[RQ-Rules] Re: Stacking Impales and Criticals

Fri Apr 25 05:40:27 UTC 2003

We've always played that protection and shield spells count against
criticals.  That seems only practical as the spell would cover your whole
body and wouldn't really have any weak points as such.

Works well in our games and makes having those spells really worth while.  
Tony W 

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Perrin [mailto:steve at perrinworlds.com]
Sent: Friday, 25 April 2003 13:07
To: rq-rules at crashbox.com
Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Stacking Impales and Criticals

Tell you what, I'll retract my previous statement that they don't stack.
Apparently they do. I had just forgotten how different my SPQR has gotten
from the old RQ.

BTW, I always thought of Protection as a force field that is not penetrated
by a critical (except when I didn't, of course). But hey, what do I know.

Steve Perrin

----- Original Message -----
From: <aescleal at btinternet.com>
To: <rq-rules at crashbox.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection/Knockback

> Dunno, I always found allowing combo criticals/impales worked perfectly
well - hence why I've always used them. There seemed no contradiction to me
in the RQII rules - an impaling composite bow arrow did 1d8 + 9 ignoring
armour, FREX, or 1d8 x 2 + 18 against naturally armoured critters.
>
> Likewise, we used slashes and crushes (probably 'cause most of the group
were a bunch of sword swingers) and it seemed to fit in okay with critical
hits.
>
> I've had a dig for the example that implied that criticals and specials
didn't stack and I couldn't find it. Any more clues?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ash
>
> >  from:    =?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?= <soltakss at yahoo.com>
> >  date:    Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:24:35
> >  to:      rq-rules at crashbox.com
> >  subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection/Knockback
> >
> > Northern DM:
> >
> > > On a critical hit, armour is ignored.  I have also included natural
armour
> > > in this as I say you have found a weak spot in the  creature.
However,
> > > what
> > > about magical protection?  Does is still block its full value or is it
also
> > > ignored.  For example, I'm wearing chainmail/padding (8AP) and I have
> > > Protection 4 on.  I get hit by a critical.  Does the blow ignore all
armour
> > > or do I only have the Protection to protect me?
> >
> > Critical hits ignore all armour, magical or physical, so they do damage
> > direct. The dragon-magic spell "Dragon Armour" specifically protects
against
> > critical hits. We played that Damage Resistance could protect against a
> > critical hit, but that the daamge is doubled when working out whether it
was
> > blocked.
> >
> > Pontus Amberg:
> >
> > > If protection works as normal armor then does acid corrode Protection
as
> > > it does normal armor? So far I've ruled that it does so we keep track
of
> > > the remaining points of Protection on each hit locations hit by acid.
> >
> > We played that Protection and Shield were not affected by acid and even
> > protected against the damage, so someone with Protection 8 or Shield 4
could
> > go gorp-diving. Mainly, this was because we couldn't be bothered to keep
> > track of different hit locations with different levels of Protection.
Also,
> > the acid hits the Protection/Shield spell first, thus protecting armour
from
> > being dissolved.
> >
> > We also played that a critical hit with acid ignored all Protection and
> > Shield and also ignored the armour, dissolving the flesh but leaving
that
> > precious iron intact. (The number of times that a player yelled with joy
at
> > having an acid spit critical is hard to believe.)
> >
> >
> > Ash - now confident he wasn't going barking mad all those years:
> >
> > > Just thought I'd clear up in my own mind how criticals and impales
work (as
> > > stated in the rules) as all the misinformation was confusing the life
out
> > > of me...
> >
> > We always played a variant of the rules, since we used the
crush/slash/impale
> > alternatives in RQ2 and carried them across to RQ3.
> >
> > > RQII:
> > >
> > > Effect of impale: Add maximum potential damage for a normal hit to the
> > > rolled damage.
> > >
> > > Effect of critical hit: Against an armoured opponent damage ignores
all
> > > armour; against a "naturally" armoured opponent, weapon or shield
parry, it
> > > does double damage but doesn't ignore armour.
> >
> > We always played that natural armour was armour, so it ignored the
armour and
> > didn't double. It only doubled for things with 0(zero) armour.
> >
> > > Do they stack? The rules don't say either way (that I could find), but
the
> > > game reference charts imply that they do by overlapping the ranges at
which
> > > they occur. YMMV.
> >
> > We've never played that they stack, in RQ2 or RQ3. In fact, in RQ2
examples
> > show that an impale and a critical do different damage, I think.
> >
> > > RQIII:
> > >
> > > Effects of impale: Weapon damage is rolled twice and added together.
> > >
> > > Effects of critical: Weapon does maximum damage and ignores armour.
> > >
> > > Do they stack? Yep, says so EXPLICITLY in the rules and gives an
example
> > > (Signy vs. the Lion).
> >
> > That's why we used modifed RQ2 rules - the RQ3 ones don't work very
well.
> >
> >
> > Tony Williamson:
> >
> > > Wow, we have always played that a critical was also an impale, slash,
or
> > > crush, and not looked at it any other way.  But looking through the
rules
> > > (RQ II)I am shocked to say I can not find any mention of it, although
it is
> > > not clear that it doesn't combine either.
> > >
> > > Since we have been playing this way for more years than I remember I
not
> > > sure how we came to that conclusion.  I guess if you think about it,
if you
> > > roll 5% of your attack chance haven't you also rolled 20% of your
attack
> > > chance as well ?
> >
> > And you have also rolled a normal success, so do you add normal damage
on as
> > well? We thought that stacking damage was too powerful, so we used a
Critical
> > Impale for 1/100th skill which did Crush/Slash/Impale daamge direct.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bjorn Stolen:
> >
> > > I allways thought that the knockbackdamage is only relevant when a
> > > brontosaurus or a gigant sends you sprawling...and then real damage is
> > > perhaps relevant too?
> > >
> > >
> > > The only time the knockback did lethal damage in any of mine games,
was
> > > when a half-gigant sweeped a shipcaptain through his captainscabin and
into
> > > his oak desk...
> >
> > When a giant smahes you into the ground - The Spike - then leg damage is
> > probably fair. We had two Great Trolls fighting and knocking each other
> > through walls, once. The knockback didn't kill them but it knocked the
house
> > down.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Yahoo! Plus
> > For a better Internet experience
> > http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer
> > _______________________________________________
> > RQ-Rules mailing list
> > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules
> > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>
> _______________________________________________
> RQ-Rules mailing list
> RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
> http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules
> http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules
>

_______________________________________________
RQ-Rules mailing list
RQ-Rules at crashbox.com
http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules
http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules

This e-mail is confidential.  If it is not intended for you please do not read, distribute or copy it or any attachments.  Please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete the original message and any attachments.

Any views expressed in this e-mail may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland City Council.