Jump to content

PhilHibbs

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2,803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

PhilHibbs last won the day on December 28 2020

PhilHibbs had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,620 Excellent

About PhilHibbs

  • Rank
    Codesmith

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    RQ player since 1981
  • Current games
    RQG, L5R
  • Location
    UK
  • Blurb
    Gamer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My post was not intended to be a criticism of anyone's specific attitude. It's partly just the nature of people on the internet that the things we say are easy to misinterpret. And I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone of being a little abrasive at times.
  2. Taking the Species Maximum discussion as an example, I've been imagining what would have happened back in 1984, before forums like this. I'd have read the rules, noticed that there were two different systems for calculating the maximum characteristic, and decided that one was a mistake. It really would not be a big deal, I'd mention it to my group, we'd come up with an answer that we all agreed on, and that's that. I think we had our own rule for Species Maximum that was subtly different to the standard one anyway. Now that we have internet forums, it's a huge deal. The conversation
  3. I would expect that the starter box would not have any rules on improving by experience, but I appreciate the general point.
  4. I think most gamers will read the rules and realise that the Species Maximum box is correct, especially if they are familiar with RuneQuest already. I know it's not ideal, as there are plenty of people out there who don't read the forum and aren't as comfortable with figuring this stuff out themselves. I have been in gaming groups where people will argue viciously over the rules, so I appreciate that having clear and correct printed rules is important.
  5. I don't think anybody does think it's a good idea. It's just happened, that's all. It's a mistake that the right people don't have the time to look at due to other priorities.
  6. You're right, this is a crazy clarification.
  7. RQG p.52: Bestiary p.6: My rule is maximum + dice + 1 per +6 bonus or fraction thereof. Sorry, didn't see @kirinyaga already said this.
  8. That makes sense for the skill check, but not giving the POW tick for a successful worship is quite different. You worshipped, it was successful, you made contact with divinity, you should get all the benefits. A skill tick is not one of those benefits, so that's fine to houserule, but a POW tick is.
  9. Yes, and this was confirmed at Impromptu Con, the grand old Chaosium tradition of "Coming next year..." is no more.
  10. Still not getting it. Specifically, what is the contradiction?
  11. And confirmation of the Stomp! roleplaying game. * * Not really.
  12. That can't make sense. You declare split attacks before you know if you are being parried. What would happen if the first attack is not parried but the second is? It's then too late to reduce the un-split skill to 100 because you've already rolled on the first split.
  13. I agree, I think I'd say the RP are spent on a fumble but not permanently.
  14. Yeah, according to a literal reading of the rules, someone with a 10% parry skill will reduce the 1000% down to 100%. What it does give you is the ability to split to three (or four if you're really fast) 100%+ attacks.
×
×
  • Create New...