From: David Dunham (ddunham@radiomail.net)
Date: Tue 08 Feb 1994 - 03:18:54 EET
David Dunham responding to Eric Rowe:
>I extremely
>dislike the ability to have my arm hacked off while I continue to
>fight. This seems very Monty Python Black Knightish. I don't like
>it. Most of my players prefer RQ because the combat make it more
>possible to die. Under the new rules it seems rather difficult to
>kill someone. I recall Greg said that combat in Glorantha was more
>deadly that the old RQ rules portrayed it (because of too many heal 6
>spells). The new rules seem a change in the wrong direction. Why was
>this changed at all? Did players complain they died too much when
>they fought all the time? Don't fix it if it ain't broke.
Having just read some Icelandic sagas where people get their hand chopped
off without too serious an effect, it seems OK to me. And given that people
probably don't die instantly, I like the current rules better than RQ3.
After all, if they're on the ground and can't fight, what do you care if
they're dead or just dying?
>Guy Robinson writes:
>It is a rather splendid picture of a village set in the clearing of
>a wooding area overlooked by the head of true dragon which is doing
>a relatively good impression of a large hill. The picture is half
>toned so I suspect the orginial is in full colour.
In fact, it's a black & white that appeared on the back of Genertela:
Player's Book (which you surely have, as it's one of the best works on
Gloranthan cultures).
>From Robert Longson
>I also think that armour deserves one roll altogether. The main problem with
>helmets is that you can't see or hear as well in em.
>Modifiers are already applied against these for helmets.
>Wearing one on your head isn't too bad otherwise. Well no worse than any other
>piece of armour.
Many people who've worn them say that helmets are very hot and fatiguing.
>From: Raymond D Turney <rturney@well.sf.ca.us>
>Steve Maurer is concerned that the elimination of the earlier RQ rule that
>only one spirit can attack at a time; plus the introduction of the all out
>attack option; plus the fact that unless you take an action you defend at 0;
>makes Shamans world beaters.
>
>On reflection I concur with him. Imagine 4 pain spirits sent in against one
>enemy charging a shaman. If the enemy continues the charge, he is
>defenseless against 4 all out attacks and should shortly be possessed at 0
>MP. The possessing spirit {which one, by the way?} remains behind; the next
>guy gets him with 3, etc. This could get pretty nasty?
Sounds eminently reasonable to me that a specialist magician should be
tough. How is this worse than a Sword of Humakt who has 4 Sever Spirits and
kills the first 4 enemies, who have no defense?
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:34:28 EEST