RQG Corrections Thread

[Calanais]

I have some questions about attacking and parrying.

The implication from the section about splitting attacks (p. 202) is that a melee weapon can normally only attack once per round (unless split with a skill of 100%+). If a shield is used to attack, it cannot also be used to parry that round (p. 219). The section on two-weapon use (pp.224-225) states "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." I cannot find anything that addresses the following.

(1) Can a character both attack and parry with the same one-handed weapon in a melee round?

(2) Can they attack and parry with a two-handed weapon in the same melee round?

(3)Is there a section that covers this? 

(4) If a character using two weapons parries once with each weapon in a melee round, does the second parry suffer a -20% penalty for subsequent parries/dodges?

(5) Do the two weapon rules apply similarly for weapon and shield use?

 

[oltamy]

A charioteer gets a whip, but there are no stats for one. 

Yelmalio geas says no use of flails - easy, as there are no stats for flails. 

[7Tigers]

From Sorcery thread:

Page 33: "determined By the Occupation table on page 63".

There is no ocuupation table on page 63.

Table has been moved page 28, where there is also a "Roll for your grandparent’s occupation on the Occupation table (page 63)," in first column.

The whole paragraph (p28) could be rewritten I guess...

 

[jenh]

The homeland maps (save for the Esrolian one) and the full map of Dragon Pass and Prax do not include the Building Wall. Some details are individual to specific homeland maps, so this is probably deliberate, though it seems a little odd to me.

[styopa]

Aging loss table p425 is mislabeled (Where it says "characteristics affected" is wrong, it's actually the number of rolls on the subsequent table.) and needlessly Byzantine, currently requiring a 2d6 roll and then a d10 roll for each of 0-4 results, each of which has a 20% chance to be "no result".  The entire thing boils down mathematically to a MUCH simpler result:

01-50	No loss
51-74	1 loss
75-90	2 losses
91-98	3 losses
99-00	4 losses

For each loss roll 1d4: 1=-1 STR, 2=-1 CON, 3=-1 SIZ, 4=-1 DEX. 

Yes, this is mathematically PRECISELY the same chance of each result happening.  And intuitively easier to explain.  (One could actually even drill further, building the d4 potentials into a single table, but that would have to be a d1000 or something odd, as the % chance of events gets distributed below the 1% resolution of a d100...)

(Apparently since you can't lose INT with age, dementia isn't a thing in Glorantha?)

[jenh]

Several times Read/Write is listed followed by "(language)", "(any language)", or "(own language)". However, Read/Write applies to scripts, not languages.

Also, both "(any)" and "(own)" are also used, without "language", though consistency here may not be desired.

[jenh]

Pages 283 and 296: "worshipper" -> "worshiper" (which is used many more times throughout). Similarly on page 291, "worshipping" -> "worshiping".

[Narsham]

Page 149 says this about First Aid rolls:

Quote

A successful First Aid roll heals 1D3 damage to an injured
location. A special or critical success heals 1D3+3 damage.
One can’t heal more points of damage than were taken.

On page 178, the First Aid description says this:

Quote

It takes five full melee rounds of First Aid to heal damage.
At the end of that time, if the First Aid was successful the user
has healed 1D3 hit points of damage to the patient. A special
success allows the user to heal 2D3 damage points. A critical
success allows the user to heal 1D3+3 damage points.

 

[Joerg]

5 hours ago, styopa said:

(Apparently since you can't lose INT with age, dementia isn't a thing in Glorantha?)

Perhaps it is seen as a disease rather than a consequence of aging. Old people are revered for their wisdom. But then, certain forms of madness are regarded as sacred, too.

[styopa]

34 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Perhaps it is seen as a disease rather than a consequence of aging. Old people are revered for their wisdom. But then, certain forms of madness are regarded as sacred, too.

I think it's simpler than that, I'd guess that applying a potential INT loss starting at age 40 would be too colossally damaging to "wise old ...." paradigm.  Everyone accepts without a second thought that a 60 year old should likely not be much of melee combatant any more, but the meme is that spellcasters, even shamans, get older and wiser.

Given Glorantha's deep-threaded magicalness, I'd consider favorably the desire of a player to have their character spend a rune point to offset an aging-related stat loss.  In that case, I'd take the table I'd illustrated above and slightly modify it:

5 hours ago, styopa said:

01-50	No loss
51-74	1 loss
75-90	2 losses
91-98	3 losses
99+	4 losses

...and modify it slightly that you roll d100+your age over 40.  So a 60 year old would be rolling d100+20.

