Jump to content

Tupper

Members
  • Content Count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Tupper

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Long time gamer.
  • Current games
    D&D (sadly)
  • Blurb
    Getting back into gaming.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Tupper

    Death by a thousand cuts

    RQ3 is quite different (barring the pistola reference): Now there's some clear wording for you! Double damage (whether from one blow or many) maims the limb, and that's the most the limb can take. I suspect that a lot of people here (probably including Jason) have played so much RQ3 that they read the RQG rule and subconsciously apply RQ3 thinking to it (like capping the damage a limb can take). That said, this is clearly quite a different rule to the RQ2 rule. My understanding of RQG is that it's supposed to be built off RQ2 (although I do note that the heading "Damage Equals or Exceeds Double the Location's Hit Points" and paragraph heading "Limb" is taken from RQ3). My feeling is that RQ2 proves the more effective old source when craving enlightenment for RQG...
  2. Tupper

    Death by a thousand cuts

    Hmmm... he certainly does suggest that there (although, as we agree, some of his Q&A answers on this topic seem a bit contradictory). The following is the wording from RQ Classic Edition: For ease of side-by-side comparison, here's a recap of the RQG phrasing from my post above: To my mind, someone's copied the former passage, removed the discussion of bullets vs swords, and then tried to tidy things up by putting "total" into the "further blows" sentence to mimic the wording in the example. My guess of RAI in RQ Classic is that all the damage goes to limbs (although you could argue that the "total" in the example suggests that the heavy blow does "total hp damage" instead of regular limb damage). Dunno if that leaves us further forward. It's hard to say if the intention of the new wording was to change a rule or not. My guess would be not, but Jason Durall's comments may suggest otherwise! 😀
  3. Tupper

    Death by a thousand cuts

    Let me be crystal clear: I completely agree about point 1. 😀 It's point 2 that I'm not so sure I'm on the same page with. There I'm unclear that a location has a maximum amount of damage it can take. The example in the book (that I think you're referring to) is: That showcases point 1. Poor old Harmast gets his damage capped at 8 because he can only take 4 points there normally. It's also not that helpful because he's getting hit in the vitals. The only piece I can find in that section that mentions a maximum hp for a limb is (page 147): This suggests that things are open ended as to how much you can take in a location. We do have Jason's comments and However, this latter seems to run contrary to what we agree is the rule for being in shock (that it has to be a one off blow) and suggests further that a limb can be severed by many small blows. So I'm not sure his answer here is consistent with what the rulebook is saying. I think he's taking an RQ3 spin on the rules ... which makes me reluctant to take either quote as a great interpretation of what the rulebook actually says. I do increasingly like the "simple" read of it (i.e. that the remark about total hp just reminds you that subsequent blows can keep applying wounds to the limb). Makes things pretty easy to summarise: Hit for less than twice the hp of the limb. Take the damage to the limb. Hit for twice the hp of the limb or more. Take twice the limb's hp as damage to the limb. You're in shock. Hit for three times the hp of the limb or more. You don't have that limb any more, so subsequent hits there pass on to adjacent locations. [In addition to the effects from twice or more] Cumulative limb damage equal to or more than the limb's hp, the limb is useless.
  4. Tupper

    Death by a thousand cuts

    @Paid a bod yn dwp: would you mind giving me a reference to one of the in play examples that clarifies this? Just a page number would do (no need for a quote). It would probably help me set my mind at ease on this. I'm not trying to be obtuse ... just trying to wrap my head around what's going on (I'm new to RQ, unlike most of the people who are helping me out here!).
  5. Tupper

    Death by a thousand cuts

    To highlight the ambiguity here (regarding the cap on what a location can take), this is the passage from the core RQG book (page 148) My initial read of this was by looking at the "limb" paragraph: we're talking about someone who's taken twice the possible points of damage from a single blow, and then "further blows to that arm affect the total hit points of the adventurer, however" refers to someone who's just taken that big single blow (i.e. the sentence before the example). Paid a bod yn dwp is seeing the "further blows" clause as referring to the section heading: i.e. someone who's already taken "damage equal or exceeding double the location's hit points". Yet a third interpretation (which no-one's raised here, and has just occurred to me now) is that the "further blows" clause might just be clarifying that you can take further damage to the *limb* from subsequent hits (after all, the example mentions that the adventurer takes "4 points of damage off the total hit points", not bothering to mention that it's associated with the arm). Suddenly I'm starting to find that third interpretation appealing ... It has a certain elegant simplicity to it: normal combat blows are always associated with hit locations, and total hp damage is reserved for poison, sunspears, etc. I like a lot of stuff in the RQG book, but this feels like a section that could have used some cleaner wording.😀
  6. Tupper

