Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About Tupper

  • Rank
    Advanced Member


  • 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. This looks like a fun adventure. One thing is niggling me, though: why is the action on Clayday, rather than Wildday? Shouldn’t it be nights of the (normal) full moon rather than nights of the full black moon? My impression was that Lunars were more powerful on night of the full moon, and weaker when it was a full black moon. Page 8 refers to areas “lit only by the moon”, which suggests a full moon rather than a dark one.
  2. I posted the original topic that lordabdul references, but never got round to mentioning my solution to the problem. Since RHW asks ... I went on a laminating binge. I laminated the softcover booklets that come in the games master pack (calendar, GM's tables, adventure booklet), and then laminated the wrap around screen. I'm quite a fan of laminating softcover RPG books, so I've got it down to a fairly fine art, and I think it came out rather well. I've attached three pictures, one of my slipcase (showing the GM screen in pride of place; the slight discolouration is flash catching the glossy surface of the lamination). The second one shows the cover around all the books, and the third shows the detail of how I laminated it, focusing on the top of the "spine". It's important to have those nicks in the lamination, otherwise it would be quite stiff and wouldn't bend "naturally" on its spine. Even having done all that laminating, everything still fits happily in the little cup. The trick to getting things in and out is to put the sleeve in first, and then slide the other items into the sleeve. Most well-balanced folks probably aren't reading this, and if they are, will just roll their eyes and carry on, but if you want to have a bash at laminating this, I would suggest doing the books in the following order: 1. The adventure book. This will get your hand back in to laminating, if you're a bit rusty. The cover is reasonably firm, which makes laminating relatively easy. 2. The two paper books. These are a bit more tricky. Laminating paper is harder, because it tends to flop around. It's made a bit easier if you lay the book on top of another book (so it's elevated above the table) and then use a ruler to guide the contact paper onto the cover. If you try to do this straight on the table, there's a danger that the edges will flop down onto your table, and picking up dust/dirt. By the time you're done this, you'll be fairly used to laminating paper rather than card. 3. Finally do the cover. I'd suggest laminating to the spine, then dealing with the edges, and finally doing the second half of the job. That way you can again rest it on a book as you're doing each half. I'm vaguely tempted to laminate the little cardboard "cup" at the bottom, so it's equally glossy, but I've never done something so unbookshaped before, so it'll take a bit more thought before I start.
  3. Finally got hold of my slipcase, bestiary, and GM screen. They're rather splendid looking things. One thing that is bugging me at the moment, though, is how to deal with the GM screen. It looks cool to have the illusion rule on the spine to go with the other books. However, that sheet of paper is very light, and seems to be tricky to get in and out of the little half-box that holds everything together. I wondered if I should laminate it, or glue it to some thick card so it's a bit more robust. What do other people do to make their GM screen look nice in the slipcase, but still easy to get at its contents?
  4. I'm not sure that's what he said... That reads to me like you can mangle a limb with cumulative damage (and to do that, they need to get above 2x HP). Often in discussions of rules, people talk about RAW: Rules As Written, meaning "we're doing this without house rules", and RAI: Rules As Intended, meaning "I think that's a lawyerly interpretation of that rule, and not really in the spirit of it" (often applied by GMs when players get weaselly and say things like "but it doesn't say I *can't* do X..."). This section RAW clearly has some ambiguous parts (which I feel we've all debated in full here): Do the effects of 2x damage to a limb (going into shock) take effect after cumulative damage or just a single big blow? Does subsequent damage (after 2x damage) go to the limb or to general HP? But some parts, don't to me (or to other readers) seem ambiguous at all, RAW: A limb only gets severed/maimed if it takes 3x damage from a *single blow*. In this situation, the tricky thing with RAI is that 90% of this section was written by Steve Perrin and friends, and they're not here to enlighten us what they meant. Jason has made two clarifications (one on this thread and the other in the general rulings): Damage after 2x damage to a limb goes to you but not the limb. Limbs can be mangled after 3x cumulative damage. These two rulings seem mutually inconsistent (and the latter ruling seems to run contrary to RAW). My gut feeling tells me that most folks who'd read the book, never played RQ3, and never read a thread on this forum would have trouble reaching the second ruling's conclusion! As a GM, this could be troubling. You could read a section of the book, think it's pretty clear RAW, and then find a player brandishing some discussion from a forum that invalidates what you read in the book. My feeling is that this is best