Was this REALLY Beta Tested ?

[Uldar]

Hello.

I've been the GM for a MRQII campaign for the past year and a half. A very good campaign too. Laughter, tears, a prophecy predicting the end of the world and all that... I enjoy it so very much, and I feel my players do too. And yet, for all this time, I've been holding in rant of epic proportions. Yes, this is pretty stupid to post this on the official forums, and even more as a first post, but everything I'll say will be done in a constructive manner, and will be the result of having, again and again, to pop rules out of thin air because using those in the corebook was downright impossible.

What scares me is the amount of things, rules, details, I had to change. Not to provide a "better" gaming experience to everyone, but simply to be able to look my players in the eye and claim : Yes. Those are the rules. Abide by them.

I'll start with, honestly, the most forgivable.

Extension books.

My teeth DID cringe when I read that, for details and general information on the world, the corebook advised me to buy a supplement. Harsh, money-grabbing, but justified in some way. Then came Arms and Equipment, which rewrote the rules of weapons first introduced in the corebook. Which got errata'd a bit later. But I'll get to the equipment part later, in the very very less forgivable section. Then, came Necromantic arts. By order of arrival to my knowledge, not by actual publication dates. Which was very good. But yet again my teeth were to cringe. At the Sorcey part of Necromancy.

Which reintroduced Magnitude as a primary mean for direct offensive spells to do damage. I long pondered what to do with it. By then, Sorcery had always been about sustained damage or debilitating effects, which power would be decided by your ability the the proper Sorcery (Spellbook) skill. Magnitude only being used for... Wait, never being used ! It asked for the target of the spell to be protected by a spell of its own. Needless to say, it didn't happen often. Why ? Because Sorcery is all about "Use one more magic point, hit 6 enemies" and when my players faced a magus which resisted the spell by virtue of his own magical defenses, they bashed his skull in ! ( Tssss, Players...) So, with Necromancy, it got skyrocketted from "marginally useful" to "do 8d6 damage to the poor guy's head"

Still somewhat justified, but a hassle to balance in play.

Moving on. I've told you about the corebook, right ? Well, its "Bestiary" entry is less than impressive. And beasts are absolutely underpowered. A bear ? "It attacks ! I block with a dirk ! What ? It's a BEAR'S PAW ! It has a ... Medium Size ? You... Block all 1d8+1d12 damage ?!" Here comes houseruling ! Speaking of bestiary... Has anyone actually read the one from the "arena" ? It is mostly comprised of half human half beast beings... The most random sort ! Half ducks, half anteaters, half ants ! half spiders ! half octopus ! Half monkeys ! Half birds !

Still very arguably justified in that some of them are ruled out as being chaos beings.

Others are downright ridiculous, but hey, there is a time and place to pull a giant pumpkin-headed bear of chaos and I can appreciate that.

But again, I find myself going through the pages of the bestiary "And you meet...(nah, too ridiculous)... And you meet a...(nah, no reason for it to be here)... a... (nah, too strong, they have no chance...) a... Human with an elf and a friggin dwarf." Same thing with the playable races. Which have no balance whatsover and damn blatant about it. One of the vampires' weaknesses ? Should they suffer a serious wound, they turn into mist, bailing them out of the fight till they're all better again.

Now, that's ONE HELL of a weakness !

But while on the subject of balance, please, please, let me give you the "weapons" section !

So, you got your run-of-the-mill dagger. 1d4+1 damage. As good as a shortword. And you got the "poniard" with a dex requisite, more twice the price and all... And no special rules, 1d4 damage. Yep. Simply worse. And the dirk ! Don't forget the dirk ! More expensive than the dagger, less than the poniard, no dex requisite, and it is the BEST dagger in the corebook. Blocks like a medium sized weapon, dirt cheap, better damage output than the dagger with its 1d3+2, the only downside being that it is not designed to be thrown. The other dagger which blocks like a medium weapon, the main-gauche ? Dex requisite, 3 to 4 times the price, 1d4 damage. No other rules. No reason to use it. Wait ! The "arms and equipment" gives us the rondel, which is specifically said to be a beginner weapon. No requisite, of course, cheaper than the dirk, 1d4+2 damage. Better on all accounts than a shortsword.

Here comes Houseruling !

Combat manoeuvers ! How I LOVE THEM ! BEST. GAMEPLAY. MECHANIC. EVER. (bar heroism points) So why do they only use a handful ? Because they only remember a handful, but when i take the time, telling them all their options... Wait, they only have a handful of useful options ! Take defensive manoeuvers, when do you have them, most of the time ? When you successfully parried a blow and your opponent missed his attack roll. So, relocate the damage done, allow your weapon to block more damage or negate knockback is useless most of the time. On top of that, the fight can be pretty dull "I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium. Okay, so you block all damage. Haha, my turn now, I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium." and you get a turn only so often... It becomes a war of attrition, and you don't do much for most of the fight. And when you do, manoeuvers are only the icing on the cake, not really a more clever way to fight.

Heroic acts ? Half of them have a veeeeeeery narrow window of usefulness, others simply seem... Overrated. It is explicitely stated that they are not easy to obtain, and while they "can" be a powerful asset in the players hand, they just don't feel heroic. "I use Razor Edge, maximizing damage ! I block with an average shield, blocking all damage, nevermind how high they are." Others, however are downright epic, but the gap between them is way too high, even while keeping in mind the difference in heroic points needed to learn them. There is just too much of a gap between being able to walk towards a group of archers, deflecting their arrows with your sword, and being able to make someone mentally share your wounds. For the exact same cost, of course.

The same goes for runes. Law ? You always seem right no matter what you say. Disorder ? You'll never be well dressed again. Even worse, that's all they do ! Give a slight boost, a "nice" little visual effect and, done, you got attuned to a rune, one of the major strengths behind the universe and probably what created gods. Awesome heh ?

Guess what ? Houseruling.

Spirit magic ? A big tool kit for houseruling.

And it's just the way it goes. You go look for a specific bit of information, like, for exemple, how much will it take for a group of 7 adventurers (3PCs and their hirelings) to get to a week away location by cart ? Okay, so let's pull out the chart ! They walk 30kms per day. So it's 210kms away or something. So it will cost them... 5pa/km*7(number of travelers)*210(distance)=7350pa. A FULL SUIT OF PLATE ARMOR save the helmet would cost less. And they'll be there in two weeks. But, hey, they won't be tired.

So, I pop numbers out of my sorry ass. And, one week later, what do i find ? That according to another table, normal traveling conditions have the adventurers paying 45pc a day ! Much, much, much better. So... What the hell was the other table ? Ooooooh, it was for longer travels ! Wait ! It doesn't make sense ! It's even more ridiculously expensive the longer the travel is !

Actually, maybe I lied.

I told you we were having a MRQ2 campaign.

But seeing how I had to change (fix, in my opinion, but hey, objectivity rules) so many many things, are we really still playing that game ?

I mean, of course, some things are going to be, or seem, illogical, or wrong, and will give much debate.

But THAT much ? Mainly in the COREBOOK ?

REALLY ?

 

[mwsasser]

Could I see those house rules?

