Paid a bod yn dwp

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

Well, in the pdf collecting changes made, the rule on page 224 seemed to be still very confusing.

Lets have look at the changed text in RQG...

Quote

Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks or attacking with one and parrying with the other, as desired.

I see what you mean, although an improvement, it could still be interpreted as suggesting that its a choice between attacking or parrying.

RAW you can can attack with both weapons and parry at the same time. Parry is mechanically unchanged in two-weapon fighting, and works exactly the same as 1 weapon fighting, though you can designate which sword is parrying and therefore open to potential damage.

With that in mind perhaps @Jason Durall could reword that sentence to something like this?:

• Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, and may choose to parry with either weapon alternating for each parry as desired. Multiple parries are subject to the culmaltive penalty.
• Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, and may choose either weapon to parry an attack once.

9 hours ago, kiryamo said:

Will these all "clarifications" be included in the second printing, or the core combat rules of the game will depend on a thread of a forum?

In answer to your question. Yes, the rules error I and others picked up on is corrected in latest PDF (regarding parries with two weapon fighting), and will be in second printing. Other things in this thread are more about interpretation and not errors as such. Not sure to what extent they’ve been clarified in latest printing? But it’s easy to gain clarity on those things in the pinned official Q&A topic by Jason Durall...or asking questions here. 

Edit: all the queries brought up in this topic have been addressed by Jason Durall. 

9 hours ago, Tupper said:

Switching to taking damage from total hits could be a "bonus" from taking a big hit to a limb. 

Not sure if *switching* is the right word?  You’re already taking damage to General Hit points, in any attack. But I see your point.

I think so long as you’re consistent in your ruling (whether x2, or x3 limit) this shouldn’t matter. 

Thanks to your examples above  the question has been simplified. Do you want a game that models longer healing rates and therefore a bit more book keeping (x3 limit), or do you go for the game with a bit less book keeping?  

I still think the rules show a x2 limit to max wounds to hit locations ( though not as clearly as they could). As a player I’d prefer a little less bookkeeping, so that also suites me on that level. The x2 limit is also conveniently the same as damage that can be recieved through a single hit, so it makes sense to me. 

7 minutes ago, Tupper said:

I'm pretty sure I've done that right.  First aid heals *wounds*.  Natural healing heals *locations*.  Nobody's dying from their overall damage (everyone has 6hp (=18-12) left after the fight), so I didn't make much comment on that.  The point was more the distinction between the 4hp being associated with a location or being purely total hp damage.

Ah yes you’re right.  *first aid* can be used on the same hit-location once for each wound taken there. Hadn’t realised the potential multiple use of first aid on individual hit locations. 

It’s late where I am so I shall mull this over for another day, and come back to this when I can give it proper thought. 

1 hour ago, Tupper said:

@Paid a bod yn dwp (or others who also rolled a critical on their Truth rune and still care about this pedantry!)

I thought some more about this situation this morning, and about what the two interpretations of subsequent damage mean. 

Consider two characters, Alice and Bob.  Each have 18 hp, 4 in the arm, and heal rate of 3.

Alice gets hit once in the arm for 4hp damage, and then again for 9hp damage.  Bob, on the other hand gets hit first for 9hp damage, and then for 4hp damage.

We'd both agree that Alice has two arm wounds (one for 4hp and one for 8hp), but we'd disagree about what Bob has when the dust settles.

Let's talk about Alice first:

Alice will be in shock (from her maximum damage blow).  Let's suppose someone gives her first aid (bringing her out of shock), and healing 3 hp between the two wounds (2 on the big wound and 1 on the small wound).  Alice now has 9hp damage in her arm.  She needs to heal 6 points for her arm to work again.  This will take 2 weeks to heal.

Now let's look at Bob:

Option 1: damage still goes to limb after a big (2x hp) wound

Bob is in shock (like Alice).  Someone gives him first aid (bringing him out of shock), and healing 2 hp on the big wound and 1hp on the small wound.  Bob has now (like Alice) 9hp damage in his arm.  He needs to heal 6 points for it to function again, which also takes 2 weeks.  This wouldn't surprise us because Bob took exactly the same wounds Alice took, just in opposite order.

