Some questions on magic in combat

[Shiningbrow]

46 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Again, I said earlier that is there is more damage going in and if it stays in it does more damage again,   Pulling it out also causes damage, It has always been this way since I started playing RQ and this argument has happened more than a few times with someone always getting extremely annoyed and yelling  why?

 Now , one last question for you. Are you saying impaing and slashing are the same,?

No. S/He is saying that the RQG RAW is saying they are being treated exactly the same... Due to the mechanics.

This is NOT about pulling the weapon out, etc. It's only about initial damage.

 

31 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Please do not enter a public forum and when some one offers an opinion call him obtuse. This is not manners

The "opinion" offered was not directly relevant to the actual argument.

Sorry @Bill the barbarian, you did drop the ball on this one.

[Bill the barbarian]

1 minute ago, Shiningbrow said:

The "opinion" offered was not directly relevant to the actual argument.

 

I suppose that is a reasonably good reason to imply that I am obtuse.

I refuse to answer as to whether I was correct or not. If one is incorrect there seems to be ramifications. That might just put a damper on opinions.

Cheers

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Uthred said:

Strike ranks explicitly aren't discrete second in the combat round. Also isn't the "bizarre reason" simply a result of the combat systems abstraction? From what I can see you cant do anything to react to your leg being hacked off, whether its rune magic or anything else, you state your intent in Phase 1 and then the Strike Ranks play out in Phase 3. There seems to be no option for "changing your mind" so the reason that Rune magic always takes place in SR1 is because it happens as soon as you think of it. 

The SR/real time thing has a debate elsewhere... In one sense it reflects teal time, but simultaneously they don't... Confusing!

Yeah, no chance to change your mind is a huge drawback... (read, "fail").

[Shiningbrow]

1 minute ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I suppose that is a reasonably good reason to imply that I am obtuse.

I refuse to answer as to whether I was correct or not. If one is incorrect there seems to be ramifications. That might just put a damper on opinions.

Cheers

Glad you accept it with your usual sense of humour

[Bill the barbarian]

3 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Glad you accept it with your usual sense of humour

 I accept nothing, the humour remains. 

ETA and the hopefully good manners.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Russ Massey]

1 hour ago, Uthred said:

I'm genuinely confused as to what you're talking about. I thought I had been painfully clear but apparently not. I will try and make myself clear one more time and then I'm dropping it because either I am communicating this terribly or you're being deliberately obtuse. If you have the book handy maybe opening it and following along would help. But before I begin, yes I am saying that Impaling and Slashing damage (before any additional damage the impale might trigger) do the same damage. Are the physically the same? No, of course not, but who cares because thats not what this is about. Which makes it all the more bizarre that you keep bringing it up. 

Open your Runequest Glorantha to page 203. You will see a section titled "Special Damage" under that you will see a heading "Impaling Damage".  Under that there are two  sub-headings "Double Damage" and "Weapon stuck in target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads 

"An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. An impaling blow with a short spear does 2D6+2 damage points, not the normal 1D6+1. If the impaling adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage—the damage bonus is not doubled. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the impale is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible impaling damage (14 points in the case of the short spear) is done to the victim, to which is added any damage bonus and any extra damage from spells."

So if a 1D8+1 Impaling weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Double Damage" "Mechanical Effect A"

Turn to page 204. You will see a heading "Slashing Damage". Under that there are two sub-headings "Roll Damage Twice" and "Incapacitating the Target". We are interested in the first of these. In it's entirety it reads

"The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. A slash with a broadsword does 2D8+2 damage points, not the normal 1D8+1. If the slashing adventurer has a damage bonus, it is rolled normally and added to the damage. Any magical addition to the damage is only added once. If the slash is also a critical hit, then the maximum possible damage (18 points in the case of the broadsword) is done to the victim in that hit location."
 

So if a 1D8+1 Slashing weapon does special damage it will do 2D8+2 damage before any damage bonus. Let us call "Roll Damage Twice" "Mechanical Effect B"

Do you understand that Mechanical Effect A is identical to Mechanical Effect B? That is the complaint. Identical mechanical effects should be labelled and written consistently. If you have a mechanical effect you dont redefine it with a different name every time its introduced. Its sloppy writing and editing. Thats the extent of the complaint. 

Isn't impaling to roll the damage and double it, while slashing is to roll the damage twice and add them together? That is a difference, since slash damage will have a bellcurve distribuiion while impaling damage will have a linear distribution.