 

[Philotomy]

Yeah, me too. :lol:

 

[Mikko Leho]

My feelings are mutual: we tried to like MRQ2 for the duration of a four month campaign but found the system lacking. Instead of houseruling we moved on to other ventures.

 

[taxboy]

If you hate it that much...why play it at all...

I think you need to think about the tone of your post, it is quite rude and what were you trying to achieve.

If you wanted to provide feedback, and actually try to improve the game, please think of a more structured mature way to do it.

A rant like this may make you feel better but alienates the authors...

 

[Deleriad]

Well I can say that yes it was beta tested. I was involved in the very last playtest cycle and there were definite changes to the final text from the playtest docs. That said, I agree with some, but not all of your issues. I think they break down into several types.

Editorial failures. A&E and Necromantic Arts in particular were serial fubars. Mongoose initially dealt with this by making the authors - Loz and Pete - line editors. It's noticeable that after NA, there were no significant issues once the line had dedicated editors. Unfortunately, Legend no longer seems to have anyone in charge.

A lot of the issue in the corebook seems to come from page count restrictions. The bestiary is risible but Mongoose has said elsewhere that any more pages and the book would cost more. Personally I think the bestiary should have been done properly or not at all. It is after all not uncommon for a bestiary to be separate from a core book. That said, I like a lot of the selections in Monster Coliseum; I think the issues you have with that are a matter of personal taste.

I reckon you have a point with the economics & costs tables: they're all over the place. That said, a generic costs system that works for all fantasy settings is simply not going to work. Personally I would have liked to have seen some of the extensive tables (2 pages of clothes) removed for something more gameable - like bestiary entries.

Finally, I do also think that the major innovations, combat styles, combat manoeuvres and spirit magic were a mix of under-explained and under-cooked. I definitely agree that defensive CMs were generally too weak or too narrow and that 95% of the time you were better off not parrying a failed attack in order to preserve a CA. Spirit magic is really nice but you have to spend a long time trying to parse how it might work in practice.

What I don't agree with are your comments around what seem like balance and realism. Weapons aren't meant to be "balanced" against each other. Some are better, mechanically, than others. Same with armour, combat styles and so on. This is, unfortunately, not explained in the rulebook. I don't know where you get the dagger and shortsword equivalence from but I suspect that although some of the entries could be tweaked a bit that you'll find that that is a matter of interpretation and personal taste.

Heroic abilities as presented: mostly weak sauce and I don't like mechanic of buying them with hero points.

I've been running RQII since it was published and do it probably 95% RAW with no problems.* Generally I find that most house rules that I see are either only going to work for a particular group (long established groups tend to love more detailed rules) or they cause as many other problems as the ones they fix.

*My house rules: I gave up on movement/charging and just hand-wave it. Legend didn't help. You can parry a charge. Hero Points refresh at the start of every session (like Savage Worlds bennies) rather than accumulate. Heroic Abilities are bought with Improvement Rolls rather than HPs. Everything else is basically as written because I find it works well enough.

 

[Dan True]

Hi Uldar

First of all, welcome to the forums. Second of all, I'm glad you've houseruled the system such that it better fits your style of play - because that is what they're there for. If you're looking for a complete set of rules, which requires no house-ruling, which have been proof-read hundreds of time before printing and game tested for months on end by several full-time groups, then you're simply looking for a different system from a different company. Mongoose simply doesn't have the resources to introduce that kind of "completeness" to the rules - the one where gm's / players believe that the rules cover every single instance (which, by the way, I have never seen work anyway). I believe that the introduction to the book covered this perfectly and stated that Your Runequest May Wary. Obviously you had some different expectations and I am sorry that you feel that way.

Extension books.

RuneQuest/Legend uses/used Glorantha, Deus Vult, Wraith Recon, Elric plus a number of historical supplements. It would be impossible to write a rulebook detailing one of those worlds without alienating some of the others. In fact Legend does so much better than MRQ2 ever did and partly because they decided to remove every little scrap of setting information (at least I believe it to be part of the reason).
Also, if Mongoose couldn't sell extension books, what would they earn their living from? But I assume this is what you meant by "somewhat justified"?

Which reintroduced Magnitude as a primary mean for direct offensive spells to do damage. I long pondered what to do with it. By then, Sorcery had always been about sustained damage or debilitating effects, which power would be decided by your ability the the proper Sorcery (Spellbook) skill. Magnitude only being used for... Wait, never being used ! It asked for the target of the spell to be protected by a spell of its own. Needless to say, it didn't happen often. Why ? Because Sorcery is all about "Use one more magic point, hit 6 enemies" and when my players faced a magus which resisted the spell by virtue of his own magical defenses, they bashed his skull in ! ( Tssss, Players...) So, with Necromancy, it got skyrocketted from "marginally useful" to "do 8d6 damage to the poor guy's head"

If using common magic, people will rather often be protected by a countermagic shield or somthing similar - perhaps a magical pendant. But even without that I would still say Sorcery is pretty useful.. You can so some crazy stuff with that magic system if you wish.
But I do agree that it seems a bit weird that they out of the blue introduce a new mechanic and use for magnitude. Necromantics arts were also a pretty error-prone supplement and I sincerely hope they do a better job in Legend's version of it. Cool book though, even with that.

Moving on. I've told you about the corebook, right ? Well, its "Bestiary" entry is less than impressive. And beasts are absolutely underpowered. A bear ? "It attacks ! I block with a dirk ! What ? It's a BEAR'S PAW ! It has a ... Medium Size ? You... Block all 1d8+1d12 damage ?!" Here comes houseruling ! Speaking of bestiary... Has anyone actually read the one from the "arena" ? It is mostly comprised of half human half beast beings... The most random sort ! Half ducks, half anteaters, half ants ! half spiders ! half octopus ! Half monkeys ! Half birds !

Well, it may be a typo with the bears paw, I cannot say. It can also be that the author simply though that natural-weapons would naturally have a lesser siz than an equivalent mass of metal - because they are squishy. A bears was might be Large in terms of siz if it that been a weapon, but medium because the bear is reluctant to hit a pointy and sharp knife face on (or because 'parrying' with a dirk against a bears paw actually means cutting the paw a bit which makes the bear lurch back). But again, it might just be a typo.

Others are downright ridiculous, but hey, there is a time and place to pull a giant pumpkin-headed bear of chaos and I can appreciate that.

But again, I find myself going through the pages of the bestiary "And you meet...(nah, too ridiculous)... And you meet a...(nah, no reason for it to be here)... a... (nah, too strong, they have no chance...) a... Human with an elf and a friggin dwarf." Same thing with the playable races. Which have no balance whatsover and damn blatant about it. One of the vampires' weaknesses ? Should they suffer a serious wound, they turn into mist, bailing them out of the fight till they're all better again.

The ridiculous animals are mostly Gloranthan ... and yes, they are ridiculous, the world is famous for being weird... I do believe most of the weird stuff has been removed from the Monsters of Legend book.
It is never assumed there should be balance between the humanoid/playable races. You're the gm so if you want the players to be internally balanced, then limit them to the races you believe are balanced or houserule the others... but usually balance is not an issue in MRQ/Legend games, as it is assumed the GM will handle stuff like that ... simply because it is next to impossible to balance races in all possible circumstances anyway. D&D tried and see how grossly they failed.

