protection magic and critical hits

[AndreJarosch]

25 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Luck clearly is the lower half of Fate.

Assuming you are right and Luck is the lower half of Fate, what is the upper half of Fate called?

[mfbrandi]

2 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

what is the upper half of Fate called?

Doesn’t have one — it is just a trick of the light.

[AndreJarosch]

3 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

Assuming you are right and Luck is the lower half of Fate, what is the upper half of Fate called?

Luck + ? = Fate 

Maybe:
? = Misfortune

Luck + Misfortune = Fate 

[French Desperate WindChild]

Maybe it is not the opposite but the absence of luck

in that case I would say

luck + action or luck + power or luck + decision 

because you can’t meet your fate if you don’t move. Even moving against your fate drive you to your fate. But if you stay, without any action, any decision it is hard to accomplish anything 

[Agentorange]

On 12/16/2023 at 11:51 PM, Ian_W said:

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 ...

Mmmm.......at the risk of extreme pedantry, if you pick up a pot of boiling oil and hurl it at someone with the intention of causing them harm then it's a weapon because that's what you've intended it to be.

A weapon is whatever you happen to use as a ....weapon.

[Zit]

On 12/17/2023 at 12:12 PM, Scotty said:

The easiest way to look at this, is does the spell act as armor, absorbing damage

"A critical hit ignores the effects of armor or any other protection". Ward Againt Weapon is a protection, wether or not it acts as an armour is RAW irrelevant.

Edited December 20, 2023 by Zit

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, Zit said:

"A critical hit ignores the effects of armor or any other protection". Ward Againt Weapon is a protection, wether or not it acts as an armour is RAW irrelevant.

Huh, I don't remember a critical able to ignore a parrying weapon or shield. I mean, a parrying weapon does provide protection! Guess I'll have to go back to check! 🙃

SDLeary

[Rodney Dangerduck]

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Huh, I don't remember a critical able to ignore a parrying weapon or shield. I mean, a parrying weapon does provide protection! Guess I'll have to go back to check! 🙃

SDLeary

A parrying weapon or shield still "protects" (possibly the wrong term?), dropping the damage by 12 or whatever.

What's really frustrating (or wonderful!) is that a normal success parry with an Earthshield results in zero damage.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Rodney Dangerduck

[Kloster]

6 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

A parrying weapon or shield still "protects" (possibly the wrong term?), dropping the damage by 12 or whatever.

What's really frustrating (or wonderful!) is that a normal success parry with an Earthshield results in zero damage.

Yes. Even with a monstruous critical, a 'simple' success with a shield backed by Earthshield results in Zero damage. But Earthshield is a 3 RP spell, so must have big effect.

[Zit]

12 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Huh, I don't remember a critical able to ignore a parrying weapon or shield. I mean, a parrying weapon does provide protection! Guess I'll have to go back to check! 🙃

SDLeary

The particular case of a parrying weapon (and shield) is a bit different but is clearly detailed, so there is no ambiguity here.

(and the OP is about protection magic)

Edited December 21, 2023 by Zit

[soltakss]

On 12/18/2023 at 2:08 PM, AndreJarosch said:

On 12/18/2023 at 1:42 PM, Joerg said:

Luck clearly is the lower half of Fate.

Assuming you are right and Luck is the lower half of Fate, what is the upper half of Fate called?

It is still Luck, just upside down, maybe Bad Luck.

[SDLeary]

11 hours ago, Zit said:

The particular case of a parrying weapon (and shield) is a bit different but is clearly detailed, so there is no ambiguity here.

(and the OP is about protection magic)

Agreed. More an example of how you can't always rely on the wording of RAW, as the statement could lead one to the conclusion that I proposed. Then that muddled by something later on that seems as definitive.

SDLeary 

[Shiningbrow]

13 hours ago, Zit said:

The particular case of a parrying weapon (and shield) is a bit different but is clearly detailed, so there is no ambiguity here.

(and the OP is about protection magic)

Let's get more specific then - natural weapons (especially with a successful Martial Arts roll). This is especially so with a) weapons such as a cestus, and/or b) where the creature has natural armour (especially looking at Uz here).

Would you allow the Protection spell to work in those cases with a successful parry against a crit?

[Russ Massey]

Isn't the intent of the critical hit rule to ensure that no one is ever invulnerable to damage through excessive mundane and magical defences? Anyone engaging in combat should be at risk. So criticals should bypass any type of defense by authorial intent. Just my opinion.

[AndreJarosch]

1 hour ago, Russ Massey said:

Isn't the intent of the critical hit rule to ensure that no one is ever invulnerable to damage through excessive mundane and magical defences? Anyone engaging in combat should be at risk. So criticals should bypass any type of defense by authorial intent. Just my opinion.

IMHO a critical comes through the minimal opening of the armour, which is so small of a chance that you don´t bother. 

For me a criitical is like wearing a (late middle ages) full plate armour and the critical manages to to hit you through the eye slit of the helmet, or the joints. 
Which is also the case if the armour is additinally enhanced by magic. 
But if the magic doen´t enhance the armour but IS the armour, and covers your body entirely, then a critical can´t fint the "small opening, which can be ignored, because the chance to hit it is to small to care about" isn´t there. 

But the rules don´t support my interpretation. 

[Runeblogger]

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Let's get more specific then - natural weapons (especially with a successful Martial Arts roll). This is especially so with a) weapons such as a cestus, and/or b) where the creature has natural armour (especially looking at Uz here).

Would you allow the Protection spell to work in those cases with a successful parry against a crit?

I had never thought about that, but yes, I would allow it.