[Bill the barbarian]

3 minutes ago, Russ Massey said:

Isn't impaling to roll the damage and double it, while slashing is to roll the damage twice and add them together? That is a difference, since slash damage will have a bellcurve distribuiion while impaling damage will have a linear distribution.

That'a how I recall it, myself.

[Shiningbrow]

21 minutes ago, Russ Massey said:

Isn't impaling to roll the damage and double it, while slashing is to roll the damage twice and add them together? That is a difference, since slash damage will have a bellcurve distribuiion while impaling damage will have a linear distribution.

 

16 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That'a how I recall it, myself.

That's a negative!  Perhaps in older versions, but not now...

To quote p202:

Summary of Special Damage Results

A special success does one of the following damage results, depending on the weapon being used. A critical success inflicts the maximum possible special damage type and ignores any armor.

Impaling

Impaling weapons do double normal damage, so a broad sword normally doing 1D8+1 does 2D8+2 damage. Any damage bonus or magical modifiers to damage are applied normally. The impaling weapon is also stuck in the body of the target and may need to be freed to use further. See below for more information.

Slashing

Slashing weapons do double normal damage, so a short sword normally doing 1D6+1 does 2D6+2 damage. Any damage bonus or magical modifiers to damage are applied normally. If the hit points in the location are exceeded, the target may be incapacitated, and must roll (CON minus damage)×5 or less to remain conscious. See page 204 for more information.

Crushing

Crushing weapons do normal damage and the attacker’s normal damage bonus, but the maximum rollable damage bonus is also applied. Thus, an adventurer with a +1D4 damage modifier using a maul (2D8 damage) does 2D8+1D4+4 damage. Any magical modifiers to damage are applied normally.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Shiningbrow
formatting

[David Scott]

23 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

P315 - Casting a Rune magic spell prevents an adventurer from casting any other Rune magic, spirit magic, or sor-cery spells that round. 

It's even in bold! 

Thanks. Not spotted that. I will now ignore it as it will extend combat. Players often cast spirit magic in the same round in my games.

Page 314 in my edition, for those searching for this.

Can we keep the thread on topic please, contributors have veered into special damage results.

Edited June 30, 2019 by David Scott

[klecser]

It seems pretty clear to me that while the mechanical effect of the damage are the same, the potential consequences of an impale and a slash are very different. Hence, the different subheadings. 

Runequest seems to be a game of combat nuance, and these rules are reflecting that. If combat nuance isn't someone's thing, I'm concerned that Runequest will just be an exercise in frustration for them. What frustrates some doesn't frustrate others and vice versa. There are games that have no nuance and games that have nuance. If you don't like nuance...

Now that said, I do have some editing stretches for the core book, as a new player. Most importantly, I think the book needed more cross-referencing. Most of the rules I've struggled with as a new player have been ones that are linked together, but not obviously elucidated to me in the text. Like why the connection between Runes and Weapons matters. I think it is IN there, but it wasn't obvious to me. It had to be pointed out by experienced players. (i.e. that you use Runes to augment specific weapon attacks.)

Edited June 30, 2019 by klecser

[Uthred]

1 hour ago, klecser said:

It seems pretty clear to me that while the mechanical effect of the damage are the same, the potential consequences of an impale and a slash are very different. Hence, the different subheadings. 

The "potential consequences" of doubling damage rolled is identical there is no "subtle nuance" there it's simply an editing oversight. The potential consequences i.e. having a weapon stuck in you for impale and maybe being knocked out for slashing are covered in their own discrete sub-sections. It's laughable to suggest that you don't like "nuance" if you have a problem with sloppy writing. Nuance should arise from the mechanics not from trying to decipher unclear rules text. Mythras is more complex and has much more mechanical nuance, it also has much clearer writing, its a question of clarity not nuance. 
 

7 hours ago, Russ Massey said:

Isn't impaling to roll the damage and double it, while slashing is to roll the damage twice and add them together? That is a difference, since slash damage will have a bellcurve distribuiion while impaling damage will have a linear distribution.

Shiningbrow already covered this. But no, they work identically I mean the post you quoted has direct quotes from the book with page references that says exactly that. 
 

7 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

That'a how I recall it, myself.

Why would you need to recall it? You twice responded to posts with direct quotes from the book that shows they function identically. As we're pulling people up on behaviour it's pretty rude to engage in a discussion if you aren't even going to bother to read what you're responding to. Admittedly it does make the extended back and forth make more sense in light of that. 