Now, that's ONE HELL of a weakness !

I have never seen a fantasy system (not counting world of darkness as fantasy) where vampires didn't turn into mist when they were gravely wounded / at will? The weakness is that you need to follow the mist back to its coffin and destroy it there when it reforms.

So, you got your run-of-the-mill dagger. 1d4+1 damage. As good as a shortword. And you got the "poniard" with a dex requisite, more twice the price and all... And no special rules, 1d4 damage. Yep. Simply worse. And the dirk ! Don't forget the dirk ! More expensive than the dagger, less than the poniard, no dex requisite, and it is the BEST dagger in the corebook. Blocks like a medium sized weapon, dirt cheap, better damage output than the dagger with its 1d3+2, the only downside being that it is not designed to be thrown. The other dagger which blocks like a medium weapon, the main-gauche ? Dex requisite, 3 to 4 times the price, 1d4 damage. No other rules. No reason to use it. Wait ! The "arms and equipment" gives us the rondel, which is specifically said to be a beginner weapon. No requisite, of course, cheaper than the dirk, 1d4+2 damage. Better on all accounts than a shortsword.

I completely agree here. There are some major issues with how equipment works. If I had the time I would rewrite every single weapon, add damage types (piercing, slashing etc) and special rules such that each weapon felt different and varied and throw the rules up somewhere for free... but time, time, time...

Combat manoeuvers ! How I LOVE THEM ! BEST. GAMEPLAY. MECHANIC. EVER. (bar heroism points) So why do they only use a handful ? Because they only remember a handful, but when i take the time, telling them all their options... Wait, they only have a handful of useful options ! Take defensive manoeuvers, when do you have them, most of the time ? When you successfully parried a blow and your opponent missed his attack roll. So, relocate the damage done, allow your weapon to block more damage or negate knockback is useless most of the time.

Or when your opponent succeeds on attack and you crit your parry roll. I think it's pretty useful that I can then enhance the size of my parrying weapon, relocate damage etc. that they are very specific and seldom used doesn't make them useless.
There are only a handful of CMs because too many would become too difficult for players to learn and the authors enjoyed simplicity - most of my players spend a lot of time learning the CMs even with the few there are. In addition, when writing the book the authors were hard pressed for pages. It was something like: "keep the book under 200 pages, or we won't publish at all". Again, small company, obscure system, few resources..

On top of that, the fight can be pretty dull "I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium. Okay, so you block all damage. Haha, my turn now, I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium." and you get a turn only so often... It becomes a war of attrition, and you don't do much for most of the fight. And when you do, manoeuvers are only the icing on the cake, not really a more clever way to fight.

I honestly don't feel this way. It is pretty often than one fails an attack or parry roll in my experience. In addition, if you can't penetrate his parry then perhaps the player should try a different tactic. My Deus Vult group was fighting a former knight who had been possed by a death spirit and was now pretty pissed and pretty skilled, with a combat style well over what they had. So what did they do: use the surroundings for advantages, try to keep him on the narrow stair, shoot at him while another holds him off, gang up on him, trip him, block the door so he is locked in the burning building etc.
But yeah, if they had simply faced him off with a "I attack, I parry, I attack"-tactics, then it could have been a very booring combat. The idea here is that your NPCs should of course to the same... Almost no real combats would ever boil down to two warriors simply bashing at each other for long - they would eventually kick over a chair to trip him, kick sand in the eyes of the other or something similar.

Heroic acts ? Half of them have a veeeeeeery narrow window of usefulness, others simply seem... Overrated. It is explicitely stated that they are not easy to obtain, and while they "can" be a powerful asset in the players hand, they just don't feel heroic. "I use Razor Edge, maximizing damage ! I block with an average shield, blocking all damage, nevermind how high they are." Others, however are downright epic, but the gap between them is way too high, even while keeping in mind the difference in heroic points needed to learn them. There is just too much of a gap between being able to walk towards a group of archers, deflecting their arrows with your sword, and being able to make someone mentally share your wounds. For the exact same cost, of course.

Well, again - why assume they should be balanced? And where have you ever encountered balance between feats / spells? I have never seen a selection of special rules or something similar, and not with a little though been able to find goods or bads. But in MRQ2/Legend they have not even tried to do the impossible, which I have no problem with...
Besides, if playing a temple priest/priestess in the temple of the Earth Mother or something similar - then deflecting arrows with your sword seem pretty irrelevant, but making someone share your wounds does not.. It could be use for making religious stigmata for instance - which might be percieved as a miracle.

The same goes for runes. Law ? You always seem right no matter what you say. Disorder ? You'll never be well dressed again. Even worse, that's all they do ! Give a slight boost, a "nice" little visual effect and, done, you got attuned to a rune, one of the major strengths behind the universe and probably what created gods. Awesome heh ?

Runes are Glorantha-stuff so I don't know much about them and they have been removed from Legend I believe. But, you also forget the social effects of being runetouched... some people might find you touched by the gods / demons, some might find you holy, special etc.. it might get you invited into that fancy dress party you needed to infiltrate.
And some of the runes are pretty awesome in my eyes, even without complex social effects.

Spirit magic ? A big tool kit for houseruling.

Yup, Spirit magic is pretty bonged.

And it's just the way it goes. You go look for a specific bit of information, like, for exemple, how much will it take for a group of 7 adventurers (3PCs and their hirelings) to get to a week away location by cart ? Okay, so let's pull out the chart ! They walk 30kms per day. So it's 210kms away or something. So it will cost them... 5pa/km*7(number of travelers)*210(distance)=7350pa. A FULL SUIT OF PLATE ARMOR save the helmet would cost less. And they'll be there in two weeks. But, hey, they won't be tired.

So, I pop numbers out of my sorry ass. And, one week later, what do i find ? That according to another table, normal traveling conditions have the adventurers paying 45pc a day ! Much, much, much better. So... What the hell was the other table ? Ooooooh, it was for longer travels ! Wait ! It doesn't make sense ! It's even more ridiculously expensive the longer the travel is !

The price of 5 SP per kilometre is not if you're hitching a ride on a caravan or on a farmers cart. It is for a wagon for specific purposes when you rent it - for instance if you buy 200 swords from a blacksmith and need it transported across town - or to the next town over for that matter. But this is for renting a wagon, horses to draw it, feed for them and probably even a driver - not a travel expense per person.. (and it would be rather stupid to rent a wagon for a longer journey, rather than buying one).
At least, this is my understanding but I agree that the text could be clearer... but again, I have never experienced not needing to pull numbers out my ass.

I agree that there are issues with the rules, that they could have been better play tested, written or extended with more details or examples. But, the issues I have with MRQ2/Legend are water compared to what I have found in D&D 3.x and Dark Heresy.. and more important for me - fixing MRQ2/Legend is usually much, much, much easier as everything is skill based and things are rather down to earth. For instance there are no penalties to Stealth for carrying much or wearing armour... but then again, how hard is it to realise that the dude with 3 pans clanking against his chainmail will recieve some major penalty to a Stealth check and then assigning him a -30%? I would rather handle this the few times it comes up, instead of having a larger and more cumbersome rulebook trying to detail every single little thing and failing at it anyway.

