protection magic and critical hits

[Zalain]

Hello all,

 

Quote

A critical hit ignores the effects of armor or any other protection, and does impaling, slashing, or crushing damage (depending on weapon type)

Critical Hit, page 206

 

does Critical hits ignores protection magic such Shield (rune spell) or Protection (spirit magic)? What would happen if objetive has a Ward Against weapons (Sorcery Spell) on him/her?

what would happen if the weapon affected by the sorcery spell Dampen Damage (pg.394) does a critical hit?

 

thank you in advance

[Godlearner]

Critical hits ignores protection magic such Shield (rune spell), Protection (spirit magic) and Ward Against weapons.

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, Godlearner said:

Critical hits ignores protection magic such Shield (rune spell), Protection (spirit magic) and Ward Against weapons.

I agree Shield and Protection are ignored (although I know GM that are not ignoring) but I think Ward against Weapons counts because it is not armor.

[Godlearner]

5 hours ago, Kloster said:

but I think Ward against Weapons counts because it is not armor.

Semantics. It stops damage. It is as much magical armor as the other spells, but has a different mechanic. 

[Ian_W]

On 12/16/2023 at 3:51 AM, Godlearner said:

Semantics. It stops damage. It is as much magical armor as the other spells, but has a different mechanic. 

Armor protects you.

Ward against Weapons makes their weapon a not-weapon.

Semantics. It's only unimportant if you lack a Law rune.

[Godlearner]

16 hours ago, Ian_W said:

Ward against Weapons makes their weapon a not-weapon.

Semantics. It's only unimportant if you lack a Law rune.

Ward of Weapons relies on the Death Rune, not Law. Shield runes depend on the cult. Both create a magical field which protects from physical damage, but with a different mechanic. Thus, Criticals ignore both. Semantics. 

[Runeblogger]

Every GM and group is going to make a decision on this. When I played RQ3, we ruled that Damage Resistance could not be broken by criticals, so for me Ward Against Weapons is the same in that regard. 
 

More discussion about this.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Runeblogger

[Joerg]

Ward Against Weapons requires the intensity of the spell to overcome the incoming damage. In case of a critical, the incoming damage tends to be well into two digit territory, for which the typical Ward Against Weapons will have a bad chance to work.

[Ian_W]

14 hours ago, Godlearner said:

Ward of Weapons relies on the Death Rune, not Law. Shield runes depend on the cult. Both create a magical field which protects from physical damage, but with a different mechanic. Thus, Criticals ignore both. Semantics. 

Ward against Weapons wards against weapons.

It will do nothing against, say, a pot full of boiling oil, or the fiery aura of an elemental, which various other forms of magic protection will protect against.

But if you want to ward against weapons ...

[Godlearner]

6 hours ago, Ian_W said:

Ward against Weapons

You call it that. I call it Damage Resistance. YGWV, but criticals ignore it.

[Shiningbrow]

Honestly, I think it comes down to how you see a weapon's critical actually working mechanically.

I personally find it odd that a better blow from the attacker somehow becomes immune to the all around magic that protects people. For normal armour, I can see the logic - you hit a place where the armour wasn't. (for the Special version, you get the timing and momentum just right for the extra damage)

But, I can't see that logic working with magical protections - that is, there aren't any gaps in that magical aura of protection!

To add to the above discussion directly, especially about WAW - the dwarfs have a spell that enchants Iron so that it protects against criticals as well - thus, there's a precedent already in place for magic being able to do this (which is even less logical than excluding WAW or Shield/Protection from doing so).

[metcalph]

51 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

To add to the above discussion directly, especially about WAW - the dwarfs have a spell that enchants Iron so that it protects against criticals as well - thus, there's a precedent already in place for magic being able to do this (which is even less logical than excluding WAW or Shield/Protection from doing so).

But the Stabilize Iron exception is explicitly cited in the spell description whereas Ward Against Weapons has no such exception.  

[Scotty]

On 12/15/2023 at 8:40 PM, Zalain said:

Do Critical hits ignores protection magic such Shield (rune spell) or Protection (spirit magic)? What would happen if objetive has a Ward Against weapons (Sorcery Spell) on him/her?

what would happen if the weapon affected by the sorcery spell Dampen Damage (pg.394) does a critical hit?

The easiest way to look at this, is does the spell act as armor, absorbing damage? If so, it's ignored, if not, it's not. As usual specific spells may overrule this.