Option 2: damage goes to total hp after a big (2x hp) wound

Bob is in shock from the big 8hp wound to his arm.  He also has a 4hp total hp wound.  Someone gives him first aid on the arm wound (bringing him out of shock).  Can he be given first aid on the total hp wound?  Not totally clear; the corebook says "Use First Aid once on damage from one injury to a specific hit location."  So maybe Bob can't get first aid on the total hp wound.  However, the 8hp arm damage is the more annoying problem: it is stopping him using his arm.  Say he got 2hp recovered from his First Aid on that wound (like Alice), he now has a 6hp damage on his arm.  One week later, he will have healed 3 of those points, and his arm is good to go.  Further, his total hp damage will have healed from 4hp down to 1hp. 

So it looks like (with option 2) Bob gets a much better deal than Alice, even though they took identical injuries, just in a different order (and received identical medical treatment).  One week later, his arm is functional, and two weeks later, he's good as new.  Alice one week later still can't use her arm, and takes three weeks to be fully healed.

Now before things go too much further, I would point out that Bob's situation seems pretty unlikely to come up very often.  When he took the first (9hp) wound, he would have been in shock, so why did he get hit a second time?  This is going to be a pretty unusual situation!  Hence I suspect you could jump either way on this one, and quite probably never see it come up.

Me, I like option 1, because it treats Alice and Bob the same way for having the same wounds, whereas option 2 seems like a "sweet" deal for Bob.  He's playing tennis a week later, while Alice is stuck watching Shortland Street reruns for a fortnight.

It stands to reason that if you allow for more damage to go to the arm location  that it’s going to take longer to heal. I’m not sure what you’re trying to resolve in these examples? 

The examples give you a good idea of what a x2 cap on wounds would do vs a x3 cap on wounds. X3 ends up costing unsurprisingly more healing as location hitpoints can go down further.

One thing to mention, is that wounds aren’t as granular as you’re describing them in the examples. When you heal, you’re  healing hit locations , not individual wounds. Bear in mind healing simultaneously heals General hitpoints and the location hit points. 

Be nice if @Jason Durall could clarify whether or not hit locations can take damage greater then x2 with subsequent hits? In the Q&A thread there are contradictory answers.  My read of RQG is that the damage limit for hit locations is capped at x2 it’s starting hitpoint value.

Yes agreed RQ2 is the basis that RQG is working from here.

In my mind the x2 limit is like a mirror image of the positive hit points. So a 5pt arm can go down to minus/negative 5 hit points.

I think this is born out in the text of RQG:

“Limb: An adventurer cannot take more than twice the possible points of damage in an arm or leg from a single blow. Thus, a 2-point arm hit for 5
points takes only 4 points of damage off the total hit points: the remaining 1 point of damage has no effect. Further blows to that arm affect the total hit points of the adventurer, however.”

Whilst it could be clearer, i think the last sentence does  illustrate that a limit of damage has been reached by the limb, and that any subsequent further damage to the limb will only count against Total Hit points and not the individual limb hit points.

This interpretation is born out by Jason’s Durall example in the Q&A I posted above. It’s a shame he’s muddied the water by posting the other contridictory answers though in the Q&A.  But I think the specificity of that example points to it being correct when read in conjunction with the rules.

Edit - here’s Jason Duralls example again for convenience:

“Yes. If you have 4 hit points in the right arm and a sword hits it for 9 points, your arm takes 8 points of damage, which is also considered in your total hit point damage.

But if your right arm is hit again for 2 points, you (not your arm) take 2 more points of total hit point damage.” 

If we’re looking at older editions to seek answers, it’s helpful to look at RQ3 also, which did explicitly cap damage at x2. There was actually no damage category beyond that.

I think that gives a clue to the intended x2 limit that was present in RQ2. In some ways the x3 ( 6pt In RQ2) effect in RQG confuses this as it implies there is a continued scale. X3 is only intended  as a special severing effect from massive damage in one hit. Damage to total hit points is still capped at x2 limit. 

Edit: but I think you have hit on an area which could so easily be made more explicit in RQG text. 

