Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Regulars
  • Posts

    824
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. Great thanks all - nobody panic it’s just a brain fart. A stiff drink and an early night should see me right
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. Yep - you’re right. Thanks for the clarification
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. Its an Issaries trading thing. Every thing is a commodity
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. As written the Spell Trading spell does point to One-use spells being a cast and forget. If there was a big error in the way Spell Trading is worded I would of expected him to point it out in his reply, but he didn't. It seems more likely to me that he has missed the distinction in the original question between the trader and the receiver of the new spell...if he didn't its a very wishy washy way to explain such a major change to the text particularly in a Q&A.
  12. Odd that Jason didn't point out in his answer that the text for spell trading was in error. If that was a cut and paste error surely he would have mentioned something? As it stands I don't know what to think of his answer?
  13. Thanks everyone for the input. Its a tricky bit of text for sure, and could easily be clarified with a short sentence. RAW - I agree that if we are to read the explanation of One-Use Spells at face value, it reads that we only loose Rune pts permanently, it doesn't mention knowledge of the spell. Which implies you can still cast the One-use spell using any remaining Rune pts. In this reading the limitation is that the Rune pts used for casting are lost permanently each time the spell is cast, not that the spell is forgotten/lost. The concept of Rune points as a generic pool of pts usable on any of your gods Rune Spells reinforces this reading. RAI - However as has been mentioned we do have to work off the title as much as the body of text that follows it. "One-Use Rune Spell" implies one casting, and significantly Its not titled "One-Use Rune Points". So on balance I feel that David Scott has the right of it, once cast you loose the spell and the Rune points. An interpretation that keeps it aligned to the equivalent "non-reusable" spells in RQ2.
  14. Ah! It’s not just me then. The wording is not clear on one-use spells. I suspect David Scott is right, but maybe this should be added to the core rules question thread?
  15. Remind me - With One-use Rune Magic, after casting do you loose the spell as well as the associated Rune points, or is it just the Rune points? So in other words will characters be needing to sacrifice Power again to regain the spell after casting?
  16. RAW The rules do model this through the greater damage bigger monsters do. Damage modifiers tend to be much greater. It’s quite likely that if a giant hits a successfully parrying PC, that the excess damage will still kill them. An average giant might be doing average damage of 29 hitpoints per hit. edit: And that’s before specials or criticals
  17. Agreed you have to be fair in bringing in house rules. If I was going down the house rule road, with the duck and the giant situation , and I was to house rule out the 100%+ opposed rule for parry as an exception to the rule, it would be across the board. It would have to apply to all small/medium/and maybe large sized pc’s too. not just penalising ducks. They’ve had it hard enough. As a GM I’d also give some thought before hand to the encounter, and make sure that the PC’s had a decent chance to dodge or some other advantage like magic before disallowing opposed parries. But personally I’d keep it rules as written. If the concept of parry includes shifting your body out of the force of the blow, and deflecting the remaining momentum away with your parry weapon then why not? It’s not impossible to visualise a PC parrying and side stepping at the same time, whilst helping to guide the giants glancing blow away from themselves with their weapon/shield.
  18. Yes I do see your point. I argued both ways. I can see how RAW the 100%+ opposed parry could be interpreted as lowering the effectiveness of a giants attack, if the meaning of “parry” is not only getting your weapon in the way of the opponents weapon, but also shifting your body out of the way too. But also I think if a GM wants to make a house rule which is consistent, not too outlandish, and applies to all, then that’s fair game too. For some story wise it may feel more appropriate to the type of game you want to run - you may have exceptions to rulings in extreme circumstances. Some people might like to house rule in the knockback rule from RQ3. Not everyone is going to play RQG by the book, but equally it’s cool if you do. Personally I like the idea of a super agile parrying duck so would be inclined to play it RAW, as that’s a cool story that I’d like to play through, and the rules model that well. But If I was inclined to have exceptions in extreme circumstances, I wouldn’t let rules bog me down.
  19. I’d probably allow it, though I might question In the case of a huge cave troll. Basically I’d go with what makes the story cool. If it’s fun to have a super effective duck parrier running circles around a giant troll then I’d go with it. If it’s more fun to express the power of the opponent swinging huge hits at a tiny target, then I might disallow the 100%+ opposed rules. One of the things I like about RQG/BRP games is it’s easy to make these kind of calls as a GM, and it still retains a logic. I guess if you’re clear on what a “parry” is actually doing in game, it becomes an easier decision to make as a gm. So alternatively If parry involves an element of changing body position from out of the direct blow, as well as a bit of weapon deflection, then maybe if it suites the game allow the 100% + opposed rule to stand in all circumstances.
  20. Good use of magic. Good way to make parrying effective against powerful opponents.
  21. @Scotty I wrote this question as part of the core rules questions thread, but it appears to have been deleted. I'd understand if someone else had duplicated the question, but this doesn't appear to be the case. What's the reason for deleting, am I missing something? Thanks
  22. Though I'm very fond of RQ and BRP game mechanics, personally I would make a GM call in these situations. For me the best starting point would be asking what would be the most satisfying outcome for the story. If its a hulking 10m giant with arms the size of trees, then for dramatic purposes I'd be inclined to house rule for story purposes that: This isn't a standard combat situation whereby a 100% + parry skill can negate the effectiveness of the Giants attack. Blows from the Giant that hit their target will hit at their normal chance, and will do large amounts of damage, probably killing you if you attempt to parry - so dodging is your only realistic defence option. No matter how skilled the swordsman, s/he isn't going to do too much by successfully putting the weapon in front of the giant maul. The Giants at a different scale and doesn't need to play by the same rules. Dodge is the only sensible option. I would however allow dodge at 100%+ to work as written in the rules. Then again If there is some kind of divine intervention, or power gained from a Heroquest, then I might allow 100% + parries against Giant opposition using the rules as written. Some sort of god given gift. Basically I'd follow rules as written until it seems at odds with the story, then make a GM call.
  23. Also worth considering the advantage of having a secondary parrying weapon such as shield in prolonging the life of your primary attack weapon - It’s going to be taking a lot of hits that would otherwise be going to damage your primary attacking weapon. If the shield does break at least you can still attack and parry with the remaining weapon. Could be the difference in a close fight.
  24. As a GM I’d be ruling that parry is impossible in this circumstance ( much like you can’t parry arrows with a melee weapon). Dodge would be the only realistic option.
×
×
  • Create New...