• Shield - ignored by crits
• Protection - ignored by crits
• Ward Against weapons - does not act as armor, unaffected by crits
• Dampen Damage - does not act as armor, unaffected by crits
• Stabilize Iron - special effect, armor is unaffected by criticals.

Note that even if the armor still effects, the maximum special damage will very likely overwhelm it.

As always, GMs are free to run the game as wish and ignore the rules.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Scotty
Added to Q&A

[Shiningbrow]

3 hours ago, metcalph said:

But the Stabilize Iron exception is explicitly cited in the spell description whereas Ward Against Weapons has no such exception.  

Oh, I'm not questioning the phrasing.

I'm questioning the logic. I really hate arbitrary rules that don't actually make any sense...

 

48 minutes ago, Scotty said:

The easiest way to look at this, is does the spell act as armor, absorbing damage? If so, it's ignored, if not, it's not. As usual specific spells may overrule this.

• Shield - ignored by crits
• Protection - ignored by crits
• Ward Against weapons - does not act as armor, unaffected by crits
• Dampen Damage - does not act as armor, unaffected by crits
• Stabilize Iron - special effect, armor is unaffected by criticals.

Note that even if the armor still effects, the maximum special damage will very likely overwhelm it.

This seems to be an arbitrary rule that doesn't make sense...

Other than "Because the rules say so", can you give me an in-game reasonable theory as to why this would be so?

After all, the rules are supposed to be some sort of simulation of, and in some way (although, not in all) represent, the world.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

This seems to be an arbitrary rule that doesn't make sense...

I think it's completely straightforward - "is it armor?" If yes, then ignored, if no, then not ignored.

[Shiningbrow]

30 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

"is it armor?"

No, Protection and Shield are not actual armour. They are not individual pieces that can be moved around, put on, taken off, etc.

They are magic, and for want of better terms that put it in less Earthly terms, they are bits of energy that surround a person, and acts in a way similar to actual pieces of metal (or cloth, leather, shell, etc).

It's Runequest.. not Elder Scrolls where you do actually summon those pieces of armour for each body part.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

No, Protection and Shield are not actual armour. They are not individual pieces that can be moved around, put on, taken off, etc.

They are magic

They're magical armor! 🙂

And since critical hits do bypass them, we can conclude that they're not just a perfect energy sphere that always protects you or anything like that - maybe they do form magical armor pieces, or planes of force, or at least have weak spots. 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Rodney Dangerduck]

54 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

They're magical armor! 🙂

And since critical hits do bypass them, we can conclude that they're not just a perfect energy sphere that always protects you or anything like that - maybe they do form magical armor pieces, or planes of force, or at least have weak spots. 

You are twisting logic into pretzels to match the rules.  Why do the magical armor pieces exactly match the size & shape of your existing armor?  Even armor you aren't wearing? (Say a Humakti with a geas)

The reason crits ignore Protection & Shield is to allow smaller weapons, skillfully or stealthily used, to be useful.  A rare instance of Game Balance.

[Shiningbrow]

51 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

(Say a Humakti with a geas)

Excellent point!!!

51 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Why do the magical armor pieces exactly match the size & shape of your existing armor?

What if you're not wearing any?

[Shiningbrow]

53 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

The reason crits ignore Protection & Shield is to allow smaller weapons, skillfully or stealthily used, to be useful.  A rare instance of Game Balance.

Perhaps I haven't played enough, but I don't recall any time where that's made any significant difference... but, I suppose it would when facing trollkin and the like.

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

The reason crits ignore Protection & Shield is to allow smaller weapons, skillfully or stealthily used, to be useful. 

We're getting to Dune-style Shields here? 🙂

I think the case is more to ensure that you can never be fully safe in battle, unlike in D&D where there is literally zero risk in an easy fight.

[Shiningbrow]

13 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

We're getting to Dune-style Shields here? 🙂

That's sort of how I had always imagined them.... (well, after I knew of Dune... which goes back a few decades)

[Ned]

20 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Other than "Because the rules say so", can you give me an in-game reasonable theory as to why this would be so?

I am almost certain that unexpected weaknesses in magical armours are  expressions of the Fate rune, a power always present but rarely glimpsed.

[mfbrandi]

5 hours ago, Ned said:

the Fate rune, a power always present but rarely glimpsed.

Hard to detect because indistinguishable from its “opposite”? Where on that line one is none can say. Call no one lucky till they have met their fate.

[Joerg]

13 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

Hard to detect because indistinguishable from its “opposite”? Where on that line one is none can say. Call no one lucky till they have met their fate.

Luck clearly is the lower half of Fate.