Paid a bod yn dwp

19 minutes ago, gochie said:

That is.... just a wild amount of damage. A dark troll with a +2D6 bonus automatically deals 40 damage on a crit with a maul, without magic. A great troll with +3D6 deals 52 (!), every time.

Big hitters! 
 

21 minutes ago, gochie said:

And get this, a lowby human with a greatsword, True Sword, and no STR bonus still deals 32 damage on a crit, every time.

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  

30 minutes ago, gochie said:

Huh? My ruling is exactly the same as the official ruling, hence *Monocle Emoticon*. They don't maximize weapon damage, only STR bonus.

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. 

25 minutes ago, gochie said:

🧐

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. 

58 minutes ago, gochie said:

Nope. Only Slashing and Impaling damage get a damage bonus on crits, RAW.

 
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? 

33 minutes ago, gochie said:

Huh? RAW crushing special hits deal Weapon damage + STR bonus + max STR bonus… Which is really strange, especially paired with the fact that critical hits don't deal anymore damage (just ignore armor).

Thus why I shared my fix above--slightly lower STR bonus on special hits and higher STR bonus on crits.

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. 

12 minutes ago, gochie said:

Yes I know what the book says, I'm sharing what I think it SHOULD say (house-ruled).

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.

9 minutes ago, gochie said:

I was talking about Special successes specifically, not crits.

By following the recipe of Specials get double damage rolls and Crits get max double damage rolls:

Crushing specials would be Weapon damage + STR bonus + STR bonus, and;

Crushing crits would be Weapon damage + max STR bonus + max STR bonus

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. 

Just now, Shiningbrow said:

Possibly... But it's not also unlike an axe. Very similar mechanics.

 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. 

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'd like to know... Why?

What's the justification for the differences between these specials?

It seems pretty arbitrary to me.

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.

36 minutes ago, gochie said:

Should this not be: Rolled weapon damage + rolled damage bonus (x2)? 

The other special hits don't max any damage. 

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? 

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

I think you mis-interpret this.

54 minutes ago, metcalph said:

I think that's a rule for the magician to regain the spell after it has been cast by the person that he has traded it to.  If a Chalanan trades a Heal Wound spell which is then used, she must spend a week at the temple and roll the dice to remember the spell.

Yep - you’re right. Thanks for the clarification 

52 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

That may have been the intention at one stage of development, like the idea that you should get access to common rune spells gradually.

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. 

10 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I agree that they will trade what is tradeable. But that still doesn't explain why magic is tradable in the first place. You might as well want to trade skills, hit points or characteristics, but that isn't supported (although it can happen within heroquests). 

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  

2 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I'm not even clear with how Spell Trading is motivated within Glorantha. Rune Magic is all about access to the Runes and emulation of your god, and this isn't obviously something that can be traded away...

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: 

Quote

If the spell traded away can be reused, both priests must throw D100 again to see if each will recall his spell after a week’s meditation at a temple. If one throws 96-00, he does not normally recall. He then must make a “remembering roll” before he gets use of the spell. This may be attempted once a week, and the priest must make a successful roll which is computed exactly the way his Power Gain roll is figured for that week. Once the spell is remembered, then there is no further trouble. 

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:

Quote

A one-use spell may be cast once. In order for the caster to use the spell again he must re-sacrifice POW to relearn the spell

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?