I think you have certainly touched on an area in the text that could be made more explicit. Unfortunately some of Jason’s Durall answers in the Q&A  seem contradictory on this matter. But there is one point in the Q&A where he explains a specific example:

“Yes. If you have 4 hit points in the right arm and a sword hits it for 9 points, your arm takes 8 points of damage, which is also considered in your total hit point damage.

But if your right arm is hit again for 2 points, you (not your arm) take 2 more points of total hit point damage.” 

I’m referring to the examples that illustrate the damage section we’re talking about. Sorry don’t have the book to hand at the moment. They illustrate how damage works and the relationship between location hit points and general hit points. 

Basically

1. You can’t take more damage then x2 the locations hitpoints in a single blow. . Any damage that exceeds this limit is ignored. Damage received is subtracted from both Location hit points and General hit points.(it’s not divided between them, the same damage applies to both General hit points and location hitpoints. See the adjacent in play examples in the book) 

2. If a hit location has reached its max possible damage limit of x2, then it will not take any more damage, but subsequent hits to that location will still pass on damage to General Hit points (damage which presumably is still capped at the locations x2 limit) 

I’m not seeing that ambiguity. I think if you read the in play examples it becomes clear how damage is resolved. It’s much more straight forward in play. Look at all the in play examples and it becomes clear how you should resolve the damage. 

1 hour ago, Tupper said:

Good question.  I think opinions vary! 

Historically, I think  RQ2 stressed the need for a single (x2 hp) blow to trigger adverse effects on an arm/leg.  RQ3 (and maybe the subsequent Mongoose/Design Mechanism versions) switched to it being possible with multiple (smaller) hits.  So how one reads the RQG rules perhaps depends on the lens one views it through. 

There are three things being said in the limb (x2 hp damage) section:

1. You can't take more than x2 your limb's hp from a single blow.  This seems unambiguous.
2. Subsequent damage goes on your total hp.  My read of this is that this relates to the situation of having just taken at least x2 your hp from a single blow.  Psullie and Paid a bod yn dwp argue that this starts happening as soon as you pass above x2 the limb's hp (even if this happened from multiple blows). 
3. When you take x2 your limb's hp, you are in shock.  This is the RQ2 vs RQ3 point; does it have to be from a single blow, or could it come from multiple blows?  Opinions differ.

Perhaps this is a case of YGMV? 😀 Although it may not be an important situation as getting hit repeatedly in the same location (without being knocked out/killed from overall damage) isn't going to come up that frequently.  

Ah ok...

i’ll try and clear this up:

1. Yes that’s right

2. Whenever you take damage to a location you subtract that from both the locations hit points, and your general Hit points. Bearing in mind rule one above, which is the fact that a hit location can’t take more then x2 it’s own hit points, and neither can General hit points take more then that limit in a single blow . Once a location has reached its limit of damage (x2) it can’t take any more, however the same location hit again will still pass on the damage to the General hit points bearing in mind the damage limit from point number 1 above.

3.  The rules as written do say that limbs need to take that x2 damage in a single blow to engage the shock effect: 

“However, an adventurer so damaged from a single blow  is functionally incapacitated...”  

However Head, chest, and abdomen need not be just a single blow, culmaltive hits will do it as well, but that’s more academic as once your down to 0 hitpoints in those locations your already suffering badly.

Yes I agree completely with Psuille again - and I’m pretty sure everyone I know measures the negative hit points as Psuille says. So a 5pt arm can only go down to -5 hitpoints (x2), after which any further damage to the arm will only go to Total Hit points. 

Perhaps the only other slight ambuigiuty is that there is also similarly a limit of x2 damage max that can be recieved through a single blow...*regardless of remaining hit points in that location*. (With the exception of maimed or severed x3, in which case the limb is no longer there, and falling damage can also exceed this limit) 

So a subsequent hit to a 5pt arm already at x2 limit (minus 5), will go instead only to Total Hit points, up to the maximum damage of x2 the hit location.

