Jump to content

RuneQuest: Weapons & Equipment - corrections thread


MOB

Recommended Posts

Page 64, Nets are described as having STR 4D6+18 per section.  This is contradicted on page 65, where both combat nets are given STR 15 per section.  

The throwing net on page 70 has 4 HP, but should probably have 8 HP, since it has STR 8 (see page 74).

I also second @Akhorahil's concern about improvements to land.  Paying 6L per year for a stable (for example) is too expensive for only a +5% to the manage household roll.  It'll lose money on average, and never recoup the up-front cost.  As a follow-on comment, some of the items in the table look like they might be too expensive.  For example, a shop is described in the prose as costing 18L, versus 180L in the table, a pit mine 50L vs 50W.  I gather there was a reduction in prices moving from RQ2 to RQG, which makes me wonder if the numbers in the table should be smaller (maybe by a factor of 10?).  In the example above, a stable would cost 3L to build, and then costs 0.6L=6C to maintain.  If this correction is made, then a stable could well be worth building.  

Edited by Jason D
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 79, under Armor Materials, we have:

Scale, Light or Heavy: Small metal plates (usually bronze) sewn onto leather in an overlapping pattern. An excellent, if heavy, protection. Light scales are small and thin, heavy scales are thicker and larger.

However, on p81, under Armor Types, it has, "Hauberk, Light Scale: This armor consists of hundreds of boiled leather plates that have been laced together."

Obviously, this is confusing...  is it leather or metal?

Edited by Jason D
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adventuring Gear (P34)

 “Bags and backpacks have ENC themselves but reduce the ENC of any item inside them or securely strapped to them by up to that ENC before the bulkiness of the contents becomes noticeable Thus, a 2 ENC backpack with a one-man tent and a firestarter kit in it totals 3 ENC, not 5. In general, where a thing packs into another, do not count the ENC of the outer container unless the apparent weight becomes unfeasible.”

As written, there doesn’t seem to be any gain in having a backpack, as the ENC is whatever the content weighs with a minimum of 2 ENC – in the example a tent (ENC 2) and firestarter (ENC 1) would be 3 ENC regardless of the backpack.

 If a container were to truly reduce ENC perhaps the container could offset twice its own ENC, so a minimum of 2 ENC but only adding to that where the content exceeds 4 ENC. In the example this would make the effective ENC 2 rather than 3, or if it also contained cooking gear (ENC 3 for a total of 6) the effective ENC would be 4.

Edited by Jason D
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly an errate, but a missing designation or clarification.

We now have a category of pole-axe in pole weapons. And weapons pole-sword and sword staff in the category spear (2H).

How do those work with spells such as Axe Trance, Firespear, Soulspear, Strongblade, and Sword Trance? Inclusive or Exclusive.

Flamesword in Red Book of Magic is clear it is inclusive.

e.g. Would Axe Trance work on a pole-axe (in the pole-axe category) as it has the word axe in it? Or is it entirely exclusive to weapons in the Axe table? 

Would Sword Trance work on a sword staff or pole-sword?

Edited by Jason D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Version 1.01, p. 86: Should there be stats for medium and large bronze-bound shields? The Shields table and Shield Types listing include bronze-bound medium spiked shields, but no non-spiked equivalents, and there are no bronze-bound large shields. Do Gloranthan hoplites not use bronze-bound one-meter (large) shields like their real-world equivalents?

Edited by Jason D
  • Like 1

— 
Self-discipline isnt everything; look at Pol Pot.”
—Helen Fielding, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2021 at 3:29 PM, Yinkin said:

I was looking at the mercenary contracts on page 48, which suggested that standard pay is 5L per week for a mercenary soldier. This comes up to 200L per year (not counting Sacred Time), which is quite a lot more than the 60L suggested base yearly income of a warrior in the core rule book. Is this on purpose?

As mentioned elsewhere, for a mercenary to receive that much they would need a fulltime contract lasting a year, which is not that common. Most mercenaries have down-time between campaigns, and return to their farms/homes between contracts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

IMPORTANT NOTE: this is not a thread for questions or discussion of the rules, we are specifically looking for errors and typos only. Please take discussion to another thread.