4 hours ago, David Scott said:

Can we keep the thread on topic please, contributors have veered into special damage results.

Sorry about contributing to that. In an effort to get back on track. To summarise magic in melee combat i.e. while engaged:

While "Engaged" in Melee combat you can:

-> Cast a non-attack spell and make a melee attack
-> Cast any number of spells you can afford the strike ranks for but only one of them can be an attack spell
-> Cast Sorcery or Spirit magic on the same turn but Rune magic is exclusive

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Uthred

[klecser]

9 minutes ago, Uthred said:

The "potential consequences" of doubling damage rolled is identical there is no "subtle nuance" there it's simply an editing oversight. The potential consequences i.e. having a weapon stuck in you for impale and maybe being knocked out for slashing are covered in their own discrete sub-sections. 

Opinions on that are going to vary. Personally, if aspects of combat have similarities and differences, I don't mind them being kept separate in all cases in which they are recorded in the book to help to remind me that there are differences. You prefer the editing to be different. That's fine too. Everyone has different learning styles, and your learning style being different doesn't mean that there is a failure in editing choice. It means that this editing choice happens to not match your learning style.

Edited June 30, 2019 by klecser

[Uthred]

2 minutes ago, klecser said:

Opinions on that are going to vary. Personally, if aspects of combat have similarities and differences, I don't mind them being kept separate in all cases in which they are recorded in the book to help to remind me that there are differences. You prefer the editing to be different. That's fine too. Everyone has different learning styles, and your learning style being different doesn't mean that there is a failure in editing choice. It means that this editing choice happens to not match your learning style.

There are no differences. Why do people keep talking as if the two sections aren't identical? This isn't a subtle nuance, this isnt a question of different learning styles, both are purely textual sections describing exactly the same effect, you are literally learning the same thing in each section. If one section was written while the other was pictorial it and they had different titles then yes it would be an opinion on learning styles. But again this has literally nothing to do with learning styles. You know, this is ridiculous, I wasted so much time on this minor point which I brought up in passing to illustrate how the mechanics of the game arent always clear. I'm done discussing this tangent now. 

[klecser]

1 minute ago, Uthred said:

There are no differences. Why do people keep talking as if the two sections aren't identical? This isn't a subtle nuance, this isnt a question of different learning styles, both are purely textual sections describing exactly the same effect, you are literally learning the same thing in each section. If one section was written while the other was pictorial it and they had different titles then yes it would be an opinion on learning styles. But again this has literally nothing to do with learning styles. You know, this is ridiculous, I wasted so much time on this minor point which I brought up in passing to illustrate how the mechanics of the game arent always clear. I'm done discussing this tangent now. 

I think that, if you want to remain a positive contributor to this board, you need to take a second to center yourself and not take differing opinions personally.

[Bill the barbarian]

4 minutes ago, klecser said:

I think that, if you want to remain a positive contributor to this board, you need to take a second to center yourself and not take differing opinions personally.

Don't bother. He came for a  fight. We are two of the mellowest people here and who is he going toe to toe with?

Edited June 30, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Uthred]

Just now, klecser said:

I think that, if you want to remain a positive contributor to this board, you need to take a second to center yourself and not take differing opinions personally.

Ah, I think people need to stop defending their mistakes by hiding behind the shield of "opinions". It is not an "opinion" that both sections are mechanically identical. It's an objective fact. One which people responding to it have either not read or defended with a string on increasingly bizarre justifications. I have absolutely no problem with people not caring about it. It's a minor editing issue. That's obviously fine, different things bother different people. I do have a problem with people pretending that the sections arent the same and then when being called out on their errors deciding not to address that mistake but to hide behind swipes at peoples posting style. I have no problems with differing opinions but it has to be a question of opinion for one to have differing opinions on it and to mercilessly belabor the point, the two sections being mechanically identical is not an opinion. 

[Bill the barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Uthred said:

Ah, I think people need to stop defending their mistakes b

and I think people have to quit attacking mistakes. It's a mistake!

[klecser]

7 minutes ago, Uthred said:

Ah, I think people need to stop defending their mistakes by hiding behind the shield of "opinions". It is not an "opinion" that both sections are mechanically identical. It's an objective fact. One which people responding to it have either not read or defended with a string on increasingly bizarre justifications. I have absolutely no problem with people not caring about it. It's a minor editing issue. That's obviously fine, different things bother different people. I do have a problem with people pretending that the sections arent the same and then when being called out on their errors deciding not to address that mistake but to hide behind swipes at peoples posting style. I have no problems with differing opinions but it has to be a question of opinion for one to have differing opinions on it and to mercilessly belabor the point, the two sections being mechanically identical is not an opinion. 

