Paid a bod yn dwp

Big hitters! Giant slaying damage. Still saving grace, if it hits a limb only x2 limbs hitpoints is going through to total hitpoints as damage (but the limb will be severed). Big things do big crushing damage, and crits are game changers particularly with true sword...it’s colourful

Ok we have an official correction on the official answer. Critical crush damage is now : maximum rolled weapon damage + maximum damage bonus twice This is a hot topic, we’ll keep you posted as we get the latest.

I’m rolling up a Troll character, to hit things hard to see how this all lines up

That’s weird. You’re right. I was blind to that. Just presumed it was a foregone conclusion. It seemed pretty clear in the side bars of RQG that you should maximise main weapon damage on a crit. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.

Personally I prefer the official ruling, does more damage which makes it more dramatic. I was wondering why you decided not to maximise the main rolled weapon damage on your house rule for critical crush, as that’s the thing all crits have in common across the board?

For those that were wondering the official answer as from Scott in the core rules question thread is: Special Crush (page 206) rolled weapon damage plus rolled Damage Bonus plus Maximum Damage Bonus. Critical Crush (page 206) rolled weapon damage plus twice Maximum Damage Bonus, ignores armour.

It’s like waiting for Christmas. I’m enjoying the anticipation far too much.

Yep- The boxed text isn’t super clear that’s why I originally started this thread. It’s not 100% obvious whether the rolled damage bonus of a crush is part of the special damage or just standard. That’s my issue. The rest seems clear to me. The main text of crush does use the word *regular* damage bonus, which suggests to me that there is a dam bonus on a crush, and it’s the standard dam bonus you add to any attack. However the wording of the boxed text goes the other way suggesting both damage modifiers could be part of the special damage. Should probably put this up on the core questions. Maybe it’s already up there?

Ah I think I see where your coming from. You’re suggesting there’s no difference in damage between a special crush and critical crush? Apart from the ignoring armour? However you’re forgetting that crush weapon damage should also be maximised on a critical: Critical Crush : maximum rolled weapon damage + max dam bonus It’s the same principle for slash and impale they do maximum special damage.

Apologies thought we were discussing the intention of the rules. That being said damage bonus is rolled normally for all standard and special hits. (impale, slash or crush). RAW - It’s no different for crush. But I can see the argument for maximising your standard damage bonus as well with crush on criticals if you want more impact in your game.

The special damage for crush is different then from slash and impale. It’s as I have written above: • weapon damage + full damage bonus. to which you add your normal rolled damage bonus afterwards.

I imagine the designers didn't want to complicate special damage types overly much. They’re broadish categories, which highlight the predominate aspect of the weapon damage. In the case of the axe it’s ability to cut/slash. Take into account that a Two handed great axe does a bit more damage as well 2d6+2. Crushing is very much the clubbing approach not the cutting approach.

Crush epitomises sheer brute force. I imagine that’s why it’s tied to the damage modifier. The bigger you are the bigger you hit.

Criticals all do max special damage + rolled damage modifier, and any extra damage from spells, ignoring armour. Critical Crush In the case of critical crush the special damage is: • weapon damage plus + full damage modifier So that would need to be maximised in a critical. You then add your rolled damage modified as normal. The combined damage ignores amour. The last sentence p206 “if an adventurer making the crush has no damage modifier the effect of the crush is lost” I interpret this as ignoring the special damage. Which in the case of crush would mean ignoring the part -adding the full damage modifier. I would still roll the normal damage modifier however, as that’s not part of the special damage. Negative damage modifier A Crit would minimise a negative damage modifier. So that would naturally result in a minus 1.

Thanks all for holding my hand through this brain fart moment...yes let’s pretend it never happened.

Great thanks all - nobody panic it’s just a brain fart. A stiff drink and an early night should see me right

I suppose technically speaking the thresholds of x2 and x3 could remain the same. In which case a x2 threshold for a 5pt arm could remain at -5. But certainly calculating the damage to get there has to include 0 as a value. So its one point more of damage to get to those thresholds. Which I guess has more of an effect on limbs (which have a maximum amount of damage they can receive in a single blow).Meaning they always take a minimum of two blows before a healthy limb reaches the x2 threshold.

If an adventure can be at 0 hit points in a hit location and can go to minus, should we not calculate 0 as a hitpoint value when working out the x2 and to x3 damage thresholds? Doing so would make a 5pt arm x2 threshold at -4 instead of -5. Jason's example in the Q&A does not include zero in the calculations, and that's how I would normally do it too, but after writing the values down from 5 to -5 I'm not so sure? -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 A hit location can be at 0 hit points. So it takes a further point of damage to get to -1. Including 0 as a value would effect limbs which also have a maximum damage limit they can take from a single blow of x2. A healthy arm or leg would need to take two blows instead of one before reaching the x2 damage threshold. Its quite possible I could just be having a brain fart, but what do people think?

Yep - you’re right. Thanks for the clarification

Yep can’t rule that out either. But on balance I still feel that it’s more likely an oversight/omission in the RQG text. Particularly as RQ2 and RQ3 both played it the same way. Why water down one-use limitation for RQG?

Interestingly spell Trading in RQG is all one-use only ( for the traded spells). This wasn't the case in RQ2 where as I've quoted, there was a % chance that you could remember the spell permanently (if it was reusable). I think this RQG ruling with regards Spell trading does point strongly to the intention of One-use being intended as cast and forget. The terminology is (minus the hyphen) the same.

I suppose it represents the power of Issaries, nothing is beyond trading. Its a bit like trading a bit of your soul or your gods soul. You could trade skills as a tutor - I guess its a material thing so would have to be learned through practice. Trading hit points would be a bit like necromancy

Its an Issaries trading thing. Every thing is a commodity

Regarding accusations of cut & paste from previous additions, it seems this is not the case. This is the relevant entry from cults of Prax: Cults of Prax. Chasoium PDF. p64 And in River of cradles RQ3, it doesn't even cover the One-use eventuallity in the spell trading description. So the text we have for Spell Trading in RQG is specific to that edition.

I was curious about when the term "One-Use" came about in RQ. It was in RQ3. RQ2 has the term "non-reusable". The RQ3 text on the subject makes it clear that One-Use spells are cast and forget. You need to re-sacrifice power in order to acquire the spell again: RQ3 Softbound Deluxe edition 1993. p112 - Spell limits. I'm not sure there is a strong enough thematic reason why the designers would have changed this assumption in RQG?