Edit:...but this is academic as you’re character will likely be dead by then  

On 1/9/2019 at 3:39 PM, Psullie said:

I think that the damage section suffers a little by not using specific terms for specific effects. There are three way's a character or limb can become incapacitated. The first is when a limb loses all its HP that limb is incapacitated, be it form one or many wounds. Second: Loses 2x limb HP incapacitates if from a single wound.  Third: A character can become incapacitated from Slashing weapons that score a special hit and equals or exceed that limbs HP. The way I play limb damage is that x2 HP is Max HP it can pass on to the total, regardless of how many actual HP it actually has. So a 5HP arm will always pass through up to 10 HP damage regardless of its current HP.

 To run through your example:

1st hit: 5 damage to arm, arm is useless and 0 hp. Total HP 18-5 = 13

2nd hit: 10 damage to arm, arm is -5 HP. Total HP 13-10 - 3, Character is in shock and incapacitated as damage came from one hit

alternate example:

1st hit: 5 damage to arm, arm is useless and 0 hp. Total HP 18-5 = 13

2nd hit: 8 damage to arm, arm is useless and -5 hp. total HP 13-8 = 5, character still able to act

3rd hit: 2 damage to arm, arm still -5. Total HP 5-2 = 3, character still able to act

another example:

1st hit: 25 damage to arm, arm is maimed, and -5 HP, total HP is 18-10 = 8, but character is in shock and incapacitated as it came from a one hit,

Lastly:

1st hit: Special Slash of 6 damage. Arm is -1 and useless. Total HP = 18-6=12 Character must make a (CON-6)*5 roll or become incapacitated

Yes I agree with this, the examples seem right to me.  Although i think there is an important  distinction you've missed out in the first paragraph regarding definition of incapacitation (though not in the example)  - The definition of *functionally incapacitated*  (x2 dam in a single hit) refers to the adventurer ( not just the limb) being functionally incapacitated. This is different from Damage equal to or more than Locations Hit points, which results in a useless limb, but importantly the adventurer is still able to function. 

Edit: So the really big two debilitating effects only happen if damage is received through a single blow:

•  x2 dam in one hit (Adventurer functionally incapacitated )
• x3 dam in one hit  ( maimed or severed)

With the exception that head, chest and adomen (the vitals) can recieve the x2 damage effect (Adventurer functionally incapacitated ) through cumulative hits. Though again if these vital hit locations are at minus already ( Damage Equal to or More then  the Locations hit points ) you’re already suffering some very significant damage effects. In particular the Head or Chest locations, which is pretty much equivalent to being x2 functionally incapacitated, only with a slower rate of bleeding. So there is some overlap with the damage effects depending on hit location, and I can see why Psuille combined them in the opening paragraph. 

On 1/9/2019 at 9:33 AM, Tupper said:

I've been trying to wrap my head around the rules for wounds in RQG.  My confusion stems from whether "major" effects (going into shock or being maimed) can be achieved by many small wounds, or if they have to be done by one big wound.  Rather than clog up the official answers list, I thought I'd try asking the question of the fine folks on the forum first!

The core book reads (under "Damage equals or exceeds double the location's hit points"): "An adventurer cannot take more than twice the possible points of damage in an arm or leg *from a single blow* ... However an adventurer so damaged *from a single blow* is functionally incapacitated: they can no longer fight until healed and are in shock" (emphasis mine).   Analogously, under "Damage equal or exceeds triple the location's hit points" reads "A limb hit for three times more points than it can take *in a single blow* is severed or irrevocably maimed" (again, emphasis mine).  Do these effects only happen if a *single blow* caused double/triple the target's limb's hit points, or can they happen cumulatively?  My naive read of the rules was that these results only happen if they're from one big hit, but Jason Durall's answers from last October seem to suggest that cumulative damage can yield shock or maiming.  

To make my confusion concrete, here is an example that illustrates my three conundrums.  I have 18 total hit points, giving me 5 in each arm.   I get hit twice in the left arm, first for 5 points, and then for 10 points.  

1.  When I take the second hit, is the damage reduced to 5 points, since my arm can only take 10 points (5 x 2) total, or do the 10 points still go to the arm, since they do not (as a single blow) exceed twice my hit points?

2.  If the answer to question 1 is that I've taken 15 points of damage to my arm, is it now maimed, because it has taken 3 times its total hit points (10+5=15)?  Or is it not maimed because it didn't take 15 points in a *single blow*.