    Death by a thousand cuts

    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: You can't take more than x2 your limb's hp from a single blow. This seems unambiguous. 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). 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.
  7. Tupper

    Augments once per session

    I should probably clarify what I mean by "forcing" the use of an augment. A player says they'll sneak across the bandit camp and into the cave. GM thinks about it and says: "That's a move silently task, but I also think hiding is important, so I'd like you to augment your move silently with your hide." The GM is suggesting that two skills are relevant here, and is using the augment to handle that, rather than a Player suggesting a skill, or one PC helping another PC.
  8. Tupper

    Is Sword Trance broken?

    @Kloster Sorry, my query was unclear. I thought you were saying that the extra MP spent wouldn’t count for dispelling. If they do, that’s going to be a heck of a spell to get rid of if someone dropped a rune point plus 10 or so MP on it.
  9. Tupper

    Augments once per session

    The discussion of group tasks lead to me reading the section on augments rather carefully. The section starts out as: “Where appropriate, one ability—whether skill, Passion, or Rune—may be combined to augment another ability of the same or a different type ... Only one augment may be attempted per ability, and an ability can only be used once per session to augment a task being attempted.” So if I’m reading that right, you can only augment with a *skill* once per session. This seems odd to me. I understand wanting to stop PCs “spamming” runes and passions (GM rolls eyes; “You’re not using your movement rune *again*...” scenarios). But skill augmenting might not be consensual from the PC (“Wait, did you say I have to roll Sing as an augment? I’m terrible at singing...” scenarios). The rule as written would mean that the GM can’t *force* the use of a particular skill augment more than once on a player in a session. In particular, this seems at odds with the advice for Hide and Move Silently (that one will often augment the other). Second time it came up in a session, the PCs would skip the augment. How does everyone else interpret this?
  10. Tupper

    Is Sword Trance broken?

    Do you know where I'd find that rule? Is it in the book somewhere? I scoured the official rulings thread, and couldn't find it there.
  11. Tupper

    Death by a thousand cuts

    Thanks again for all the answers. There’s one bit that’s still niggling at me: the damage from limbs going to total hit points after the limb takes double its capacity in damage. My read of that passage of the core book is that it’s double limb hp damage *from a single blow* that triggers this (subsequent) behaviour. The reason I think this is the case (besides the fact that this clause seems to be following on from the discussion of taking a single big hit on a limb) is that otherwise the system generates “messy” wounds, where some of the damage is associated with a limb, and some with total hp. For example: I have 5hp in my arm. I’m hit for 7 damage, and then 5. The second wound becomes 3hp to the arm and 2 to total hp (if we say that the arm can only go to -5). The reason this is messy is that healing is done per limb, so the total hp damage heals in parallel with the arm. Hence when healing with first aid, one might well ask *which* hp from that wound get healed? The total hp damage or the limb damage? This isn’t mentioned at all in the first aid section. With the interpretation that damage *after a single blow does double the limb’s hp* goes onto total hp, this all makes more sense. Wounds to limbs will always either be all limb hp damage (prior to taking a really big hit) or all total hp damage (after taking a really big hit) and there’ll be no “mixed location” damage.
  12. Tupper

    Group tasks

    I also think that The One Ring's way of handling stealth is very elegant. I'd note that it takes a symmetric approach to parties who are in danger of being ambushed, in which case each member needs to succeed at their awareness check to avoid being penalised when the ambush happens. People who succeed better can warn other party members (just like with stealth). On the topic of other games, D&D 5e's approach is, in some ways similar (for the stealth side): A group making a stealth check succeeding if more than half of the party make the roll successfully. A group making a perception check would consist of one person rolling, with advantage because they have help (akin to using an augment). So again (for stealth) some people can fail individually, but the party collectively pulls through. Perhaps a way to RuneQuest-ise this school of thought would be: Everyone rolls their hide roll. If someone gets a Special success, he/she may treat it as a regular success, but raise another group member's success by one level (from fumble to fail, or fail to success). If someone gets a Critical success, he/she may lower it one level to raise another group member's success by one level. The party's minimum success level is the one that is compared to the guards. One could apply the same method to the guards who are searching, but the use of a minimum here feels less intuitive (but needs to be there, or we're back to the original problem of it being too easy for the searchers). The appeals of this approach would be two fold: Everyone in the party gets to roll, which is fun. Because there's no use of augments, that leaves them free to be used for other things, such as Move Quietly augmenting Hiding.
  13. Tupper

