Runequest Q&A

[Scotty]

If want to report mistakes or ask questions about our RuneQuest Glorantha products, this is the thread. Question and Answers where appropriate will end up here as official corrections. Although centred around RuneQuest, corrections and questions about the Guide to Glorantha (GtG) and the Glorantha Sourcebook (GS) are welcome too. The current product line is:

• Roleplaying in Glorantha Quickstart (RQQS) 
• Roleplaying in Glorantha (RQG)
• Glorantha Bestiary (RQB)
• Gamesmaster Screen Pack (GMSP) 
• The Red Book of Magic (RBM) and Rune Spell Reference (RSR)
• The Smoking Ruin & Other Stories (TSR)
• The Pegasus Plateau & Other Stories (TPP)
• Starter Set (RQSS)
• Weapons & Equipment (W&E)

First and foremost, it cannot be stressed enough that the rules are guidelines for the gamemaster and must occasionally need to be interpreted when a question arises. No set of rules can accommodate every permutation and interaction between the various sub-systems, nor should they.

When there’s an potential conflict or unclear area, it is the gamemaster’s job to adjudicate, revising later if necessary. When in doubt, make a decision and move on.

The play is the thing, not getting it “right”.

Please post your entries in the form of a single simple, direct question, with page references.

Please take any arguments, complaints or discussion to another thread. 

Before you post, please make sure that you have:

• the most up-to-date version of the book and/or PDF.
• checked the book and rules fully.
• Checked the RuneQuest Glorantha Corrections and Q&A
• Please be aware that, Sorcery is presented to allow Lhankor Mhy adventurers to be created. Future supplements will detail sorcerers from other cultures and provide more details of the sorcery system.

New answers in this thread are moved to the Q&A when a full page is reached.

When in doubt, make a decision and move on.

Jason Durall talks about using the rules here:

 

 

[Psullie]

Can we please have a clear statement, with examples, on how boosting spells with MP's is intended to work. 

[Scotty]

On 12/20/2020 at 9:16 PM, Oracle said:

Does a PDF for the Second Printing of RuneQuest:Roleplaying in Glorantha exist?
If I look at my orders at Chaosium's web site, I still see only the PDF for the First Printing.

Yes. It's now available on our webstore and DrivethruRPG. Please download from your accounts.

Please note there is a Clarifications, Corrections and Additions update here:

CHA4028 RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha – Second Printing Clarifications, Corrections and Additions 1.0.1

[Baron Wulfraed]

I was about to ask for confirmation of ...

Bestiary page 10 (and page 31)

The hit point breakdown for Centaurs seems rather high in the printed edition.

... but when I loaded the PDF to do a cut&paste I see the numbers look more reasonable (though there still seems to be a discrepancy on page 31, presuming both are based upon "average" centaurs

Page 10:

Quote

Centaurs
Location           D20      HP
Right Hind Leg     01–02    4
Left Hind Leg      03–04    4
Hindquarter        05–06    6
Forequarter        07–08    6
Right Foreleg      09–10    4
Left Foreleg       11–12    4
Chest              13–14    6
Right Arm          15–16    4
Left Arm           17–18    4
Head               19–20    6

Page 31

Quote

Centaur Hit Locations
Location          D20         Armor/HP
Right Hind Leg    01–02       1/6
Left Hind Leg     03–04       1/6
Hindquarter       05–06       1/9
Forequarter       07–08       1/9
Right Foreleg     09–10       1/6
Left Foreleg      11–12       1/6
Chest             13–14       2/9
Right Arm         15–16       2/6
Left Arm          17–18       2/6
Head              19–20       3/7

I'm thinking both the PDF page 10 table, and a corrected page 31 table, are candidates for

https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/runequest-glorantha-bestiary-print/cha4032-runequest-glorantha-bestiary-qa/#Elder-Races

(that's the first place I looked for corrections -- only stumbled on the page 10 change as stated above)

RQ2/Classic only gives them a 5pt head for baseline.

[Scotty]

4 hours ago, RandomNumber said:

A map error has been ported across into the updated Map Pack for the GM Screen.

That's for spotting this. I'll fix it asap.

[Scotty]

16 hours ago, Dragon said:

Not positive if this is the correct place to note an error, as it is not the Red Book of Magic itself, but the Rune Spell Reference additional download.

Yes this is the place, I've added the Rune Spell Reference to the initial post.

16 hours ago, Dragon said:

In the Rune Spell Reference, the spell Arrow Trance is listed in Fire/Sky spells correctly. It is erroneously missing from Plant Spells, and is erroneously included in Truth Spells.

I mentioned it in another thread, and the author agreed. He stated that I would have to notify you as he had turned over the source materials to Chaosium control. I just wasn't sure where.

