PhilHibbs

Middle one "cold"?

I've created individual SVG files for each of the runes in the Core Rune font. https://runequest-glorantha.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Runes If anyone knows a good source for more rune images in the same style, let me know!

Hm. Another possibility (other than it just being an "any other rune" wildcard), those spell write-ups date back to an earlier version of the rules in which the Magic Rune was just like any other - and perhaps it is still supposed to work like that. Then someone decided they needed a wildcard, and copied the Rune Magic system of using the Magic Rune, even though the Magic Rune is also used for its own purposes for spells that relate directly to magic. My bet is, the Magic Rune works just like any other rune, but also has been used as a wildcard. If so, they need to pick a different wildcard, like maybe a question mark instead of a real rune.

Yes, but by posting it here, anyone can offer their opinions on it. The Q&A is for official answers only.

There's also the Moonboats.

Isn't that's going to be a bit confusing when the sorcery mechanics has two uses for the Magic Rune - one as a wild card in a spell's rune list, and one as a thing the Malkioni can use for something different?

I suspect p389 is wrong, out of date, given that the Magic Rune is being used for something else.

Oh, you're right. That does confuse the issue, I read that as saying that the attacker deals special damage, which is usually double weapon damage. Funny how your mind plays tricks on you when you think you know what you are reading! Whilst some of Jeff's phrasing could be more diplomatic, the company stance appears to be something along the lines of "we will update the PDF and future printings to clarify confusing text, and release Rune Fixes to clarify and expand further". Seems reasonable to me.

Instead of rolling damage bonus twice, I assume, a bit much to have both. However, keeping maximum damage bonus on a critical instead of maximum weapon damage would be interesting. Maximum meaning numerical maximum, not magnitude maximum, so -1D3 would be -1. Or zero, as a special case. "Maximum damage bonus, or no bonus if negative".

So just make it vs soft armour, it's only +2, hardly overwhelming bonus.

How about these two side by side on a duvet: You'd need to offer it in both configurations.

What's wrong with a shortsword?

I'm sure that someone is about to pitch in saying "But it isn't edition 1.0". This is a new team, Chaosium is essentially a new company built a long way from the rubble of the old, by new people. It's a new game, and should be treated as a "version 1". I'm also a little disappointed that the wording of the rules is sometimes contradictory, but does it make the game unplayable? Far from it. I've dealt with similar issues with games in the past - you just come to a decision, either by GM fiat or a quick discussion - and get on with it. If it makes a difference between life and death, then err on the side of life.

The only difference is that the text says that impaling weapons do not actually cause damage to the parrying weapon. Other than that they are identical. Maybe it would be clearer if the Impale section also pointed this out.

What decision is the game system making for you?

Both are true. If everyone is an initiate of one cult and a lay member of two others, then two thirds of cult members are only lay members of that cult. If everyone is a lay member of four other cults, then 80% of cult members are only lay members.

I like this idea, but I would decouple the acquisition of Rune Points from the acquisition of spells. You get a spell when you get a Rune Point, but you should be able to get spells without POW sacrifice as well. For example: at any worship ceremony, there may be a group of members who undergo a minor quest to acquire a rune spell. Several such groups may be active at the same time, particularly at larger and more major ceremonies. The number that can take part is limited, and priority is given to those who are sacrificing POW to gain a Rune Point at the same time. If there are spare places, then other members (in order of cult standing and reputation) can participate and acquire the spell without sacrificing POW. If the spell is variable and they already have it, they can gain the ability to cast it 1 point higher. So it's up to the GM to decide on, or the character to earn, the availability of additional spells like this. Eventually you might end up with several Orlanthi all looking the same, able to cast the same variety of big variable spells, but it will take a while.

It would be great to have that as a downloadable PDF, like was in the preview. I haven't checked for any differences between the two releases.

I think the table on p199 is probably the most reliable source.

That looks terrible!

Like you said, anything over a 20 is a fail. A fail can't be a special, but a success can. Done.

Well, G+ going away can only boost that.

I've started off the new Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty page on the unofficial wiki with this one. And, to be honest I hadn't spotted it before! Good catch. I think it's pretty clear that both skills should be reduced, if you're going to reduce special and critical chances. My house rule suggestion is to not reduce critical or special chances for either side, which makes it moot whether you reduce the higher skill or not. I can't find this, where is it? I think that's a slight overstatement, the only real difference is that versus a normal attack, p198 says roll normal weapon damage, but p199 says to roll special damage.

I have reorganized the contents table of the unofficial wiki and made a placeholder for "Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty".

LOL! Yeah I'm not too worried about those. Getting subtleties like that lost in translation isn't as important as "Merchant" and "Tradetalk" getting merged.