MRQII Errata
- Thread starter almightygm
- Start date
Mikko Leho
Mongoose
gran_orco said:
I think so, defensive combat maneuvers list Take Weapon (unarmed only).
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Yes you can. You will still take damage attempting to parry weapons bigger than your natural weapons, but on the other hand it is worthwhile to avoid suffering a CM for not defending yourself.gran_orco said:
FNW is used by non sapient creatures as an indication that they attempt to parry. Creatures with fixed INT generally don't.
almightygm
Mongoose
Copied over from another thread. Trying to keep all the errata together. Looks like the official doc will be out soon
Loz said:Pete and I were wondering when someone would spot this.
Its a mistake, pure and simple. However its not a mistake in the way you're framing it Gran, but a mistake with how Strike Rank should be calculated.
In playtest SR was calculated as described in the Adventurer chapter, based on SIZ, DEX and INT. However there are problems with doing it this way; for instance, how could SIZ realistically influence SR for missile weapons? We tested SR both with and without SIZ and the concensus from playtesters was that it should be based on just INT and DEX for all characters and creatures - which is exactly how it is presented in the Creatures chapter and which you've noted.
The Adventurer chapter is wrong. I did correct this before the book went to press but somehow it slipped through the net. Its one of the first entries in the Conversion and Errata document which I've just submitted for production.
I think though, that the point you raise about large creatures having some form of SIZ advantage is valid to an extentt; but you do need to remember a couple of things. SR is essentially about speed of reaction. SIZ is also not a guarantee of speed (and often the opposite is true). Reach and weapon size is taken into account with the Reach and Size entries for creatures' natural weapons. Thus, leaving SIZ out of the equation for all is the best way to handle things.
Unfortunately, the change into the Adventurer chapter went awry somehow - although the correct SRs are in the Creatures chapter.
We do apologise wholeheartedly for this error. It should have been spotted but somehow slipped through the net despite a large number of eyes going through the proofed layout document.
Christopher Graves
Mongoose
When is the pdf of the full rules going on sale??
What form is the Errata going to be in?
Is it going to be entire tables and paragraphs or just out of context comments such as "replace the third occurence of the word "knife" with "sword" in the fourth paragraph on page 97".
I've seen a lot of this minimalist errata becoming popular recently and I for one find it a real headache to use. The only option you get with it is to attack your nice new rulebook with correction fluid and pen. At least with entire paragraphs you can read the entire section without having to keep flipping back and forth betwen the rulebook and a printout.
Is it going to be entire tables and paragraphs or just out of context comments such as "replace the third occurence of the word "knife" with "sword" in the fourth paragraph on page 97".
I've seen a lot of this minimalist errata becoming popular recently and I for one find it a real headache to use. The only option you get with it is to attack your nice new rulebook with correction fluid and pen. At least with entire paragraphs you can read the entire section without having to keep flipping back and forth betwen the rulebook and a printout.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Opps. That's no wolf... Its Fenris! Loki must have slipped a few zeros in.Jarec said:I'm presuming that the damage for the wolf is a type? Only I don't have either a D80 or a D30
Hi,
There are three footnotes at the bottom of the Close Combat Weapons table on pages 70 and 72. However, the footnotes are not referenced in the tables. For instance I would strongly suspect that the Longspear entry should be reference by '1 This weapon may be set against a charge'.
Still, I am impressed by the new rules and their presentation.
Jason
There are three footnotes at the bottom of the Close Combat Weapons table on pages 70 and 72. However, the footnotes are not referenced in the tables. For instance I would strongly suspect that the Longspear entry should be reference by '1 This weapon may be set against a charge'.
Still, I am impressed by the new rules and their presentation.
Jason
Loz
Mongoose
Jarec said:
Its a mixture.
It has to be for size reasons; for one thing, a lot of the errata items are quite minor things and so it just doesn't make sense to reproduce an entire paragraph for the sake of one word. For another thing, the errata is combined with the conversion notes for taking RQI characters to RQII, and we clearly didn't want to produce a massive document which might intimidate or give out the wrong impression.
HalfOrc HalfBiscuit
Mongoose
Page 139, Heading "Spirit Binding", first paragraph, last two sentences:
"The POW of the largest spirit which can be bound or controlled cannot exceed three times the critical range of this skill. Thus a character with a Spirit Binding skill of 45% could control spirits of up to 15 POW."
Presumably that was intended to be either a skill of 55% or 12 POW.
Or am I missing something? (This is quite probable - and it could well be something very obvious as I must confess that so far I've only dipped in and out of the rules, not read them right through.)
"The POW of the largest spirit which can be bound or controlled cannot exceed three times the critical range of this skill. Thus a character with a Spirit Binding skill of 45% could control spirits of up to 15 POW."
Presumably that was intended to be either a skill of 55% or 12 POW.
Or am I missing something? (This is quite probable - and it could well be something very obvious as I must confess that so far I've only dipped in and out of the rules, not read them right through.)
HalfOrc HalfBiscuit
Mongoose
Deleriad said:
Ah cheers - I hadn't actually spotted that. Or at least, I think I might have read it, but hadn't internally digested ...
Deleriad
Mongoose
The errata document is up. Funnily enough there is a really picky point about SRs and rounding up. Previously RQI rounded down so someone with INT 10 and DEX 13 had a SR of 11. Now it rounds up so they'll have a SR12 so it's not *absolutely* true to say that the SR will remain the same in RQI and RQII...
Similar threads