I am sorry that you feel the rules unplayable without major overhauls, but I must say that I disagree. However, your RQ will wary - and that's cool with me. It could be cool however if you posted your houserules - always cool to see another take on things.

- Dan

 

[Prime_Evil]

Editorial failures. A&E and Necromantic Arts in particular were serial fubars. Mongoose initially dealt with this by making the authors - Loz and Pete - line editors. It's noticeable that after NA, there were no significant issues once the line had dedicated editors. Unfortunately, Legend no longer seems to have anyone in charge.

I get the feeling that Mongoose was kind of planning to let the Legend product line become a second-tier game after they lost the RQ licence, but the unexpected success of the relaunch may be encouraging them to rethink that decision. I suppose the situation will become clearer in the second half of the year when their future product plans become clearer. We know that we'll be getting quite a few reprints at first, but later the new game may get a clearer editorial direction.

Finally, I do also think that the major innovations, combat styles, combat manoeuvres and spirit magic were a mix of under-explained and under-cooked. I definitely agree that defensive CMs were generally too weak or too narrow and that 95% of the time you were better off not parrying a failed attack in order to preserve a CA. Spirit magic is really nice but you have to spend a long time trying to parse how it might work in practice.

All of these are areas for potential future expansion. :lol:

Incidentally, anybody who is looking for some interesting house rules should take a look at this website:

ReQuest - RuneQuest II House Rules

 

[MongooseMatt]

What I don't agree with are your comments around what seem like balance and realism. Weapons aren't meant to be "balanced" against each other. Some are better, mechanically, than others.

Bingo.

Lawrence and I had a long conversation about this during the writing of RQ2. We explored various ways of reflecting the differences in weapons by their advantages/disadvantages in combat rather than damage/weight/cost factors. From this sprang the 'make spears born again hard and a front line choice for players' directive, as we felt they had always been sidelined in other games where, historically speaking, they were more popular than swords.

We did briefly consider getting rid of damage altogether. After all, you get stabbed in the arm with a dagger, and then by a longsword. Is there _really_ any appreciable difference? However, we figured that would be a stretch too far for those used to more traditional games and we wanted to keep the traditional feel to RQ2.

 

[mwsasser]

We did briefly consider getting rid of damage altogether. After all, you get stabbed in the arm with a dagger, and then by a longsword. Is there _really_ any appreciable difference? However, we figured that would be a stretch too far for those used to more traditional games and we wanted to keep the traditional feel to RQ2.

What would you have done, damage levels instead of points?

 

[soltakss]

I've been the GM for a MRQII campaign for the past year and a half. A very good campaign too. Laughter, tears, a prophecy predicting the end of the world and all that... I enjoy it so very much, and I feel my players do too. And yet, for all this time, I've been holding in rant of epic proportions. Yes, this is pretty stupid to post this on the official forums, and even more as a first post, but everything I'll say will be done in a constructive manner, and will be the result of having, again and again, to pop rules out of thin air because using those in the corebook was downright impossible.

What scares me is the amount of things, rules, details, I had to change. Not to provide a "better" gaming experience to everyone, but simply to be able to look my players in the eye and claim : Yes. Those are the rules. Abide by them.

Most people houserule to a certain extent. However, I agree that a system should be able to work from one rulebook and be consistent, which, by and large, Mongoose RQII does.

I'll start with, honestly, the most forgivable.

Extension books.

My teeth DID cringe when I read that, for details and general information on the world, the corebook advised me to buy a supplement. Harsh, money-grabbing, but justified in some way. Then came Arms and Equipment, which rewrote the rules of weapons first introduced in the corebook. Which got errata'd a bit later. But I'll get to the equipment part later, in the very very less forgivable section. Then, came Necromantic arts. By order of arrival to my knowledge, not by actual publication dates. Which was very good. But yet again my teeth were to cringe. At the Sorcey part of Necromancy.

As has been pointed out, the basic rulebook is generic and not tied to a particular world. Therefore, all references to particular worlds should come from supplements tied to that world. I don't really want to see Gloranthan references in rules when I want to use it to play in the world of Elric or Hawkmoon and vice versa.

Now, rules on how things work in a world should be included in the main book, where appropriate. So, travelling by ship should be the same no matter where you are, all that is world-specific are the types of ships and their stats, so I would include that in the rulebook.

Which reintroduced Magnitude as a primary mean for direct offensive spells to do damage. I long pondered what to do with it. By then, Sorcery had always been about sustained damage or debilitating effects, which power would be decided by your ability the the proper Sorcery (Spellbook) skill. Magnitude only being used for... Wait, never being used ! It asked for the target of the spell to be protected by a spell of its own. Needless to say, it didn't happen often. Why ? Because Sorcery is all about "Use one more magic point, hit 6 enemies" and when my players faced a magus which resisted the spell by virtue of his own magical defenses, they bashed his skull in ! ( Tssss, Players...) So, with Necromancy, it got skyrocketted from "marginally useful" to "do 8d6 damage to the poor guy's head"

Still somewhat justified, but a hassle to balance in play.

It seemed to me that Necromantic Arts came from a "What would be cool spells/abilities for a Necromancer to use?" rather than a "How do we use Necromancy in RuneQuest?", which is a shame. Mongoose had a habit of not giving authors the latest versions of the rules, especially when two supplements were being written together. This might have been a cause for some of the issues with Necromantic Arts. What I tend to do is to use the principles and some of the spells, but to be careful with others.

Moving on. I've told you about the corebook, right ? Well, its "Bestiary" entry is less than impressive. And beasts are absolutely underpowered. A bear ? "It attacks ! I block with a dirk ! What ? It's a BEAR'S PAW ! It has a ... Medium Size ? You... Block all 1d8+1d12 damage ?!" Here comes houseruling ! Speaking of bestiary... Has anyone actually read the one from the "arena" ? It is mostly comprised of half human half beast beings... The most random sort ! Half ducks, half anteaters, half ants ! half spiders ! half octopus ! Half monkeys ! Half birds !

Still very arguably justified in that some of them are ruled out as being chaos beings.

Others are downright ridiculous, but hey, there is a time and place to pull a giant pumpkin-headed bear of chaos and I can appreciate that.

But again, I find myself going through the pages of the bestiary "And you meet...(nah, too ridiculous)... And you meet a...(nah, no reason for it to be here)... a... (nah, too strong, they have no chance...) a... Human with an elf and a friggin dwarf." Same thing with the playable races. Which have no balance whatsover and damn blatant about it. One of the vampires' weaknesses ? Should they suffer a serious wound, they turn into mist, bailing them out of the fight till they're all better again.

Now, that's ONE HELL of a weakness !