Now suppose I got hit twice in the left arm, first for 5 points, and then for 5 points again (there's no ambiguity here: I've taken 10 points of damage to the arm).

3.  When I take the second hit, am I in shock?  I have taken 10 points to my arm (twice its capacity), but it was not from a single blow.  Note that I've still got 8 total hit points left, so I'm nowhere near unconsciousness based on total damage.

Thanking you all in advance!

Heres my take reading RQG rules as written:

1. Your arm takes another 5 pts of damage bringing it to its x 2 damage limit of -5 (minus 5). However remaining damage will still go to Total Hit Points (limited by x2 damage threshold in a single blow) . So Total Hit Points are reduced by the full 10 hit points with the second blow. I think the examples are clear on this.

Edit: Importantly, as well as what I've mentioned above the second hit was a big x2 damage to the limb in a single blow, which brings into affect *functionally incapacitated*

2. It is not maimed or severed. Maimed or severed (x3) only happens through damage received from a single blow, not cumulative. However as I pointed out above, the second blow was a big x2 the location HP in a single blow, so the player becomes *functionally incapacitated*.

3. As written it does say x2 damage will  *functionally incapacitate* a character only if received through through a *single blow*. If its a result of two separate hits as in your example then it would read that the character is not *functionally incapacitated*, but will still be suffering from the effects of Damage Equal to or More than the Locations Hit Points. In other words a useless limb.  - Note though that this is only the case with limbs. Head, chest, and Abdomen will suffer the x2 effect through cumulative blows, not just a single blow.

As a side note RQ3 did have the cumulative hits leading to maimed, and a single blow to severed, but that was at the x2 threshold (not x3 as in RQG).

21 minutes ago, Rick Meints said:

We have a two page PDF of each of the substantive changes made between the printings. We have posted it a number of places. It includes page numbers so you know what pages to print out from the PDF, as desired.

CHA4028 second printing corrections.pdf

Ah - so I expect the current RQG PDF is the one used for the second printing? 

Just now, Jeff said:

Jason and I are planning to put one together soon. But we have a lot in our INBOX right now.

Great thanks, good to hear. No worries, totally understand.

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Thanks Rick.

Any chance for those of us who bought the first printing, that there might be a "1st-to-2nd" PDF that (for example) might offer printable, formatted pages to 'drop into' our current books to carry the changes?  I realize formatting, etc likely all cascaded through the book so it's not as simple as gluing a new page 75 atop the old page 75, but I'm thinking of maybe a "print both sides of this page to drop into your book between pages 75-76, as it carries errata for the previous chapter" or something?

Obviously, my point is to try to get all the fixes between 1st and 2nd cogently and usefully into my book.

If you don't have the time/editing resources for this, if you even have a single clear PDF that says "here are the specific updates from 1.ed to 2.ed" I'd be happy to put something like I'm suggesting together for you.

Thanks!

Yes pleased to see many of the clarifications in the latest RQG PDF. Be handy to have an official errata including them for those of us with first printings. 

So regarding corrections to the second printing - Is the current  RQG PDF on Chaosium’s website  the one which has been used for the second printing? 

*Starts vigil for the upcoming RuneQuest starter set*

15 hours ago, Tupper said:

By my read of the earlier passage (page 203), the damage should have been 18 (14 (max of 2D6+2), and 4 (a lucky roll on 1D4))?  Which passage is right?

Yes I think your initial read is correct - RQG criticals do maximum special weapon damage and ignore armour. Any damage bonus is rolled as normal

Greg’s creative DNA and vision lives on in the games and our imaginations. Thanks Greg. A wonderful legacy. We’ll keep playing.

Deepest condolences to family and friends. 

Heh heh - yeah there’s a whole story ark there. #theTragicTrollkin

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maximum negative damage modifier will always be -1 since -1 is a higher number than -6. Personally I'd houserule it to zero on a crush

Ah yes of course. Think i’ll pinch that house rule  

Curious - What happens if someone has a negative damage modifier with a crush crit/Special ? Do you actually do less damage then with a normal hit?  

P219 - Shield attacks , does not specify whether the loss of parry is applied to just the shield, or also any other held weapon. Suggest further clarification.