*pinches bridge of nose and sighs*

So, Uthred, you're going on my Ignore list. Ever since you've started posting you've been nothing but combative with people. I think you do have a huge problem with different perspectives, or at least with courteously navigating things that frustrate you. That isn't something I'm interested in engaging with here. 

Good luck to you.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by klecser

[Uthred]

17 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Don't bother. He came for a  fight. We are two of the mellowest people here and who is he going toe to toe with?

Firstly, she. Secondly, I came here seeking clarity on unclearly written rules, thats it. I'm not looking for a "fight" and it's sad that you think this constitutes one. Your contributions to this thread are mis-reading the initial question, posting a confusing re-hash of the rules and then consistently failing to read the posts responding to you and (unsurprisingly) failing to engage with any of the points you're responding to. 

12 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

and I think people have to quit attacking mistakes. It's a mistake!

One that people keep making and failing to acknowledge. It is beyond tedious to have to constantly re-state the same point because people keep making the "mistake" of not reading. It's not an "attack" to point out a mistake, that's how discussions work. It's also, as we seem obsessed with conduct, incredibly rude. I responded to you several times with length quotes on the topic at hand and you clearly didn't read them. Don't you consider that rude? How helpful to the discussion or the site is it for people to engage in discussion on a topic when they wont even read what they're responding to?

1 minute ago, klecser said:

*pinches bridge of nose and sighs*

So, Uthred, you're going on my Ignore list. Ever since you've started posting you've been nothing but combative with people. I think you do have a huge problem with different perspectives, or at least with courteously navigating things that frustrate you. That isn't something I'm interested in engaging with here. 

Good luck to you.

 

"Nothing but combative"? That's frankly nonsense. Other than you and "Bill" my exchanges in the topic have been as neutral as anyone else's. We were in fact discussing the topic at hand until I, and I cant say how much I regret it, brought up the special damage example and we disappeared down this rabbit hole. I do think calling out putting someone on an ignore list is a bit cringey. Dont get me wrong, now that I realise the forum has the functionality I'll be using it. But I wont be announcing every addition. I suppose it is interesting that you again didnt actually respond to the argument being made, instead simply casting aspersions and having your little press conference moment. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Uthred

[Shiningbrow]

Ummm - chill time??

I haven't been on these boards (this time) for too long, but I've built up a healthy respect for both @Bill the barbarian and @klecser (not that I always agree with them... ) and I definitely see @Uthred's main point.

However... the mechanics are definitely the same - in that regard, @Uthred is totally correct! (other than the additional effects, which get elucidated afterwards). However, It is an opinion as to whether the repetition of this is a 'mistake' or not... I don't think it is. Especially since Crushing has a different mechanical effect (which actually makes them significantly weaker weapons.. unless you have a huge DB).

I appreciate @Uthred's frustration at copying a rule and not having it acknowledged... (in fact, argued about).

 

Getting back to the real topic at hand... a legitimate question... some have mentioned that it's fine to cast multiple spells in the same round - as long as they're not offensive (in nature, not, perhaps, in the words used to cast them 😛 ). Why does this matter?

[Uthred]

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Getting back to the real topic at hand... a legitimate question... some have mentioned that it's fine to cast multiple spells in the same round - as long as they're not offensive (in nature, not, perhaps, in the words used to cast them 😛 ). Why does this matter?

I was wondering that as well. 

[jajagappa]

10 hours ago, Uthred said:

That doesnt explain why the two subheadings have different names for literally exactly the same mechanical effect. Impaling damage, other than the additional impale effect doesnt do any more damage than slashing damage. 

The background reason why they appear different, is that they were originally different.  Going back to RQ2 where these first appeared, Impaling was not just roll twice. RQ2 p.22

The weapon damage and “damage add” damage should be rolled normally and added to the total possible damage with the weapon. Thus, if Rurik thrust with a spear and impaled
his opponent, he would roll D6 + 1 (perhaps getting 3) and add that amount to the total possible with the spear, which is 7, for a total damage of 10 points to the hit location.

In the development of RQG, this got changed/streamlined to roll damage twice. The chart on p.203 provides/says what you'd expect with them now the same. Impaling weapons do double normal damage … Slashing weapons do double normal damage

The paragraphs on the other hand were not streamlined for consistency during editing.