Kloster

That's what I think.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Completely agree here. Same for me. I accept 'detect poison', but ...

Nice idea. In that case, yes, because you detect the psychic/mystic remain of the intent, not the trap itself.

Yes, of course, both would detects: They are traps. This is why wide definition detects such as 'writing', 'traps,...) are difficult to use.

and it would register at 'detect traps'. and it would NOT register at 'detect traps'. Those 2 points are why I allow 'detect traps'.

If you can detect 'life' or 'unlife' which are concepts, you can detect 'writing'. It would detect substances that are poisonous to the caster, or, if you are devious and the caster is using a matrix, poisonous to the creator of the matrix.

Detect Bronze, to recover used arrows at the end of a combat.

Wahou!!!!!! Breathless.

Hurricanes, or tornades, like in the american midwest. On facture, anti destructive wind, but those are coming to my mind.

I've never heard about it, but have a try on 'The ring thing', especially if you accept the schwytzerdutsch.

I do not have my BGB at hand, but with RQ3, another advantage for the sword/shield combo vs 2H sword is the amount of AP (12 for 2H sword, 16 for kite shield and 18 for hoplite), plus the fact that if you parry with your attack weapon, it's AP will go down much more rapidly. Another is the cost (320p for 2H sword vs 150p for the most expensive shield, that has 50% more AP).

Those are normal conclusions.

Sorry for the confusion. For your proposal, as I firmly dislike the multiple parry rules, I have no real opinion on them. I very much prefer staying with 2 actions per round among Attack, Parry and Dodge (not counting over 100% skills).

In RQ3, yes, until the shorter weapon close the range (a maneuver named 'Close Combat'). Either the long weapon steps away and the combat continues with same range (and iirc everybody adds 1 to SR), or he allows the closing range (to maintain formation, or if he can't backs away) and after that, he has to wait for the shorter's weapon to attack to be able to perform his attack (RQ3 player's book P57).

You can use any weapon to parry any attack, but you can not parry with a weapon in the same SR you attack with this weapon (or you can not attack with a weapon if you have parried with it in the same SR). This is very important because someone with a shorter weapon (=higher weapon SR) that enter the range of the longer will strike before his opponent (a bit like Barak described). As you can delay your attack, if the shorter weapon holding character delays his attack to SR 10, the longer weapon holding character has to choose if he attacks in SR10 after the short weapon or if he parries this attack, because they would both be in the same SR.

Completely agree here. OK!!!

Completely agree here. Another is that the so-called center is not exactly at the same position everywhere and is sometime shifting on one direction or the other. So, my right is sometime your left (or the opposite) or have a shift to one direction that is less than the overall, meaning you went toward one end but end more deeply in the other (my case).

You could also use an idea like the skill web of Shadowrun (1 & 2, I don't know for later versions). Each dot crossed between 2 skills or stat adds 2 to difficulty. This is roughly equivalent to a BRP malus of 30% per dot. They also had concentration and specialization on general skills.

Don't worry, they make sense. That means you have perfectly understood the MGF rule. I never experienced that, either as a player or as a GM, but the idea seems fine. Good idea. If, as a GM, you're ok with it, YES, and she can be a subcult of almost any earth deity.

As a standalone system, yes, it seems it is, and no resurrection spell is scheduled. As a set of rules used to build a game, it is Alive and Well (but not living in Paris).

I never had this problem with RQ combat, because we used extensively RQ3's options and maneuvers, and every dirty tricks we could. One more option is one more thing that avoid the lengthy, non fun combats. As a bonus (for me), I am a former fencer and love the swashbuckling style of combats.

According to RQG, you can not be priest of 2 cults, but you can be priest/rune lord/runelord-priest of one cult and god-speaker (acolyte in RQ3 terms) of a non hostile nor enemy other cult. It would take 90% of the time for the 1st cult and 50% of the remaining time for the 2nd, leaving 5% for the character (same for resources).

this has been requested.

Nice idea. I'll have to check. I thik it can be added without too much trouble to RQ, and can give a bit of swashbuckling. Let's see.

Thanks. Exactly my point.