[Furry Fella]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

Perhaps it is seen as a disease rather than a consequence of aging. Old people are revered for their wisdom. But then, certain forms of madness are regarded as sacred, too.

This Age bit has me bothered. There is a point generally missed about low life expectancy - that the great bulk of the dying is done by infants and the very young. The longer you last the longer you are likely to last. Additionally it is the disabled and infirm who die fastest so gradual deterioration is rarely present. If a character gets to 40 in decent condition the odds of any significant loss of condition before 60 (unless there is a major change in life style or other external intervention) are actually very very good.

Yes Glorantha is a magical world yet this very magicalness will / should make it much better (bless pregnancy, healing spell prevents wound infection, Alchemy herbalism and healing skills and magic have a real impact). How the cannon will portray the message and influence of healing teaching will significantly affect this. Yet looking through the RQ2 re-release material and the broadening of Health skills and focus to Ernalda etc beyond CA there are underlying key elements of the public and personnal health simple precaustion changes that had such radical effects in our own semi recent past or earlier in imperial / classical times.

Archaeology is and has considerably changed our views on life expectancy once clear of the "danger points". Most of these points will actually be less dangerous than our own recorded history. So I would have significant doubts on 40 even in our own past - for the part of society that PCs & most NPCs represent - by the time these "enter play" the great bulk of the winowing has occurred. The nature of their occupations would and do increase probability of non-natural death and deterioration but equally stave off or make much less likely age based decrepitude.

As Characters are the "Heroes" of the world and by definition are not in the occupations that will physically wear them into "early death" I shall certainly be pushing 40 to 50 and very probably 60. Runequest is full of those who are spritely and especially long lived and capable even among those who are not the apex heroes etc.

Diet and level of calorie intake will be well up - bless crops, bless animals etc add much. Rain and other climate weather spells (even if only local) can affect much - a drought problem - 1 or 2 rune points of Cloud Call and 1 or 2 of Rain - issue staved off - for likely several weeks. By the way a damned good way to put out major fires - look at the precipitation given under rain for given cloud cover.

[Furry Fella]

In looking at Rain I noticed the following

"This spell requires visible cloud cover to be effective;
clouds could be summoned using the Cloud Call Rune
spell (see page 323)."

BUT the table above for rain based on cloud cover says

Cloud Cover
% Cover Description Rainfall
0–10 None 0–10 mm
11–20 Scant clouds 11–20 mm
21–30 Scattered clouds 21–30 mm
31–40 Slightly overcast 31–40 mm
41–50 Moderately overcast 41–50 mm
51–65 Mostly overcast 51–65 mm
66–80 Completely overcast 66–80 mm
81–00 Dense clouds, little light 81–100 mm

Further I note that Cloud Call works in 20% increments.

AS the above precipitation is

"This spell causes rain to fall. If it is not currently raining, the
spell creates rainfall as per the range in the Cloud Cover table,
as appropriate for the current cloud cover, for the duration
of the spell."

10mm in 15 mins as this is a temporal Rune Spell is above torrential down pour levels!

I would urgently suggest this be an abnormal duration spell - suggest 2 hours as a minimum. International Meteorological

rating scales put  3 to 6mm of rain per hour as Moderate

25mm per hour is Torrential - so for 15 mins of spell duration this would be 6mm of rain

Edited June 4, 2018 by Furry Fella

[mr_batguano]

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any listing for the base percentage score for Sorcery spells. Several places it says that Sorcery spells have a percentage score, a bonus is listed for some spells based on Cult, and there are notes saying that spells are not based on Rune levels. But, what are they based on? Do they just start at 0%?

[mr_batguano]

Under the Magic Skill Modifiers on page 59, it says, "The following magic skills are used in sorcery (see page 381) and are not commonly known to all adventurers:  Combine/Separate, Dominate, Invoke, and Tap." (bold mine).

Page 381 has nothing on these. Page 383 says, "Six techniques are used in sorcery: Command, Combine, Separate, Summon, Dispel, and Tap. Similar to the sorcerous use of Runes, these techniques are not skills." (again, bold mine).

I assume Command was originally named Dominate, Summon was Invoke, and Dispel was only later added.

[hanataka]

14 minutes ago, mr_batguano said:

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any listing for the base percentage score for Sorcery spells. Several places it says that Sorcery spells have a percentage score, a bonus is listed for some spells based on Cult, and there are notes saying that spells are not based on Rune levels. But, what are they based on? Do they just start at 0%?

p.390 Learning New Spells、 third paragraph

the sorcerer has learned the spell and has a beginning percentage in the spell of 1D6 plus the Magic skills category bonus.