[Darius West]

On 12/17/2023 at 10:12 PM, 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.

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

I have no dog in this fight.

This approach makes sense to me.

I like the fact that Sorcery has found ways of countering criticals but Divine magic hasn't.  A sorcerer, especially a godlearner, would see their friend be killed by a crit, and set about trying to understand the principles involved so they could create a work-around.  Gods care about their worshippers, but are essentially trapped in the past, and so cannot solve modern problems the way a sorcerer can.  It makes sorcery more relevant.

[Akhôrahil]

I have to wonder how Stabilize Iron works diegetically, though - does it somehow magically remove any gaps in the armor?! How does a leg greave suddenly guarantee that it will always be in the way for an attack?

Edited December 23, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Runeblogger]

I’d say it makes iron move or it substitutes iron in those places where it is not present

[Rodney Dangerduck]

On 12/21/2023 at 10:50 PM, Shiningbrow said:

Let's get more specific then - natural weapons (especially with a successful Martial Arts roll). This is especially so with a) weapons such as a cestus, and/or b) where the creature has natural armour (especially looking at Uz here).

Would you allow the Protection spell to work in those cases with a successful parry against a crit?

1. No.  Having the armor / magic work sometimes but not others is even more confusing / non-sensical.
2. Parrying with natural weapons and Martial Arts are really more of a "Dodge".  That skill exists in RQG - use it.

[Shiningbrow]

13 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

1. No.  Having the armor / magic work sometimes but not others is even more confusing / non-sensical.
2. Parrying with natural weapons and Martial Arts are really more of a "Dodge".  That skill exists in RQG - use it.

1. Natural armour protects as normal.

2. Dodge is indeed a different skill to Parry (or Martial Arts). You can't* very well say that you're rolling your Parry, when in fact you mean Dodge. Nor should you be suggesting one should use a skill which is vastly inferior (skill % wise) just because it makes for a bit of a conflict with RAW, and messes things up otherwise.

Besides, on the last point, it seems your trying to introduce an element of logic, to explain why something else doesn't logically work... I find that odd......

 

(* well, ok, you can.. .but it wouldn't make sense.)

[French Desperate WindChild]

imo

there are three dimensions :

 

1) type of damages :

magical -and potentialy what kind of magic the target may be insensible for one of them - don't use darkness against Subere for example, it is not efficient....-, fire, sharp, blunt

the question, for me, is not "does this action or the intent be covered by a spell or not ?" but more "does these dammages inflict wounds or not ?"

so is it with a cestus, a tree, a hand, a foot has no importance for me : a stone thrown by an ennemy  should be treated (and is by me) with the same rule than a stone fallen from the top of a mountain (if the results are the same d6s of course)

 

2) against what a protection protects:

• does protection spell protect against 'natural" fire Y/N
• does metalic armor protect against magical fire Y/N
• does metalic armor protect against blunt damages, Y/N
• etc...

 

and 3) is the protection against the damages or against something else ?

this point is key in my understanding of "critical" attack effect :

- dodge is against the attack: you aren't hit or you are hit (full results of your dices, depending on the level of the attack-damage)

- parry is against the damages: whatever is "visible" (do you block, do you deflect, do you "doge", etc...) parry absorb a part of the damages. The part could be all of them, if the damages are weak.

- protection (spirit magic)  is against the damages: protection 1 reduces from 1 hp the damages, protection 2 from 2 hp the damages, etc...

- shield (divine magic) is against the damages: shield 1 reduces from 2 hp the damages, shield 2 from 4 hp the damages, etc..

- Dampen Damage is against the attack:  if the intensity is enough, it reduces, if not, there is nothing. No matter if you use intensity 20 or intensity 3 from a kopi (2 is required), the result is the same

 

so if your attack is a critical success, it ignores any protection (against the damages)  but not the rest :  critical dodge effect "protects you" from a critical attack (not the damages), dampen damage still "protects" you because the effect is against the weapon, not against the attack damages

Edited December 24, 2023 by French Desperate WindChild

[Kloster]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

1. Natural armour protects as normal.

I also play that since years. I also played (RQ3) that Armor enchantments made on a loc have also no weak points, but I agree, both directions can be acceptable.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

2. Dodge is indeed a different skill to Parry (or Martial Arts). You can't* very well say that you're rolling your Parry, when in fact you mean Dodge. Nor should you be suggesting one should use a skill which is vastly inferior (skill % wise) just because it makes for a bit of a conflict with RAW, and messes things up otherwise.

Completely agree here.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

20 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Nor should you be suggesting one should use a skill which is vastly inferior (skill % wise

Many of our PCs have much higher Dodge than Parry. 

In any case, what I am suggesting is that a Martial Artist treat their highest defensive skill, under whatever name it was under older systems, as Dodge in RQG.

[DreadDomain]

On 12/22/2023 at 6:54 PM, AndreJarosch said:

IMHO a critical comes through the minimal opening of the armour, which is so small of a chance that you don´t bother. 

For me a criitical is like wearing a (late middle ages) full plate armour and the critical manages to to hit you through the eye slit of the helmet, or the joints. 
Which is also the case if the armour is additinally enhanced by magic. 
But if the magic doen´t enhance the armour but IS the armour, and covers your body entirely, then a critical can´t fint the "small opening, which can be ignored, because the chance to hit it is to small to care about" isn´t there. 

But the rules don´t support my interpretation. 

I believe it is reasonable to assume that magic is NOT perfect and that protective magic is NOT flawless or without "small openings". Therefore It could be breached or bypassed through a masterful or lucky strike.