    Group tasks

    I guess if one doesn't like chained augmentation, then one has a choice between making the task depend on one skill (but with group contributions) Have the best hider make a Hide augment roll. Use this augment for the worst hider who makes the final Hide roll. Now have the second best scanner/searcher make a Scan/Search augment roll. Use this augment for the best scanner/searcher to make the final Scan/Search roll. or have the task depend on both skills (but with less group contributions) Have the worst Move Quietly adventurer make a Move Quietly augment roll. Use this augment for the worst Hider who makes the actual roll. Now have the best listener amongst the guards make a Listen augment roll. Use this augment for the best scanner/searcher to make the final Scan/Search roll. or (as Psullie suggests) make it simpler again (and ignore both linked skills and group dynamics) Have the worst hider make a hide roll. Have the best scanner/searcher make a scan/search roll. The appeal here (besides speed at the table) would be that this leaves both the adventurer and the guard able to use their passions/runes to augment the task roll. As a comment in terms of simplicity versus complexity, I'm generally in favour of simple solutions. However, in this case, given that a fight between 8 (or more) people could easily take over an hour to resolve, spending a couple of minutes resolving a stealth situation that replaces it is probably "good value" from the point of view of having lots happen in a gaming session. More players getting to roll dice keeps everyone engaged in what's going on. Lastly, if you're the player whose character is good at hiding, it seems a shame that you don't get to contribute anything when the group decides to be stealthy. 😀
  14. Tupper

    Group tasks

    I ran up a quick graph of what the average effect is of an augment on a skill. Reading off a couple of pertinent numbers: With skill level 25, you have an average augment of -9.6 (you fail a lot, and fumble quite a bit). With skill level 75, you have an average augment of 12 (you rarely fumble, and have good odds of getting special or critical successes). So if a 25 skill level is augmented with a 25 skill level, that lowers the chance of success to 15%, whereas at skill 75, the augment raises the success chance to 87%. I like the idea of using augments to deal with these group activities. For example, you could do: The worst adventurer (in terms of hiding) makes the roll, with an augment from the best adventurer. The best guard (in terms of searching) makes the roll, with an augment from the second best guard. However, there's one problem with using augments here: augmentation might already be going on between Move Quietly and Hide (or Listen and Scan/Search for the searchers). I suppose if one is happy to augment augmentation rolls, then one could have: The best Move Quietly adventurer makes an augmentation roll. The worst Move Quietly adventurer makes an augmentation roll (using the preceding MQ augmentation). Now we know how well Moving Quietly is going for the group. The best Hide adventurer makes an augmentation roll (using the preceding MQ augmentation). The worst Hide adventurer makes a final roll (using the preceding Hide augmentation). Meanwhile, from the guards' perspective: The second best Listen guard makes an augmentation roll. The best Listen guard makes an augmentation roll (using the previous Listen augmentation). Now we know how much listening is contributing for the group. The second best Scan/Search guard makes an augmentation roll (using the preceding Listen augmentation). The best Scan/Search guard makes a final roll (using the preceding Scan/Search augmentation). This would mean that as a searcher, having helpers with skill 48 or more will make for an easier time. Similarly being a hider, if your team leader has a skill 48 or more, they may be able to help you pull through even if your skills are fairly mediocre. Note that this would mean that from the guards' perspective, it may be better to let one person do the searching. This seems reasonable: "We sent Mr Magoo to check the haystack, and he said he didn't see anyone there."
  15. Tupper

    Group tasks

    Thanks for the replies, and do keep them coming! Just to clarify one point from Atgxtg's suggestions: in the case where no-one is actively searching, the method suggested in the corebook (for one character) is simply to check for success (no opposed roll). However, to crib Atgxtg's example, with 4 adventurers with 75% stealth, they would only have a 32% chance of getting past guards who were not looking for them, which seems low for such skilled folk.
×