[metcalph]

39 minutes ago, mr_batguano said:

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see any listing for the base percentage score for Sorcery spells. Several places it says that Sorcery spells have a percentage score, a bonus is listed for some spells based on Cult, and there are notes saying that spells are not based on Rune levels. But, what are they based on? Do they just start at 0%?

p390.  New spells have a beginning percentage of 1D6 + magic skills category bonus.

[jongjom]

Page 83. 2-point spirit magic matrix for Glamour 2 (see page 265).

 This will be then the same as all other references to spirit magic matrix on page 265

However, all such references on Page 83 should read:

Page 83. 2-point spirit magic matrix (page 265) for Glamour 2 (see page 262).

Currently it flips between referencing the page for spirit magic matrix and the page for the particular spell mentioned. 

[Mugen]

9 hours ago, styopa said:

Aging loss table p425 is mislabeled (Where it says "characteristics affected" is wrong, it's actually the number of rolls on the subsequent table.) and needlessly Byzantine, currently requiring a 2d6 roll and then a d10 roll for each of 0-4 results, each of which has a 20% chance to be "no result".

It's the old RQ3 and Pendragon system, except, as far as I remember, there was no "no result" in Pendragon, and you had one in RQ3 because you could lose points from any characteristic, and it used a d8 to determine which.

[Y Mab Darogan]

Asked earlier but how will we know when the pdf is updated with corrections? Apparently Chaosium don’t do emails like Drivethrurpg.

I’d like to keep buying direct from the Chaosium store but it’s going to be frustrating if I keep having to ask have there been any updates.

[soltakss]

10 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

This Age bit has me bothered.

Most of thre players in my gaming groups over the years have said "We are heroes, we don't want to be ageing" and we have ignored the ageing rules since then. We'll ignore them in RQG as well.

[Mugen]

4 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Most of thre players in my gaming groups over the years have said "We are heroes, we don't want to be ageing" and we have ignored the ageing rules since then. We'll ignore them in RQG as well.

I do like the idea of old heroes coming back, even when they're just the shadow of what they used to be.

[Joerg]

19 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I do like the idea of old heroes coming back, even when they're just the shadow of what they used to be.

If you think of Cohen the Barbarian from Diskworld, he was able to use his full ability range, but on occasion he would have to roll against some ailment in order to be able to continue. No reason to treat ancient heroic Gloranthan humans who failed to achieve the avoidance of aging through heroquesting any differently.

Accomplished heroquesters usually avoid aging and have a backdoor from the Court of the Dead (or some other stage down there in Hell) - Hofstaring definitely had both, and I suspect so does Gringle, though possibly at more advanced phsysical age. Hofstarings problem was that he had been sent to a different Hell in his body, a Lunar hell which was neither available for Chalana Arroy Resurrection paths even if there had been enough of him left for a Heal Body/Regenerate combo to provide something his soul could have been returned to.

[Y Mab Darogan]

5 hours ago, HorusArisen said:

Asked earlier but how will we know when the pdf is updated with corrections? Apparently Chaosium don’t do emails like Drivethrurpg.

I’d like to keep buying direct from the Chaosium store but it’s going to be frustrating if I keep having to ask have there been any updates.

Sorry to keep bouncing my own post but it’s something that’ll determine where I get my stuff going forward.

@Jeff can you help?

[PhilHibbs]

4 minutes ago, HorusArisen said:

Sorry to keep bouncing my own post but it’s something that’ll determine where I get my stuff going forward.

@Jeff can you help?

The thread is for posting errata. Please bounce it elsewhere.

[Flesh Man]

pg 207

. . STR/DEX: The minimum necessary STR and
DEX required to handle the weapon. An excess
of STR makes up for a lack of DEX, on a 2 for 1
basis. Thus, an adventurer with a 10 STR and a
12 DEX can use a rapier (which requires a 7 STR
and a 13 DEX). If both STR and DEX are below
the requirements, all attacks and parries with the
weapon are performed at half skill.

Should this be

If STR or DEX are below the requirements, all attacks and parries with the weapon are performed at half skill.  Otherwise in the Rapier example if you have a STR of 7 or more your DEX is  irrelevant. It seems to be the RQ2 rule with the half skill bit added. In RQ3 you had -5% for each point DEX and STR were below the minimums.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by waltshumate