That's the weakness of Bestiaries, they are too generic in nature. If I had a Bestiary covering real-world creatures, it would include dogs, wolves, lions, tigers, bears and so on. With a game set in Merrie England what would I meet? Lion? No. Tiger? No. Bear? Maybe. Wolf? Maybe. So, I am rejecting lots of options immediately.In an arena setting it is more likely to encounter different creatures. The Romans, for example, used many wild animals, even making the North African lion extinct due to over-hunting. They had a Rhinoceros fight a Bear, to much applause.

Where you have non-human races, you have to have a good reason for them to be there. In Glorantha they are common, in Hawkmoon they are rare, in Elric they make up a whole empire, in Merrie England they are very rare, in a Vikings game they are also very rare. You wouldn't get trolls appearing in Elric or Scorpionmen in a normal Vikings setting, but that doesn't invalidate their inclusion in the Bestiary.

But while on the subject of balance, please, please, let me give you the "weapons" section !

So, you got your run-of-the-mill dagger. 1d4+1 damage. As good as a shortword. And you got the "poniard" with a dex requisite, more twice the price and all... And no special rules, 1d4 damage. Yep. Simply worse. And the dirk ! Don't forget the dirk ! More expensive than the dagger, less than the poniard, no dex requisite, and it is the BEST dagger in the corebook. Blocks like a medium sized weapon, dirt cheap, better damage output than the dagger with its 1d3+2, the only downside being that it is not designed to be thrown. The other dagger which blocks like a medium weapon, the main-gauche ? Dex requisite, 3 to 4 times the price, 1d4 damage. No other rules. No reason to use it. Wait ! The "arms and equipment" gives us the rondel, which is specifically said to be a beginner weapon. No requisite, of course, cheaper than the dirk, 1d4+2 damage. Better on all accounts than a shortsword.

Here comes Houseruling !

These weapons have been collated from different periods of warfare. They are a mixture of weapons which normally would never be encountered together, a result of the rulebook being very generic. There is a reason why some weapons went out of fashion - people used better ones.

Admittedly, the Main Gauche should be a better parrying weapon than the Dirk, although the Dirk was designed as a parrying off-hand weapon itself (I believe) when Shields were going out of fashion. If you used a Dirk in duels with Musketeers they would laugh you off the field for using a barbaric weapon, whereas they would accept a main gauche without question. Weapons are as much about fashion as usability.

What we used to do was to buy the weapons we could use cheaply (E.g. Broadsword) then upgrade to better weapons (E.g. Bastard Sword) when we had the money/stats, but I am talking old-fashioned RuneQuest now, not MRQII/Legend. But, real world adventurers regularly stripped down their dead foes' bodies and stole their gear if it was better, so that's the kind of thing that is reasonable.

Combat manoeuvers ! How I LOVE THEM ! BEST. GAMEPLAY. MECHANIC. EVER. (bar heroism points) So why do they only use a handful ? Because they only remember a handful, but when i take the time, telling them all their options... Wait, they only have a handful of useful options ! Take defensive manoeuvers, when do you have them, most of the time ? When you successfully parried a blow and your opponent missed his attack roll. So, relocate the damage done, allow your weapon to block more damage or negate knockback is useless most of the time. On top of that, the fight can be pretty dull "I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium. Okay, so you block all damage. Haha, my turn now, I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium." and you get a turn only so often... It becomes a war of attrition, and you don't do much for most of the fight. And when you do, manoeuvers are only the icing on the cake, not really a more clever way to fight.

I allow players to spend Hero Points to get Combat Manoeuvres as it speeds up combat and helps them get rid of Hero Points.

Some players will use the same CMs all the rime, others will mix and match them to get an advantage. It all depends on the style of play and how familiar players are with the options.

Heroic acts ? Half of them have a veeeeeeery narrow window of usefulness, others simply seem... Overrated. It is explicitely stated that they are not easy to obtain, and while they "can" be a powerful asset in the players hand, they just don't feel heroic. "I use Razor Edge, maximizing damage ! I block with an average shield, blocking all damage, nevermind how high they are." Others, however are downright epic, but the gap between them is way too high, even while keeping in mind the difference in heroic points needed to learn them. There is just too much of a gap between being able to walk towards a group of archers, deflecting their arrows with your sword, and being able to make someone mentally share your wounds. For the exact same cost, of course.

How often do you need to cut away arrows? How often do you need to share wounds? Each ability has its place and all are useful in some way. I would have preferred more non-combat ones, personally, but that's because I underplay combat in my games.

The same goes for runes. Law ? You always seem right no matter what you say. Disorder ? You'll never be well dressed again. Even worse, that's all they do ! Give a slight boost, a "nice" little visual effect and, done, you got attuned to a rune, one of the major strengths behind the universe and probably what created gods. Awesome heh ?

Guess what ? Houseruling.

Runes? I never liked how they were done in Mongoose RQ. They didn't feel right to me. That isn't how I use them, so I agree with you there.

Spirit magic ? A big tool kit for houseruling.

I never really got to grips with Spirit Magic. I understand the principle, but never really understood how they were used. There is an article from Signs and Portents that explains them better and that has been included with the Spirit Magic Rules for Legend.

And it's just the way it goes. You go look for a specific bit of information, like, for exemple, how much will it take for a group of 7 adventurers (3PCs and their hirelings) to get to a week away location by cart ? Okay, so let's pull out the chart ! They walk 30kms per day. So it's 210kms away or something. So it will cost them... 5pa/km*7(number of travelers)*210(distance)=7350pa. A FULL SUIT OF PLATE ARMOR save the helmet would cost less. And they'll be there in two weeks. But, hey, they won't be tired.

So, I pop numbers out of my sorry ass. And, one week later, what do i find ? That according to another table, normal traveling conditions have the adventurers paying 45pc a day ! Much, much, much better. So... What the hell was the other table ? Ooooooh, it was for longer travels ! Wait ! It doesn't make sense ! It's even more ridiculously expensive the longer the travel is !

I drive to the South of France from Birmingham (actually I can't drive, but if I could ...) with 3 friends and it costs me £200.00, say. We all take the Eurostar for the same journey and it costs £800.00. Where's the balance there? Hiring things or paying for passage is always going to be dearer than doing it yourself.

I don;t think that a price per kilometre makes sense, as that isn't how travel really works. It is an easy game mechanic though.

Actually, maybe I lied.

I told you we were having a MRQ2 campaign.

But seeing how I had to change (fix, in my opinion, but hey, objectivity rules) so many many things, are we really still playing that game ?

I mean, of course, some things are going to be, or seem, illogical, or wrong, and will give much debate.

But THAT much ? Mainly in the COREBOOK ?

REALLY ?

Rules are a toolkit to enable you to play a game. They will never please all of the people all of the time. The Mongoose RQII rules were better than the MRQI rules and Legend seems to be better still. However, I might love one rule that you hate and vice versa.

 

[MongooseMatt]

What would you have done, damage levels instead of points?

Potentially, based on weapon size more or less alone. A dagger may do the same sort of damage as a short sword or war sword, but a big, two-handed hammer probably does more.

 

[Uldar]

Well, I didn't expect so many answers so fast.

A few points I need to clarify, though.

I DO enjoy this game, and there are many, many features I find extremely appealing. Which is why we still have a campaign !