 

  • Helpful 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to urge readers to keep in mind that trying to reverse-engineer a functional economic model out of these prices is not the point of this sourcebook.

The prices are examples, etc. and can be either used as-is, modified, or ignored entirely.

Adventurer starting incomes from the core rules, as well, are for adventurers, and do not represent a Dragon Pass-wide standard for incomes.

  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From time to time, we get comments or feedback that we jokingly call “SimGlorantha”. That’s when people look at the RuneQuest game mechanics - not as the mechanics for a roleplaying game with a group of player characters and intended to aid the GM manager the player characters’ interactions with the setting (that’s the intended use of the RQ rules) - but as the mechanics for a clockwork universe that really doesn’t need player characters or gamemasters or even a game. I assume the idea is to marvel at the clockwork universe in action and see “how Glorantha works” - but then there is disappointment that the RQ mechanics don’t do that. Or worse - they are different in one context than another (paying no attention to the fact that in a game these might be radically different interactions).

Of course, that’s not the intended use of mechanics for a roleplaying game. They are there to facilitate the player characters interactions with the setting. And comments that don’t reflect the intended use of the mechanics are kind of pointless for us. Actually less than pointless - they are weird distractions. Like warning labels in the US warning you that bullets or arrows are not to be eaten or ingested or not to stick your head in the oven when it is on

So please restrict any comments to things that fall within the intended use of the game. Typos, numerical errors, etc. are all fine - but concerns about whether the tools for players making improvements on a piece of land or a dwelling are scalable as an economic model are not things we consider error-trapping.

 

  • Like 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

I just checked today -- while it still shows as v1.01, the associated date changed from December 2021 to January 2022.

I got an update on mine, and it still says version 1.0.1 but also January like yours. 

Is there some particular fix we should look for, in case it just didn’t roll up the version?

EDIT: Verified that it included at least one fix (Wing of Mercy), so this seems to indeed be an updated version.

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New typo found in the January 2022 v1.01 PDF:

p. 114, first column, fourth paragraph, first sentence: Remove the errant period before "can" in "Cult skills (listed in RUNEQUEST, pages 289–320). can always be learned".

  • Like 1

— 
Self-discipline isnt everything; look at Pol Pot.”
—Helen Fielding, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In RQG W&E page:

"Lead (na-metal) is soft and pliable. It has half-again the ENC of bronze. Even in its unenchanted form, this soft, dull metal neither clanks or reflects, so lead armor never
detracts from the user’s Stealth skills. Lead formed into crushing weapons (only) does +2 damage. Thus, a heavy mace made of enchanted lead does 1D10+4 damage. A war maul does 2D8+2."

The bolded example does imply you only get the +2 damage from enchanted lead. But it should have been one sentence earlier. And the second example makes it unclear again.

Note also that 'war maul' is not in the Melee Weapons table, but 'maul' is. Note that Mace, Heavy in the Melee Weapons table does d8+2, not d10+2 (without the Enchanted Lead bonus).

Suggestion:

"Lead (na-metal) is soft and pliable. It has half-again the ENC of bronze. Even in its unenchanted form, this soft, dull metal neither clanks or reflects, so lead armor never detracts from the user’s Stealth skills. Enchanted Lead has the ENC of bronze. Enchanted Lead formed into crushing weapons (only) does +2 damage. Thus, a heavy mace made of enchanted lead does 1D8+4 damage. An enchanted maul does 2D8+2."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P10 - image.png.43749a97502c2d1fba1a747c24b2dd87.png

but the repair spell states (in both the core book and Red Book of Magic)

image.png.a1546739577b948b5c4d0a382e972442.png

 

P25 - there don't seem to be any metal working tools - not sure if these would these be broken down to general smithing, Tools, weaponsmith, and Tools, armoursmith tools or just Tools, Metalworking

P35 - climbers pack & soldiers pack - it would be useful to have individual entries for the items somewhere in the book. For example, a character may want (or may want to exclude) just a grappling hook or an entrenching tool.

Dagger-Axe - should this now be a polearm rather than 2H Axe?

Edited by Glyph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jason D locked, unpinned and unfeatured this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...