Barak Shathur

I don't think these issues qualify as typos or errors, but it might be a good idea to clarify the writing a bit regarding shields in the following instances (that have as far as I can tell been carried over from BGB): P. 48 Parry “At the gamemaster’s discretion, your character can parry with a weapon or shield from a related or similar category, with the roll being Difficult.” (All shields use same skill as per page 132 “Shields”, so should never be penalised for belonging to a different category from other shields. If you mean one can parry with a shield using half the skill of a weapon one is more proficient with, this should be made clear) P. 125 Parry “Shield armor points and hit points (AP/HP) are used only when dealing with damage done directly to the shield itself, as in an attack to try and destroy a shield or parrying weapon (page 142); “ (Shouldn’t it read ‘shield or weapon armor points and hit points’?) P. 130 Armour “Where shields are also used, a successful shield parry may not be enough to stop a blow, and damage from the attack can potentially pass through the armor value of the shield and to its wielder.” (Is there a difference between shields and other parrying weapons in this respect? If there isn't, the text is misleading. Shouldn't it read "shields or parrying weapons"?) P. 132 Shields “Shields do not generally lose hit points when struck by normal blows, and they are not very easy to knock free from a defender’s grasp. Usually, only powerful blows (special successes or better) will damage a shield, and the only way to lose one is through a fumble.” (Again, is there a difference between shields and other parrying weapons in this respect?) P. 132 “Your character can also use a shield to attack an opponent. The chance is the same as your character’s Shield skill rating, as shield training usually incorporates offensive use as well as defensive. Shields generally use the knockback as their special success, though some types of shields are spiked and can use the impaling special successes.” (Does this function as for two weapons?)

April 7th hath come, O Caesar, but it hath not yet gone.

Maybe they’re waiting until it’s April 7th everywhere on the planet! Which would be fair I guess. 🙂

So relieved the date wasn’t April 1st!

Agree, it looks fantastic!

This is most excellent news! Will definitely get it. I vote for the RQ3 weapon table.

I don't quite see how this helps with the problem of ping pong fights. The point of a fatigue system is that the combatants' combat skill gradually deteriorates the longer the fight goes on. Presumably one of them is more susceptible to fatigue than the other, possibly leading to quicker resolution of an otherwise endless combat between two highly skilled opponents. RQG's ENC system doesn't function like this.

When both sides have good armor and a lot of magical protection up, then yes I saw a lot of indecisive rounds while we waited for that critical roll. This is where a good fatigue system comes in handy. IMO one of the better solutions to BRP ping pong. Either a linear one as in RQIII, which however is a little cumbersome, or an interval based one as in RQIV (roll CON ever 6 rounds, reduced by ENC, or suffer a penalty).

I've been wanting to do this with Classic Fantasy but haven't found a willing group yet. Please let me know how it goes.

I think I prefer the RQ3 rules, that simply make knockback an issue of competing on the resistance table, instead of requiring a successful attack roll first. When you're that close to an opponent who suddenly throws himself at you, it's quite difficult to step aside. And the way I read it, having DEX included in the defender's chance to avoid knockback in itself represents evading or dodging. The rules for bracing against knockback can also be interpreted as being permitted against intentional knockback, in which case STR would be substituted for DEX for the defender, which would be useful if you have high STR. But I totally agree with IMO it totally makes sense for a huge troll to simply swat away pesky adventurers who are silly enough to go toe to toe with it. That's the way it should be. Like going up against an oversized grizzly. Shoot it, spear it, stay out of reach.

Very nice interview. RQ2 was my first RPG experience back in 1983, and RQG has been my latest, 40 years later. The guys who are maintaining Stafford's legacy have done an amazing job. Thanks.

This is some of the most exciting news I’ve heard in a while.

Especially since slashing weapons on the whole already have higher damage dice than others.

Fair enough. Scratch that. I guess ideally then, to be consistent, one ought to add SR for moving to both the mover and the movee, so that all that needs to take place before contact can happen. So, Larry Longspear (MSR 6) charges 12m at Stevie Short sword (MSR 7). Archie Archer fires at Larry on his DEX SR 3, and again at 8. If Larry survives, he reaches Stevie and melees him on SR 10, while Stevie melees at SR 11. If Larry starts only 3m away from Steve, Archie doesn't get his second shot in before contact. A little crunchy, but kind of fun!

So ideally, one might say, the order of the four M's should be Magic, Missile, Movement, Melee. That way, what can be achieved at range is taken care of before charges have been completed.

All of the above is why I feel it is better to have movement last, after all actions. RQIV does this, MERP does this. Everyone unengaged gets to act before anyone reaches them, if you're engaged at the start of the round you get to melee, otherwise not. There's no confusion, as far as I can see.

If you want to get extra gritty, you could argue that the chargee has the strike ranks it 'takes' for the charger to reach him to do some other action, like cast a spell, prepare a weapon or other, although since it's max 4 SR (12m/3) it's doesn't go that far. Maybe chargee draws weapon (+5 SR) and gets to strike at melee SR +1. EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: with this system, both parties would get the SR penalty added due to the charger arriving later in the round. But again, it’s a bit extra granular and not really necessary.

Or full skill but no parry.

Right?! This has got to be how it is intended to work.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make! But David Scott disagrees:

In RQG you can only move up to half your move and attack in the same round.

Again, 20 is more than half of 36, and according to Scotty above, this makes it impossible to strike in the round you arrive at the target. In e.g. RQ3 however, it says that the mount does the moving for rider, so the rider can attack on his unmodified SR.

Since it's +1 SR per 3m moved, I always assumed a human moved 3m per SR. Since you start on DSR, you usually have less than 12 SR to move, and maybe a SR or two are lost in taking in the situation, making decisions etc. But at base, I realise I'm coming from RQ3, where humans explicitly are said to move 3m per SR. Wow, that makes RQG:s movement/SR relationship even more awkward and confusing. How does this help anything? Half of 36m is still 18m, less than the 20 you need to complete a mounted charge. So unless the mount's movement is separate from the rider's, you still can't charge and attack in the same round. Where do you get this from? All I can see is that after completing a move, you can 'freely adjust facing'. The main difference in the movement system is that the move stat is calculated based on DEX and SIZ, so it is differentiated between individuals, and completely untethered from strike ranks, which operate purely as an initiative system. In a round, you can move your base move and then act in the melee phase on your SR for whatever you're doing (DEX SR for magic or missiles, DEX + SIZ + WSR for melee, +3 for multiple arrows etc). If you don't act in the melee phase, you can move again up to twice your move score. As far as I can tell, from my GM:ing it, it works perfectly. Much clearer and cleaner than RQ3 or RQG. Not unexciting at all. But less brain damage than after spending 2 hours getting through 3 rounds of combat (which often happens to our RQG group).

Do you do double damage on slash specials? Because this destroys the perfect balance between weapons that RQ3 (and RQG, if not for this rule) achieved.

The things I would tweak with RQ3 combat is more interesting special effects for slashing and crushing weapons, and multiple parries. I usually just lift these from BGB. In other respects, it's kind of perfect.