I also feel that "houserules" are required in most, if not all roleplaying games. Because there will always be the case the authors didn't think of. It's natural and it is the duty of the GM to make sure that there aren't major problems in play. It's not a videogame, players spend their LIVES doing unexpected things. Pulling rules, limitations, or authorizations out of thin air is absolutely normal.

I am not complaining that the game forces me to make house rules, and I am NOT against houseruling. It is the pure amount of things I have to change/adapt/fix, and their nature which I find baffling. Not being able to trust some, if not many, of the tables is pretty cringe-worthy, in my opinion.

I now feel compelled to explain my seemingly unnatural desire for balance, which was pointed out by Dan.

Actually, most of the time, I don't even care. There were some D&D and Dark Heresy references made, and, in any of these games, do I feel compelled to balance weapons and classes around. Why ? Because they merely don't try to. There is no balance between a Uzi and a Bolter in DH, or between a Quaterstaff and a Greatsword in D&D. They are different weapons, with different uses and attributes. I'll decide which weapons I will choose one based on my mood, or the kind of character I want to play, -and roleplay !- as.

But MRQII tries to reach some sort of balance.

For exemple, I did not bitch about how few axes there exist in the corebook+Arms and Equipment, or how underpowered they can feel compared to swords.

Because :

1 They are cheaper.
2 They don't lose THAT much damage wise (they still sort of lose, but not by a huge margin)
3 They allow the attacker to hit inanimate objects made of wood without damaging the weapon.

It all boils down to a matter of personal preferences, swords give choice and better max damage, but are quite costy -and can be considered a sign of nobility in some settings which can range from good to traitorous- and the same goes for hammers, or other exotic weapons. They have good points, bad points... And really, there is not much to add.

I would still give a +1DX to axes when they are used against a prone or unaware opponent. Hence extending to normal axes the bonuses already in place for the Kukri and Gandasa. I guess 1D2 for the Hand Axe, 1D4 for the battle axe and the Great Axe would be more than enough.

It would give them a slight edge in damage under some very specific conditions, while the swords would still be more versatile overall.

But, really, this is but a matter of personal taste, nothing to be upset about.

No, what I bitch about is the unexplicable differences between weapons of the same class, disregarding the tools put in place to keep balance. Let's take the daggers as an exemple, as I see it as the most egregious.

Weapons, as we all know, are defined by :

1 The number of hands they require to be used.
2 Their Size
3 Their reach
4 Their Dex/Str Requisites
5 Their damage output
6 The CM which can be used with them
7 Their resistance AP/HP
8 Their special rules.
9 Their price.
10 The "family" in which they belong.

This is not by order of importance, of course, as such order would be highly subjective. So, Daggers. Only 6 points are relevant to differentiate them, since they all belong to the same family(10) have the same size and reach (2&3) all only require one hand (1)

So, we have :

Dagger/1D4+1/No requisites/4AP 6HP/ 30 silver coins/can be thrown without malus/Cm: Bleed and Impale.

Dirk/1D3+2/No requisites/4AP 6HP/50 silver coins/ blocks like M weapon/CM: Bleed and Impale

Iris/1D4/9 Dex requisite/4AP 3HP/65 silver coins/ Needs a mastersmith to be crafted, no advantages/CM:Bleed

Knife/1D3/No requisite/4AP 4HP/10 silver coins/can have a hollowed hilt for twice the price (errata'd)/CM : Bleed and Impale

Kris/1D4+1/9 Dex Requisite/3ap 6hp/200 silver coins/-5% to parry rolls, not errata'd/CM: Bleed

Main Gauche/1D4/11 Dex requisite/3AP 7HP/180 silver coins/blocks like a M weapon/CM: Bleed

Poniard/1D4/7 Dex requisite/3AP 5HP/ 60 silver coins/Said to be a powerful weapon can be thrown without malus/CM: Bleed & Impale

Rondel/1D4+2/no requisite/3AP 6HP/40 silver coins/no special rules, said to be an easy weapon to use/CM : Bleed

Stiletto/1D3+2/no requisite/4AP 3HP/75 silver coins/+15% sleight skill to conceal said to be able to punch through armor/CM :Impale

Tanto1D4+1/no requisite/5AP 5HP/250 silver coins (justified, since it's an eastern weapon)/non natural armor gets +2 against its attacks/CM: Bleed & Impale.

Inconsistency, much ?

The cheaper, no requisite, simpler weapons, tend to be almost better in every field than the more expensive ones and those specifically designed as powerful.

The corebook gives rules. Rules to, at least, balance weapons between a single family. The weapon is downright better ? Dex/Str requisites and high price. And so on. Even a "weak" weapon has uses, if it's not expensive it can be used as a throwaway weapon, it can have useful special rules, or a high durability, making it more suited for long travels.

But all and all, it must be consistant with the flavor text, which tells you exactly what kind of weapon you are using and what are its differences with other akin weapons.

I'll take time, later, to answer to your posts, as many interesting subjects have been raised.

But I would like some points to be remembered.

I am for house ruling and see nothing wrong with it. What I dislike is the frequency and the nature of what I have to change.

There is a difference in creating a houserule to see whether or not the PC will impregnate his wife (ala Pendragon or Ars Magica, where you may very well end up playing your son) MRQII (Or Legend is it, now ?) places great emphasis on family and the integration of the PCs in their society, so it may pop up as a semi-relevant matter, needing a temporary or made-up rule. MRQII doesn't cover such rule, which is ABSOLUTELY fine !

Having to change up or downright ignore charts and tables (or, in my case, re-establish balance) or barely avoiding a fallout with the players because of the "move only one time per turn" rule, or re-interpreting rules concerning part of the bestiary, isn't.

In short, houseruling something the authors haven't thought of is normal. Or simplifying an obscure rule, too. Houseruling to make the system work like it was clearly intended to and failed at, isn't.

In my opinion, again.

 

[Mixster]

Okay so let me say that I kindda agree with most of the points put forth in this thread. There is no need to balance, but I agree that the dagger weapons are completely silly. I mean they are not just weird and obscure, they make no sense whatsoever, basically the rules are: If you are gonna throw it, use a dagger, if not use a dirk or a rondel (I prefer Dirk for better parrying and Impaling, compared to +0.5 damage).
There were a few things that sprung forth though:

After all, you get stabbed in the arm with a dagger, and then by a longsword. Is there _really_ any appreciable difference?

Yeah there is. A longsword can hack off your arm in one blow, leaving you screaming on the floor while dying from bloodloss, a dagger can at most severe an artery, taking about a minute before it kills you, and that's a lucky blow.

Spirit magic ? A big tool kit for houseruling.

I'm actually a bit tired of this assumption which seems a bit common, that Spirit Magic wasn't really clear on what you can do with it.
I must agree that I thought so at first, but after re-reading the spirit magic chapter, the simplicity and clarity of it struck me as odd. Anyway it's pretty darned simple.
If you have spirit binding and spirit walking there's a bunch of options open to you, you can find spirits if you get your spirit companion to discorporate you (or if you are high level you can do it without help from your spirit companion). If you can beat them in combat you can turn them into your servants, the rules on how to do this are pretty clear.
The rules for what you can command a spirit to do, and whether it needs to follow the command or not, are also very clear.
The rules for what spirits you can start with are also incredibly clear.
The rules for what a spirit does when it's out of it's fetch are also incredibly clear.

