"having reviewed sections 8.0.8 (Multiple Actions) and 9.5.15 (Two Weapon Combat), the bestiary section should refer to these sections to address the topic clearly"

Fair enough; I'll review those sections for clarity with regard to its application to creatures. It will remain a *generic* multiple attack rule, however, and hence not require special citation within the Bestiary section. Those creatures who have special abilities which would modify or over-ride the generic multiple attack rule should (and do) have those abilities listed.

"it's just silly that (again picking the extreme case) an Akho gets the same number of attacks for a given penalty to-hit as a two-armed creature"

I must respectfully disagree. The idea that a creature with more limbs gets to attack multiple times more accurately than a creature with 2 is nothing but a crusty old D&D-ism. There is no actual reason to suppose that this should be so. A creature's ability to attack multiple times accurately would more realistically depend on its ability to pay attention to multiple opponents simultaneously. It's not something they'd have for free just for possessing the extra extremities.

"(As an aside, I vote against the inclusion of the picture of the damsel in distress [is it Eyil hiVriyen?] on p. 75. It seems needlessly prurient.)"

Yes, it's Eyil - in a scene from the Man of Gold novel. The Tekumel setting itself is simply brimming with "prurient" material. Whether it's there simply for the sake of being prurient, or because it's part of the foreign/exotic/alien culture that Prof. Barker meant to depict, is something you'd have to ask him. My objective is to portray the Tekumel setting as accurately as possible, and for that reason the illustration stays.

"The stiletto and cudgel in section 4.1 have their low/medium/high damage values out of order (2/1/2)."

Those number sequences are intentional. It's true that the higher-damage weapons follow the standard pattern of low/medium/high, but for very low damage weapons it's necessary to break that pattern in order to introduce very fine increments in their average damage.

"I don't see how it's possible for a low-damage weapon to hurt an opponent with decent armor."

See 9.5.3.

Thanks for all your feedback. I should point out that while the Pocket Universe system is new to you, it first came out in 2001 and has been very heavily playtested. You are unlikely to find anything about it that's simply broken, and you're likely to find that there are well thought out reasons for each of its rules.

-Jeff

P. 72, 9.5.1 Aiming
A character armed with a missile weapon, who is prone (7.5) or braced against a study support may spend their entire

P 73, 9.5.10.3 Break Free
If a character who declared Desperation loses the break free roll, then they suffer 1 point of damage (armor does not apply).

Missing comma between "roll" and "then"

P 76, 10.3.3 Contact Poisons
Contact poisons work in much the same way as injected poisons, except that they may be applied to blunt weapons as well as edged weapons, and they only take effect only on hits which avoid the target’s worn armor (even if the ‘hit’ deals 0 damage).

Redundant "only"

P 77, 10.4.3.1 Extinguishing Fire
Burning characters may attempt to put the flames out. This takes a full round of rolling on the ground to deprive the flames of oxygen. Make a DEFT check at +5, minus the damage strength of the flames. Any check that isn’t a fumble reduces the strength of the flames by 1 point, plus the check’s success margin. On a fumble the flames are unaffected.

Remove comma?