earliest that a character can start acting? I know it's a common, accepted rule in RQ2/3, but was it explicitly brought over to RQG in the RAW? Does anyone have a page reference to it in RQG? I'm trying to figure out how to handle it in my game.

4 hours ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

The Agimori is using a "Power Enhancing" Crystal POW 4, one of the strongest ones we have seen in classic adventures. Though RQG Rules say they can roll ridiculously high doubling POW now. These crystals have existed since we used to play RQ3, generally a Gloranthan staple of High Level Play.

Yeah, I was wrong to suggest this was a mistake on your part.

26 minutes ago, Joerg said:

t's in the Adventure Book of the Gamemaster Pack of the boxed set, page 123, under "Power enhancing". I would have expected that heading for the description I find under Spell Reinforcing.

Crystals aren't enchantments but divine artifacts - there never were such enchantments in any incarnation of the rules I know about.

Glad to be corrected on both the inclusion of the item and the difference between Enchantments and Crystals in RQG. Sorry, Hresht!

EDIT: Ugh, why did RQG's designers revert to using the term "POW storing crystal" when they've also included the term "Magic Point Enchantments" from RQ3? They perform the same function, don't they? It's just that RQ2 requires that adventurers spend POW to fuel spirit (battle) magic whereas RQ3 and RQG changed that to magic points. Am I missing some nuance? Same comment about the crystals in the Adventure Book being able to bind spirits. Isn't that a conflict between the old RQ2 rules and RQ3/RQG's Binding Enchantment? 

I suppose the benefit of the crystals is that they're flexible: they can act as both Binding Enchantments or Magic Point Enchantments (excluding Powered Crystals). But doesn't it seem like RQ2's rules were sloppily copied over to RQG without trying to conform them to the new edition?