I find the Reference quite handy, and appreciate the work that went into it. Thank you.

Thanks for spotting this. We will correct it asap.

[Bren]

Apologies if this is addressed elsewhere. I looked on the corrections for Runequest Roleplaying in Glorantha and didn't see anything addressing this. In the section on Coins on p. 151

Quote

Bolg: 300 per ENC

That would be 3.3 grams per bolg. This sounds a bit light. Should this have been 30 per ENC?
 

Spoiler

My reason for asking is that on p. 18 we read, 

Quote

The lead bolg is unique as a unit of money, for it is designed for use as a sling stone as well as handy cash.

So a lead bolg should weigh about what a sling stone weighs. An article in Scientific American gives the weight of a Roman sling stone as 30 grams and 30 grams gives us pretty close to 30 bolgs per kilogram.

 

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.314, Casting a Rune Spell

The text mainly describes using Rune points on a spell, and only introduces using Magic points in the 3rd paragraph, when talking about a failure.

IMHO this doesn't explain things as well as could be done. The first paragraph mentions having to have enough RP for a spell, but says nothing about the requirement to have enough MP for those spells that need them (e.g. Heal Wound). Ok, you must have at least 1 MP or you wouldn't be conscious, but not mentioning MP up front may naturally lead the reader to believe that only RP are important.

The second paragraph is about successful casting, but only describes spending the needed RP, and not spending any MP.

Only the 3rd paragraph introduces 1 MP being spent in the case of a failure if MP are needed, which IMHO reads oddly because MP haven't been mentioned for Rune spells up to this point.

If the roll is a critical, no RP are spent. What about MP? Would be good to be explicit here.

What about on a fumble? Are boosting MP lost?

On that latter note, it seems strange to only talk in that third paragraph about "boosting" a spell with "additional" MP, given that spells like Heal Wound (which is the example given here, which highlights the potential confusion be actual boosting to get past magical defences) do nothing without MP, so it's not only for boosting, it's the fundamental powering of the spell in the example case.

 

 

Edited February 22 by Steve

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.340, RBoM p.82 and SS Book 1 p.49, Spell Trading

For the CR, the WoD updates the mechanics to say that the spells are both cast normally (i.e. via Rune ratings), and those casting rolls determine success/failure/accidental activation. This makes it consistent with the example. All good so far.

But the RBoM goes back to the mechanic of not "casting" the spell but doing a D100 roll to see if the trade worked, as per the originally-printed (uncorrected) CR entry. And the example also appears to be this 1-95 success version (no other roll is described), not the Rune rating casting example in the CR. So the example here is wrong too, if the WoD entry for the CR is correct. Which is the correct set of rules?

The SS uses the same 1-95 roll to trade as the RBoM, again being different from the CR WoD correction.

Given the above, is it perhaps the case that the CR italics example is wrong, and the WoD correction is actually incorrect?

The RBoM updates the description in several areas which aren't noted in the WoD for the CR, e.g. it now being a cultist who uses the spell and not just a Priest, Rune Masters being the other party instead of just Priests, the later use of the spell using the owner's Rune rating even if that's lower than the adventurer's own rating, and clarification of the "one use" vs "single use" issue.

The CR version says, in the last bullet, that the original owner can still cast the spell unless it is one-use. But this is wrong because one-use changed for RQG and it's the Rune points that are one-use for such a spell and the spell isn't lost, as per RBoM p.9.

The RBoM second bullet should refer to "his cultist", or similar, rather than "his priest".

The SS version also says (first para) that the other party is a "priest", and it should be "Rune Master" as per RBoM.

Spell Trading is a good example of how the RQG "one-use Rune spell" terminology (RBoM p.9 One-Use rules) uses the term "one-use" in a very confusing way, given that such a spell isn't one-use at all except when we're talking about Spell Trading. A different name for this would be very helpful, since it's the Rune points that are one-use, and not the spell itself. 

 

Edited March 7 by Steve

[Scotty]

38 minutes ago, Steve said:

Do the general rules for boosting magic cover a Rune spell boosted with magic points vs defensive magic though?

They will. There is a question in the queue (see page 1) about clarifying boosting.

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.368, Resolving Spirit Combat

I suggest removing the last paragraph from here and using it to replace the final sentence of the first paragraph in Reaching 0 Magic Points in the second column.

That's because this paragraph feels out of place here. "Defeating" the spirit is referred to but hasn't been defined up to this point, since this is before the section on Spirit Combat Damage has been reached (by someone reading through).

No need to have it here, and to me it makes a lot more sense in that Reaching 0 Magic Points section.

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.368, Strike Rank

The second paragraph seems out of place here, since it says nothing about strike ranks and is merely about damage. It would seem better in the Spirit Combat Damage section.

