Blindhamster

This would be cool - there are going to (hopefully) be more DMs new to the game showing up like myself and the wealth of older material is either hard to get or simply offputting as its not for this edition, something to make it all pretty much pick up and play from a mechanics perspective would be great.

thanks, just reread and saw the two lines that clarify this! Doh!

err, are you sure about that? Are you suggesting that any character can make multiple attacks at full % so long as it fits? as that really isn't how it read to me... (i.e. Size SR2, Dex SR1 Broadsword SR2 = 5 so two attacks at full %?) the rules for splitting attacks specifically say you make attack 1 at the normal SR and then attack 2 at the normal SR + the normal SR, those attacks would be at -50. If you could fit a third in (above person using an SR 1 weapon for example) then the attacks would require a base % of 150 and be at -100 each. This to me suggests you can't just make multiple attacks at normal % if it fits into a melee round as it would make the splitting attacks rules make zero sense.

Should the characters skill for firing an arrow be reduced by 50 per attack made with a bow? Splitting attacks suggests yes but i want to make sure ive read it right

Thanks all, i think i'll go with 12 strike ranks later for death. Feels far more logical. I've also clarified to my players they can choose to increase SR by 5 if they want to give themselves a little flexibility

Yeah my players were discussing the fact that if a pc has to essentially do nothing other than state they're going to heal allies that need it, it would be pretty unfun for the player. That being said, the statement of intent and strike rank approach really doesnt feel suited to changing plans after you state what you're doing. I'd wondered if maybe it should be die at the end of the following melee round, but that may be too generous? Tangent question for people, but some examples of what you players and GMs declare as statements of intent would be quite interesting!

So, you die at the end of a melee round in which you hit 0hp unless you regain at least 1hp. How does anyone have a chance to actually grant you hp back when their statement of intent will already be something else? Thanks!

RQ:G doesnt allow moving and shooting with a bow except when mounted on a horse or chariot. Page 213 "shooting while moving"

perhaps different colour circles and consistent white text would be better

this is definitely a useful resource

I'd be interested in experienced GMs thoughts on a possibly nice run order for these too.

if you like paper copies, smoking ruin is out very very shortly.

sounds reasonable! hoping for my hardcopy of the smoking ruins in the next few weeks anyway! Anyway, i enjoyed the review!

That was a pretty inciteful first impressions read, have you done one for The Smoking Ruins?

Hi Jason, thanks for the clarification, really helpful! Could i ask for further elaboration here? With Battle Axe you only get the bonus for either 1H or 2H Battle Axe? Does that mean that with Javelins, you now only get the bonus to either Melee Javelin or Missile Javelin, not both anymore? That doesn't seem to quite match What you said, previously in relation to Javelins, so wondering if perhaps Battle Axe should work like Javelin and give you the bonus to both 1H and 2H battle axe (meaning the character could switch between 1H and 2H as desired depending on if they had full use of their other arm) Thanks again! edit - Re reading, actually, what you've written may be saying the same thing, is it saying that you get the bonus with both 1h Battle axe and 2h Battle axe as they're the same weapon? If so, awesome the bullet points are exactly what I tried to summarize but better explained!

Red Book of Magic I assume. It is supposed to include every spell. Doesn't look like that is due out any time "soon" though.

The intent is to impaled the creature. A parry wont achieve that. I understand the general abstraction though, in a system that is as relatively simple as RQG, the real point is: you're using your weapon to stop the creature hitting you. I think if I were running that, I'd probably handle it with the character setting their weapon getting a bonus on their damage, and the charging beast suffering a penalty to its defense, assuming it's an impaling weapon I'd say it gets stuck pretty much automatically and therefore the creature is likely out of reach to attack at all. But obviously with something as massively strong as a dinosaur, I'd then ask if the player intended to hold onto the weapon when the dinosaur thrashes about to break free lol. P.s. the greatsword example I would go for a more traditional parry attempt.

Setting a pole arm is indeed a valid and historical way of stopping cavalry. It isnt a parry though, it's not about knocking anything aside or deflecting a blow. it's about using the oncoming creatures momentum against it to cause additional force with your set weapon. Two handed swords were used similarly but less effectively. But either way, neither of those were parries, they were attacking first - exactly what the lower weapon strike ranks are there to represent. So yeah, I'd still say that logically you're attacking first and hoping you blunt its momentum or even kill the creature. If it comes coming you move out the say. Hunters wouldnt stand directly in the path of a rhino or elephant that was moving to trample them, they simply dont have the physical strength to have enough of an impact to avoid being squashed. However it's a fair point that the potentially superhuman abilities of heroes would make parrying a more logical option eventually.

totally agree I'd have something like that - make a dodge, perhaps with a flat bonus (25%?), moves the character out of the creatures reach and leaves them prone.

Thats a pretty nice house rule - thanks!

When the next UKGE runs i'll have to keep an eye out! I'll also keep an eye out for Glorantha Games 2021! Bought the PDF, lovely stuff!

Other side of birmingham sadly. Northfield area, but i do (under normal circumstances) work in the city center too

As a GM telling a story, if the dinosaur wasnt acting with killing intent and was simply angry/attempting to scare the characters away, I'd likely run it as a character that didnt get away would suffer enough damage to leave them hampered but I wouldnt necessarily strictly follow the actual dice roll damage. As a story teller it is in your power to have things work in a way that ensures the story and situation is interesting. Getting gored by a triceratops and left in a really bad way might be better for the overall narrative and everyone's enjoyment. It's a wild animal and is more than capable of killing, but doesnt mean it's going out of it's way to do so. Equally, as a means of showing how dangerous the world can be? Might be better to have someone die. But parrying a dinosaur seems dumb anyway, realistically dodging is the right option. Perhaps house rule allowing a dodge that leaves the character prone as they simply dive out of the way is an option. Again, control the narrative and situation, make the rules work with what you need/want to convey to the players that ensures "maximum fun".

Birmingham! I'm old and ugly enough to travel though (once lockdown ends) Cool, knowing that I'll go ahead and order the pdf for MOAR reading material. Thanks for the help there

I'd really like to see a formal errata document at least. That would be amazing. a 1.5 document of the core book would be okay too tbh. Although I only just bought the slipcase set, if an erratad version came out i guess id just replace the core book in that.