Speaking from a balance perspective, these rules are all very overpowered. But they are very clear in just how overpowered they are.
The problem might derive from the fact that spirit magic requires your world to have spirits, which not every GM thought to put in, and being a spirit magician in a world were spirits aren't the main part of the world because the GM isn't into animism, is kindda like being Ash Ketchum, Pokemon Trainer in a world without Pokemon. Yeah sure you can go around with a mouse and act like it can shoot lightning, but the other kids are still gonna laugh at you.
----------------
On the issue of Prices I kindda agree that they are weird and arbitrary, but I think that a basic rules set should at most put a few rough guidelines on what should be cheap and what should be expensive, because isn't pricing really a setting issue. I mean if you want a world of swashbucklery where everyone and their Monkey runs around with two pistols, having pistol cost 3 years wages is probably a little silly. And if you want a world were metal weapons are outlawed a sword is probably a lot more expensive than if the world were a war-torn country were almost everyone scavenges gear from the constant wars in the area.
-----------------

On top of that, the fight can be pretty dull "I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium. Okay, so you block all damage. Haha, my turn now, I attack ! I block ! What's your weapon size ? Medium." and you get a turn only so often... It becomes a war of attrition, and you don't do much for most of the fight. And when you do, manoeuvers are only the icing on the cake, not really a more clever way to fight.

This is, from a mechanical point of view completely wrong.
Talking just about how combat works in legend, (but also any game like it in general), well, it's all about the action economy.
In Legend, since you can't move very far fast (like as in real life if two fights happen 100 meters apart one man can be sliced to ribbons before the other guy gets there), were you have your actions is crucial.
If a group of 4 were to go up against 6 guys, the most important thing the outnumbered guys can do is to use their actions to focus down a few of the others. If they focus 4 combat actions on 3 guys each. They are almost certain to get one hit on each. Which means they can Trip them, Disarm them, or possibly kill them before the rest of their friends can do much to help them.
You situation with "I go, You Go" assume that the players will not gang up on their opponents, and the opponents will not either, which is highly unrealistic.

Also, when you go much over 100 in combat style it becomes hard to parry, my current character can buff himself to 164% Sword & Shield, this means that most professional soldiers (75% in combat style), are reduced to being worse than those never having wielded a sword before when compared to him (down to 11% combat style). Meaning he can quickly disarm 4 opponents.

And all this doesn't even start to cover reach, if you have a reach advantage to your opponents, you can make attacks as they try to even get close to you, giving you even more ability to use your CAs offensively (which is what you want to do, since it's more important to attack than defend).
Yeah two guys, locked in a room, with the same set of weapons, the same set of skills and nothing around them to use creatively would be a dull fight. But those guys fighting is probably more unrealistic than having walking talking ducks that cast magic.

--------

I'm not certain what the beef was with the sorcery system, or whether there actually were one, but from my experience, buffing is what sorcery is for, if you want offensive magic use Divine Magic, and if you just want to kill things without many problem Spirit Magic is your thing.

 

[RangerDan]

What I don't agree with are your comments around what seem like balance and realism. Weapons aren't meant to be "balanced" against each other. Some are better, mechanically, than others.

Bingo.

Lawrence and I had a long conversation about this during the writing of RQ2. We explored various ways of reflecting the differences in weapons by their advantages/disadvantages in combat rather than damage/weight/cost factors. From this sprang the 'make spears born again hard and a front line choice for players' directive, as we felt they had always been sidelined in other games where, historically speaking, they were more popular than swords.

I'd like to chime in on this because it is something that has annoyed me too.

I admit that the "gamist" in me does not really like that there are two weapons on the list, and one of them is a strictly superior choice to the other in all situations (ie. Dagger vs. Poniard). In many cases this is fine if the weapon has a strong cultural identity giving a player a role-playing reason to choose a mechanically inferior weapon... but daggers and poniards are basically the same weapon in a different language. My guess is poniards as written don't see a lot of play in most games. It basically seems like a waste of valuable book-space and effort.

Having said that, I can certainly appreciate that the intention of the writers was to make a "realistic" modelling of the common weapons of the time, and I will further say that this "realism" is one of the most appealing things about this system.
The problem is not so much that the goal of realism was chosen, but rather that poor editing (A&E especially, even after the errata!) means that they fail at achieving this goal.

I have many examples, but my favourite I have brought up in another thread: why is it that War Swords, Falchions, Sabres, Long Swords (the "Core Book" swords) have Hardness 6 but Bastard Swords, Broadswords and others (the "A&E" swords) have Hardness 4?

The answer I suspect is that the weapon tables were not properly polished when converted from MRQ to MRQ2, rather than any historical, "realistic" difference in strengths between those weapons.

Does anyone who bought Arms of Legend know if the weapon tables were changed from A&E?

 

[Uldar]

And now, answers time !

I will start with Dan True's post since I agree with most of Deleriad's and the rest is mainly an order of personal preferences and differences in gameplay. I still find wrong that among two bestiaries, I can only find a handful of creatures usable in a normal adventure, but it depends on the situation and the players.

1 Extension books : Yes, the need to publish additional supplements is a justification, as is the need to create complete books for each and every world the game can take place. I still somehow dislike that it is not possible, with the the corebook, to create a campaign, unless you're out to create the world in itself (which I ended up doing, having no other choices.)

2 As for Sorcery, and Necromantic Sorcery in particular, I absolutely agree that some awesome stuff can be done, and that it's still a pretty cool gameplay mechanic, but, this the "magnitude" mechanic coming out of nowhere, we end up having a magic system, which works like sorcery, even uses some corebook sorcery spells, but is, in application, absolutely different. Before Necromantic Arts, the important part of Sorcery was raising the Sorcery(Spellbook) skill(s) and Manipulation. This is how you grew in power. Post Necromantic Arts, while the old way still existed, as of necromancy you could afford to leave your Sorcery(Spellbook) at 50% or something and skyrocket Manipulation, which all your damage, and other useful effects, would come from. This is a HUGE shift, which changes many, many things. Not necessarily terrible in itself, but it means I end up GM-Proofing all those spells when my players ask for them. Deathbolt 1D6 per 2 magnitude + if target killed a zombie is created for magnitude*days, still give me troubles. To be able to one-shot a dragon with a Skill level of 51% in Sorcery and 120% in Magnitude for 3MP simply doesn't sit well with me. But I agree, the book is still plenty cool.

3 For the bear's paw, we can find all reasons in the world to explain why it's only a M, or yes, it could simply be a typo, blocking a bear hit for no damage with a Dirk is NOT among the things I'll allow, simply beacause it sounds ridiculous. Again, nothing big, but unreliable info. Again.

Houserule of the day : When confronted with a huge or extremely strong creature, which, for some reason, would have their damage reduced to 0 through a normal parry (and not some clever scheme designed by PC) have the knockback treated under the Heroic Act "Crushing Blow". Meaning 1 meter per 2 Damage points before any reduction. You block the hit, all of it, but it still knocks you off-balance... Across the room.