The third paragraph also looks out of place, since again it has nothing to do with SRs. Presumably it was meant to be in the Spirit Combat Skill section.

Edited March 15 by Steve

[Scotty]

On 3/13/2022 at 6:13 PM, Steve said:

Core Rulebook p.357, Discorporation

Edit again - I've now found the entry in the WoD on p.365 on this. The wording is not correct if the WoD gives the correct answer. That's not sensing "the POW to within 10 points". In that case the wording needs correcting, e.g. to "sense the POW as to whether or not it's within 5 points of their own".

The wording "the shaman can sense the POW of entities to within 10 points, 5 points above or below their own" is confusing for me. It's the "their own" that doesn't make sense to me.

I thought that it's saying they can sense POW +/- 5 pts. So the GM can pick a number that is within 5 of the actual figure and give the player that number. E.g. two entities have POW 10 and 14, and the GM tells the player they sense POW 8 and 16. The player knows those two values are each within 5 of the real values, so the two POW values are within the ranges 3 to 13, and 11 to 21. That doesn't have anything to do with the "their own" wording though.

Isn't it within 5 points of the entity's actual POW? "Their own" reads as a reference to the shaman's own POW, and I can't reconcile this with what they sense exactly. But maybe I'm missing something - otherwise how does it work, is it the same as Second Sight? It's not worded like Second Sight though, and Second Sight doesn't sense POW to within 10 points. I take it that this is more precise than the shaman's innate Second Sight ability, hence why this only kicks in while discorporate.

Similar wording is used in the Discorporation rune spell (CR p.326 and RBOM p.43) and on CR p.365.

Edit - I see that the Second Sight (Enhanced) shamanic ability on p.361 also has a specific reference to the shaman's own POW with similar wording about the range. I really don't get what this whole range thing is trying to say. I can think of various possibilities, but the current wording doesn't clearly tell me which is the correct interpretation.

The key word is within, within that range 

If a shaman has a POW of 18 they can sense POW within the range of 13-23:

• A spirit of POW 7 is below their range - What's the POW of the spirit? - it's below your range (or weaker).
• A spirit of POW 14 is within their range - What's the POW of the spirit? - it's within your range (or similar).
• A spirit of POW 25 is above their range - What's the POW of the spirit? - it's above your range. (or stronger)

 

[Steve]

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

The key word is within, within that range 

If a shaman has a POW of 18 they can sense POW within the range of 13-23:

• A spirit of POW 7 is below their range - What's the POW of the spirit? - it's below your range (or weaker).
• A spirit of POW 14 is within their range - What's the POW of the spirit? - it's within your range (or similar).
• A spirit of POW 25 is above their range - What's the POW of the spirit? - it's above your range. (or stronger)

 

Thanks for the clarification. However, sorry to be a pain but that's not what the rules wording actually says.

It doesn't say that they can sense whether the POW is above or below their range. It says they can sense it within that range (possibly sensing exact POW) and nothing about what happens if it's outside that range (I would have extrapolated that they sense "outside your range", not "above" or "below").

Taking the existing rules wording and your example, POW 7 and 25 both return nothing (or perhaps "outside your range").

What POW 14 returns with the RAW is debatable. Taking the "within 10 points", that sounds like a range of POW that is 10 points wide, containing the actual POW (e.g. 8 to 18). The "5 points above or below their own" bit is confusing because it's not clear if "their" refers to the target or shaman - and even if that was specified as the shaman, that doesn't really go together with the "within 10 points wording" since the latter reads as the spirit's POW and not the shaman's.

I suspect that it might be hard to understand where I'm coming from for anyone who knows the intention extremely well, as opposed to just trying to figure it out from the wording as I was doing.

IMHO it would be a lot clearer to say something like this: "The shaman can sense which of the following three categories the target's POW falls into: within 5 points above or below their own; more than 5 points above their own; more than 5 points below their own".

Sorry for going on about this, but I feel the current wording is very unclear.

Edited March 22 by Steve

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.70, Philosopher

First paragraph, third sentence, "Sorcery chapter", the title "Sorcery" should be in non-italics bold.

Added to Q&A

Occupational Skills, is it correct that they get two lots of (Sorcery spell) +10%? The listing looks odd because the first +10 is written before the +20 and the other +10. With the occupations with weapons they usually have the highest bonus weapon listed first. So this makes me question it.

 

Edited April 11 by Scotty
added part

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.81, Age, and Year Born

Week - Power runes are mentioned here, but the fact that weeks are named after Powers isn't described until later (pp.102 and 140). So IMHO it would be helpful to have a forward reference here to help newcomers who might well be baffled by a Power rune determining your week of birth.

Edited April 3 by Steve

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.85

Rune Spells - Fearless is listed here instead of Summon Air Elemental from Vasana's Saga on p.79.