handled by judgement on the part of the GM. Personally, I favour using RAW. If a rule proves ambiguous, I try to use RAI by my own judgement. If I read something on a forum that convinces me one way or the other on something ambiguous, I'll use it. If I read something (or have something brought to me by a player) that I don't agree with, I don't use it, regardless of who said it. If an author writes an errata, I take it pretty seriously (these are not undertaken lightly, and are often well thought out), but comments on forums or twitter, I don't necessarily take as gospel. I mean this in the nicest possible way. I really appreciate that game designers take the time to answer questions about games (by myself and others). They have (like most people) plenty of things to do with their time, and this doesn't pay the bills. But I also realise that they're human. Plenty of times (personally) when I get asked a professional opinion, and have to give an opinion in a hurry, it may not be entirely water-tight, and the same is true of game designers. I also really appreciate (as the OP) everyone who's contributed to this thread: it's really helped my understand what's going on in this section.😇
  5. Hello again @Paid a bod yn dwp. I think if we're buying Jason's comment earlier (that cumulative damage can lead to maiming or shock), then (IMHO) the most coherent view of things is probably: The cap on x2 damage is on a *per wound* basis, not absolute. Subsequent wounds are associated with the limb. The reason I say 1 is that otherwise, you can't ever get to a limb being maimed except as a single blow, so Jason's point above (about maiming) would be superfluous. Once the character with 6HP in the arm hit -6, there'd be no way to get from -6 to -12 (although a single blow could still achieve maiming). The reason I say 2 is that in order to figure out whether you've reached maimed status, you'd have to associate the subsequent wounds with the limb. If the damage gets recorded as "general/total" HP damage, it could be hard to tell where it came from (of course this interpretation - as noted above - would conflict with Jason's earlier comment on the questions and answers thread). I think @trystero raises a good point about whether "surplus" damage (over x2 from a single hit) should be recorded to build up to maiming, but I'd say that's going to lead to odd paperwork (wounds on limbs with no associated total HP loss) and the book seems fairly specific that the surplus damage doesn't do anything: "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" (emphasis mine). Then again, I thought the repeated mention of "from a single blow" was fairly emphatic, and that wasn't the intended meaning ... 😀 I'm coming round to this (cumulative maiming/shock, along with 1 and 2 above). I guess it's just you've gradually had your limb damaged beyond the point of no return. At 17 damage, it was holding together, but that 18th point of damage was the straw that broke the camel's back, and now you're in the ER.
  6. @trystero In terms of what I think .... I'm still not sure I (personally) agree with Jason's ruling. I feel that someone who's taken 18 1HP wounds to their arm has a very sore arm (it stopped working after 6 HP damage) but since one hit ago, they could be healed completely using first aid, this doesn't feel like something that should require magical healing (as a mangled limb should). I feel that a mangled limb should have been caused by an 18 HP hit (reduced to 12 HP) so that's a *big* wound that's needing healing (and the need for magical healing seems readily apparent with first aid only able to heal 6HP tops).
  7. @trystero I follow what you're saying. To paraphrase: since a wound can mangle a limb without doing total HP damage of 3x the limb's damage (as per the example in the book where someone is hit for 8 points of damage to a 2HP limb and is maimed while taking only 4HP damage), we would need to track the contributions towards taking 3xHP damage from wounds that don't quite achieve it on their own. This does all start to look "messy" from a book keeping perspective though, don't you think? After all, we could now have HP damage to the limb that's *not* associated with total HP damage. If wounds are kept 1-to-1 then it's very clear that healing 1HP to a limb heals 1 HP to the total.
  8. Thanks to @Jason Durall for wading into this thread. However, I'm still sadly confused (as the original poster). Trystero's point highlights my confusion (although for mangling to be on the table, I think it needs to be 3 damage from the subsequent hit): I get that the first hit does me 6 points of damage. Now I've taken twice my arm's HP. When I take 3 more HP, what happens? I have 6HP damage to the arm and 9 HP to my total HP? I have 9HP to my arm and 9HP to my total HP? The former would suggest no mangling. The latter would suggest the arm is mangled. Jason's answer here suggests that the latter should be the case (and hence a limb could be mangled by many "small" blows). However, in the original discussion of this point (on the questions and answers forum) @Jason Durall said: "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." Maybe I should wait for a more in-depth answer to @Paid a bod yn dwp's question on the "questions and answers" forum, but I can't resist asking, having spent a while thinking about this earlier in the year, and with illumination (almost) within hand's grasp!