4 Yes, most ridiculous stuff is Glorantha's and, besides the fact that they see very few uses, still have the merit to be here. Again, there is a time for pulling a giant Pumpkin-faced Bear of Chaos. Unluckily, the rules are clear enough : You can convince your GM, you can play it. I like when a rulebook makes things easier on me, not harder.

5 The defensive combat manoeuvers. Again, some are almost mandatory (I go for the headshot !) and others might see the light of day with 5% chance each blocked enemy attack. I mean, I see place constraints everywhere, why not simply make two offensive and defensive CM which do the EXACT same thing, into one ? More visibility, allows the player to more easily see the useful ones, while still being here (and remembered !) when needed.

Choose location : Offense and Defense. When used offensively, allows you to choose where your strike will land. Used defensively, allows you to decide when your opponent's strike will land.

Greater weapon : Offense and Defense : When used offensively, treat your weapon as one size more than he actually is (Longswords become L sized for the duration of the attack). Defensively, treat your parry weapon as one size more than he actually is, allowing a Dirk to block a halberd.

As exemples.

6 As for the "Dullness" I can feel in certain battles and that players almost always find ways around it, what you say is true, and honestly, most of the battle is fought once enemies have no CA anymore. Yet, you only get a turn once so often, mainly if some other players are trying to do something peculiar while you're out there, fighting for your life. Then, when you finally get your chance to shine, you roll, maybe your only attack roll for the turn, since there are many CAs you must spend on defending, you succeed ! You land a blow ! Woohoo, 14 Damage, did you see that ? And then, the enemy rolls his parry roll, you don't see what score he did, on the dice you simply read "Denied !". And suddenly, it stops being fun. It doesn't have to happen often, maybe just once in a while every game, and there is no animation the GM can think of to make it easier to swallow.

So, I've been trying out this houserule, not sure it will work, and it is probably not such a good idea, but, in battle, if you succeed, and so does your opponent, you both get a combat manoeuver. If you choose two mutually exclusive CM, they cancel out each other.

The rest of the table is unchanged. Yes, pretty big change on one on the selling points of the game, but, if anything, I think it will help CM work as they were really intended to : Prioritize cunning. And reading his opponent. Since the Arena supplement gives a number of CM more often used by the different races.

7 About Heroic acts. Yes. In the right situations, some are way better than others, while in others, they are useless. Once again, the rules hint at a balance. The more powerful one cost 12 Heroism points, while others cost 8. But, what I feel compelled to notice is the nature. Very few are "Heroic". Share Wound, for exemple, can be a pretty weak combat skill or downright miracle material. I don't feel a middle ground in this Heroic act. Deflecting arrows with your sword seems more in the right place. But, in my opinion, a Heroic Act should be something the players want to spend Heroism to achieve and get Heroism for having done it.

"You fell the Giant Berserk." "Yay !" "But the Black Knight draws closer to your (hostaged) wife !" "I roar, pick up the giant spear and howl it at him !" "That will cost you at least 5 heroic points !" "Cheap."

This, is a pretty important moment in the character's life and characterization, he might get renowned for it, even get a title, and he might want to purchase a heroic act allowing him to pull this kind of crazy antics more often. This, in my opinion, is what Heroic acts should feel like. But once again, if I want that, I have to houserule it in. Which is fine, since it's something the authors didn't have to think of. But I don't see much material like this in the Heroic Arts section, which is my main complaint.

As for, msprange's very short, but very welcomed post,

Yes, weapons should be assiociated with advantages/disadvantages, which was done surprisingly well. Swords have advantages, Axes too, Spears too, Hammers too, and even exotic weapons too ! But no, this doesn't override the very big problems between families of weapons. Noticibly in the requisite/reach/size/special rules/resistance/cost, but they are, but an indication. Deleriad is indeed right when saying that some weapons are better, mechanically than others. But this is not the problem here. The problem is when you describe a run-of-the-mill dagger, nothing special but, hey, cheap and always useful. And a Poniard (yes, this exemple again, but I now know it by heart) which is described as being typically a off-hand weapon, but with his longish blade it can be just as dangerous than a main weapon and particularily, can be used with a buckler to great effect. And a Rondel, easy to wield, simple weapon for beginners.

You expect rules to translate, if not reality, your definition of the weapons you propose. But as proved in a precedent post, they simply don't. There is no consistency between the weapon as presented and the rules applied to it in gameplay.

And the "mechanically better than other" certainly doesn't make it right for cheap, no requisite weapons to be better than expensive, harder to wield ones.

Going through the rest of posts, I feel I, more or less directly, answered points which were raised consequently, so I won't go through them at the moment.

 

[RangerDan]

Good to hear Uldar that many of your questions have been answered.

I just wanted to pop in and respond to this:

Again, some are almost mandatory (I go for the headshot !)

If I understand you correctly, I think that this related to a topic that comes up a lot in the forums, that players only ever seem to use the Choose Location: Head Combat Maneuver at the expense of all others.
I won't go into a log derail of the topic, I only want to give you these two "tips" to avoid this issue:
A) Headshot is not always (or even often) the most effective tactic for a situation. Maneuvers that make the opponent lose Combat Actions or take penalties can be much better options. Use them against your players and see if they learn!
B) Historically, even peasants could scrape by enough coin to wear some kind of helmet to battle (even if it was only a pot!). Give the enemy NPCs helmets and see how long your players keep up headshots.

 

[Deleriad]

Quick minor but important point.

Don't roll attack damage before parry. Game doesn't work that way.

Order is.

Attack Roll.
Optional Defense roll.
Did someone get a CM? Pick 1 or more CMs.
Roll location (if needed)
Roll damage (if needed)

You always pick CMs before rolling for location and damage.

 

[DrBargle]

Unluckily, the rules are clear enough : You can convince your GM, you can play it. I like when a rulebook makes things easier on me, not harder.

But, 'If you can convince the GM (and your fellow players), then you can do it' is quite simply THE MAGIC RULE of all RPGs. What is the problem here?

As for heroic abilities - it seems that you want RQ/Legend to be more like the superhero game that A/D&D has become since 2e. RQ has never been like that, but a D100 system such as Legend could support such a game - you have your PCs start with more experience, and you design some appropriate heroic abilities, using those in the core book as a benchmark. Given that these abilities are all supposed to be the kind of thing you learn from a legendary teacher, and probably need to perform some quest to obtain, you don't need to invent the entire mechanics of each ability until your PCs are close to fulfilling the criteria. They / their PCs may have their heart set on learning Tyran's Bladestorm, but that doesn't mean they know what it does in terms of game mechanics. Have they seen it up close? More than once? Or have they just heard about this legendary fencing master, who only teaches his occult abilities to truly worthy heroes.

 

[Dan True]

Quick minor but important point.

Don't roll attack damage before parry. Game doesn't work that way.

Order is.

Attack Roll.
Optional Defense roll.
Did someone get a CM? Pick 1 or more CMs.
Roll location (if needed)
Roll damage (if needed)

You always pick CMs before rolling for location and damage.

+1