Skills, Battle should be 70% and not 65%.

Skills, Farm is 30% here but 35% on p.80.

Skills, "Homeland (Sartar)" -> "Homeland Lore (Sartar)".

Some of her Weapon skills (dagger, javelin, large shield) aren't listed here, but I guess it's only listing what she's using and carrying.

 

Edited April 3 by Steve

[Scotty]

On 3/26/2022 at 3:54 PM, Steve said:

Core Rulebook p.23

In the intro text, last paragraph, it refers to the GM Screen Pack having a quick adventurer generation system. I don't think that's the case, is it? Perhaps the GM book?

Yes, but the final name has not been announced.

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.148, Damage Equals or Exceeds Double the Location’s Hit Points

Limb bullet, the rules here (contrary to the section title) read as if they are all about taking this damage in a single blow and not multiple blows, so it's not clear what happens in the latter case. I'm aware this is referred to in the Well.

Perhaps the "Further blows to that arm" sentence should be the first in this bullet to make it clear this doesn't only apply to single blows, and change it to e.g. "Once a limb has suffered this level of damage, further blows to that limb only affect total hit points, and not those of the limb itself". Then go on to the single blow stuff.

Separately, an adventurer so damaged is said to be "functionally incapacitated". But they're said to be able to heal themselves. Which seems like a contradiction to me. This isn't helped by the three times damage rules (where they are similarly functionally incapacitated) having a ruling in the Well that they can't try to heal themselves in that case (so using "functionally incapacitated" for two different states). Perhaps in the two times damage rules it should say something along the lines of "is incapacitated except for attempting to heal themselves"?

In the Harmast example, in addition to the Well correction, change "will lose 1 hit points each melee round" to "will lose 1 hit point each melee round".  But even better would be to change it further, so that he takes 9 damage before armour, 8 after armour, leaving him 2. Then the losing of 1 "per round" sounds less strange than if he only had 1 left anyway.

Edited April 8 by Steve

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.149, Natural Healing

As per the Well, this doesn't currently explain how non-location-specific damage (e.g. poison) heals naturally, and could do with a sentence on that.

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.151, Size Of Items

In the table, the ranges for SIZ 24 and 25 overlap (202-219 and 218-237).

For SIZ 21 to 25, this table and the Bestiary size table (p.9) diverge significantly.

Edited April 13 by Steve

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.153, Movement in a Chase

Fifth bullet, stating the range advancements purely on absolute type of success doesn't take into account the other side's roll. The rules for Opposed Rolls only have a winner and a loser, not a type of winner. Does a critical vs a special really produce the same plus three categories that a critical vs a failure would? That would seem odd.

There's a similar issue with fumbles, e.g. a fumble vs a success should surely produce a two category difference (it doesn't say to add).

The opposed roll rules seem to being extended into previously uncharted territory (in terms of rules as written) here.

Ideally the opposed roll rules would give an optional level of success to handle this Chase situation, rather than the simple winner/loser result as now.

Or define this more clearly here, e.g. normally the winner advances by one range category, but add/subtract to this based on the different types of success.

 

Edited April 9 by Steve

[Steve]

Core Rulebook p.179, Cult Lore

As per the Well clarifying that the 05 base chance only applies to an adventurer's own cult(s), the base chance should be listed as "(05/00)", as with Homeland Lore etc.

Also affects the base chance list on p.61.

 

[Scotty]

On 5/16/2022 at 3:24 PM, Steve said:

Bestiary p.169, Healing Spirits, the mechanics here don't seem to make sense any more given the WoD correction to remove the second roll in the rules for Disease spirts.

So mention of possession and POW don't make any sense, because disease spirit infection doesn't work like that.

Change

The healing spirit must engage the disease in spirit combat. The disease's spirit combat skill equals the victim’s characteristic POW×5%, and its magic points equal the victim's POW. If the healing spirit succeeds in reducing the disease spirit's magic points to 0, it will drive the sickness from the victim’s body.

Edited June 13 by Scotty
corrected.

[Scotty]

On 6/20/2022 at 6:05 PM, PhilHibbs said:

The Well:

I think this should say "Yes, unless the shaman is also a priest (e.g. Aldrya, Kyger Litor, Waha, Yelm, etc.) in which case they benefit from the +20% bonus to their POW gain roll."

This is one of those places where it's assumed that if you are playing a shaman-priest, you are aware of the +20% bonus on page 276. Otherwise we are repeating ourselves continually.

On 6/20/2022 at 6:05 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Just for clarity, should you apply this to the "default" 5% so it always stays at 25%, or does it still reduce down to 5% as you go above the normal species maximum?

As it's a bonus, it will always stays at +20% so yes 25% chance.