Kloster

I like that. This seems not very compatible with the new 'part of community' thing, though. Which reversions are you using? I have also some problems with the new combat rules.

I have the same read as you. This is clearly a port from RQIII. Agreed, but the low probability to avoid completely the damage is better than nothing: A Ward against weapons with 10 Strength would have 10% chance to avoid said 18 points of damage and 90% of doing nothing. I would not bet my life on it, but I am happy to get it in addition to my armor. In fact, the difference between Sorcery defenses vs Spirit/Rune magic defenses is the same as the one between Dodge and Parry.

The rule (for me) seems clear: First, loose a Rune point (not POW). It is ambiguous if an already spent RP can be sacrified or not. Then roll the dice (1D10 or 1D100), spend a number of unspent RP equal to the dice result. If the number of available unspent RP is lower than the dice result, loose a number of POW equal to the dice result minus the number of available unspent RP. If the power is brought to 0, the character dies. If the result of the dice is greater than the number of available RP + POW, the DI failed because the god did not answer. The 1st RP is definitively lost. The other are then spent, and have to be regained as if spells had been cast with them. Lost POW points have to be regain by POW gain rolls as usual.

I consider it to be 10cm thick, like darkwall and lightwall. I think it has been forgotten in the spell description.

The question (in the other thread) was about what the rulebook says. I just wanted to say that no, the rulebook does not say that tapping is evil: I agree with you, the rules don't say anything. I apologize if my use of uppercase is bad form.

According to rules, NO. According to the guide to Glorantha, it seems to be yes (I don't have it, but from answer here, it seems so).

This is not clear, even in the Rune Cults section. Those information should be in the rules, along with the list of cults that allow sorcery.

I would prefer a "reimagining" of RQ3 but I'm sure I will not got it because it would be too expensive to do. That's why yes, I would participate in a kickstarter for a re-edition of RQ3. This is better than nothing, my Avalon Hill print is in a bad shape (too much use) and my french printings are in a slightly better shape. In addition, that would be a searchable PDF.

Rune Lords don't lose a POW but a Rune Point (that can be replaced by spending a POW, gaining a spell at the same time). You can even do it several times in a season if the D10 is sufficiently low. The loss is the same for the others, but you're right, the D100 loss means a low probability of trying.

I have the same read as you. And I don't think it a problem because you began your DI by sacrificing a permanent RP (RQG p272) and you can't raise a char above racial max that way.

It is gone. This one is from RQIII.

No, there is a duration of 1 season on the training.

except INT and SIZ, and duration is 1 season now, so not easy, but the max is important.

I have the same read as you.

I'm not sure. What I'm sure is that there will be arguing between players that want to go above 18 and GMs.

I completely agree here. I will just consider a 92 pointer as an average character, not slightly weak. He is sufficiently above the cut to be at least average.

My mistake for the size, but superior and elite trollkins have 2D6+6 INT in RQIII (from memory) and RQG.

According to RQG p 433, INT and SIZ should be upped a little because of 3D6 that becomes 2D6+6: SIZ 7 is now SIZ 10. For the rest, good work.

I read it the same way you do.

The extra info is the table p311 (that came from RQ2). It gives relationship cult by cult as RQIII is giving the info Pantheon by Pantheon.

Right, but RQIII had only inter-pantheon relationship, not the detailed, cult-by-cult infos. I don't remember for RQ2.

The way I have understood (or, more properly, decided, because as you wrote, there is nothing more precise) the rule p 275 is that Associated and Friendly cults are compatible, Enemy and Hostile are not, and Neutral are on a case-by-case basis. My reasoning is based on the descriptions of the 5 categories p311. In the case that concern us (Friendly), the description is: "Even without formal arrangements these groups find each other supportive and agreeable. Meetings are likely to be pleasant.". The term supportive is for me (I'm not a native english speaker and may be wrong) strong enough to allow cooperation to the point of dual initiation. The next level(Neutral) says: "Such cults act according to present circumstance. Trouble may occur, but the spark must be deliberate, not caused by minor squabbles.". The 'present circumstances' is what drove me to the 'case-by-case'. I will not elaborate on the last 3 categories (Enemy, Hostile and Associated) because they seem obvious. Another point is that I feel that if the author of the rule wanted to have only associated cults to allow dual initiation, he would have written associated, not compatible.

I confirm that macros don't work when saved as .ods

Right. My mistake on the calculation.

I've seen current Indian police wicker shields, and they are very sturdy. The only (modern) trouble I see with them is the non protection vs fluids (e.g.tear gas). But they are up to the jobs to resist fights.