  9. I was just thinking PDF (via RPGnow), so I guess map sizes are moot?
  10. I saw the 50% off sale notification, and thought it might be a good juncture to buy some RQ classic material, since it's compatible with RQG. However, I'm confused about some items. There seem to be two versions of a couple of the books, and I'm not sure which is "better". Notably "Borderlands" vs "Gloranthan Classics Vol IV: Borderlands and Beyond". I *think* the latter contains all of the former, plus "Runemasters" and "Plunder". Is there any reason to prefer "Borderlands" over "Gloranthan Classics Vol IV: Borderlands and Beyond" (apart from price)? "Griffin Mountain" vs "Gloranthan Classics Vol II: Griffin Mountain". I *think* the only difference is that the Gloranthan Classics version has more material added. Is there any reason to prefer "Griffin Mountain" over "Gloranthan Classics Vol II: Griffin Mountain" (apart from price)? Thanks in advance for any advice here!
  11. How is the spell Control (entity) useful? The spell description suggests that the entity could be a spirit, but could also be something corporeal like a hawk, dog, or mammoth (to quote the examples given). I could see that it might be used to bind a spirit. However, Spirit Binding seems a more efficient way to do this, since you don't have to reduce magic points to zero. If you are fighting a spirit and reduce its magic points to zero, it can't do very much. If you are fighting a corporeal entity and reduce its magic points to zero, it is unconscious. I suppose you could command it to sleep on its back rather than its side, or to stop snoring, but it doesn't seem you could do anything very useful with your control. Does anyone know why this spell would be handy?
  12. On closer reflection ... maybe your example is off, since 12 points to the head even if cumulative would trigger the instant death criteria. There's no mention of "in a single blow" there, so presumably it can be cumulative (just as with the 2x hp results). So to paraphrase your example: someone who took 6 points of damage to the head followed by another 6 points to a different location dies at the end of the current round, but the same person taking 12 points to the head (either from a single blow or separate blows) dies instantly.
  13. That is a very good point, that I had not thought about. Thanks for pointing that out!
  14. I agree (almost) entirely with what's said here. The only bits I disagree with, I've edited in red: the single hit criteria is only for limbs (i.e. arms and legs). So you can get knocked out or killed from multiple blows to the head/chest/abdomen. Note however, that you're dead from total HP damage before you hit 3x location HP in head/chest/abdomen anyway! The other thing I'd clarify is that IMHO (and others differ here) the "total HP" damage that's being accumulated is always mirrored with damage to the location in question. The reason that this is important is natural healing, since this is done on a location-by-location basis (see my earlier posts about Bob and Alice).
  15. @Paid a bod yn dwp Thanks for keeping thinking about this! I'm still relatively unconvinced that there's a maximum (RAW) for any area. I do believe that Jason muddied the water in his comments by trying to read RQG (which is roughlyRQ2) with a RQ3 lens on it. However, let me make a few comments on your comments. I've bolded two other parts of the quote. Harmast has 10 hit points, and once the dust settles (after his 9 points of damage), he has 2. When I first read this example, I thought: that makes sense, he's capped at double damage to an area, so he only took 8 of the 9 points (10-2=8). But I agree with you that the way that section is laid out, the special rule for capping damage is arms/legs only: So clearly limbs are arms and legs (not heads), and I agree that heads, chests and abdomens are not covered by the single blow damage cap. Harmast should have taken 9 points of damage, be at 1hp and bleeding out. On the topic of the damage cap, if anyone takes 3x their head, chest, or abdomen, they are dead. The rule under 3x damage is superfluous, since the total hp damage will have killed them without need for a special comment that these types of injury are fatal. For example, if Harmast takes 12 points to the head, that's killed him outright since he only has 10 hp total. I double checked the bestiary, and this is true for all shapes and sizes of critter too. Perhaps there could be some weird magical effect where someone ended up with boosted total hp that might make this rule important ... but I don't think day-to-day it'll ever matter. So ... perhaps one could note that head/chest/abdomen have a maximum damage possible of 3x their hp, but it's moot, since a person is dead by the time they hit that level! Note that that's not true for arms. Harmast has 3hp in each arm, so technically he can survive taking 3x that hp. Arms and legs though, are (mildly) contentious. If you cap the total damage someone can take from an arm/leg at 3x that hp, then you can't kill someone by repeatedly hitting the same arm (although you can with a leg). If you cap at 2x, you can't kill someone by repeatedly hitting their leg. Of course, if you go with the "subsequent hits go to total hp (but not the limb per se)" then they can be killed that way. As mentioned earlier, I still think the most elegant interpretation is that hits are always associated with a location, individual hits to arms/legs are capped at 2x hp, but there's no overall cap. Others (yourself included) may disagree, but of course that's the role of a GM to decide what makes sense for their group, and roll with it. I figure we've sliced and diced page 148 six ways to Sunday in this thread, so folks who read it can make up their own minds about how everything should be interpreted! 😀
  • Create New...