Total hit points

Have you added total hit points to the MRQ equation?

  • YES!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO - and I've played RQ 2 or 3.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Trifletraxor

Mongoose
So, have you added total hit points to the MRQ equation? Can't really say I like the way it works now, so I've added total HP, but kept the location hit points as they are. How to you feel the damage and hit point system work for you? What houserules are you using?

SGL.
 
I'm using the players update, some stuff from gm book, for the armour penalty we have been playing it as an fatigue penalty/ swimming.
But we will probably use ENC. as armour penalty.
For the hitpoints when fighting large groups i usally don't check individual hp losses for the mooks. i count a mook wounded when he lost HP= to arm.
then i just do it quick & dirty. roll resistance roll failure out, if not marked next hit point loss repeat.
 
No houserule at all. And I use a lot of them, but not for HP.

I am not voting in this poll, since 2 answers are too few. I like the way location hit points are handled in MRQ, and do not feel the urge to change how location-related wounds are recorded (despite the hordes of trollkin that continued fighting after I had Firebolted them).

But when you have to cope with poison, asphyxiation and shock, then you realize that general Hit Points are the quickest, simplest and cleanest way to handle these occurrences. So yes, they should come back!
 
I like not having total HP. In RQ2/3 half way through a combat you'd ask a player how they where doing only to discover that they had been dead for the past 2 rounds, having not realised it as they had a number of small wounds that added up to past there total HP.

I use the +30 Resiliance and Rersistance option from the update, which I like as it give characters a decent chance at these skills, and caps them so you don't have any characters that can just shrug off wounds (unless they are buffed up with magic)
 
I dislike total hit points because I don't think it should be possible to nibble characters to death!

I just apply all poison, falling and similar generic damage to the chest.
 
Then please explain something to me: a character is poisoned and takes considerable damage from it. The damage is applied to the chest, according to your houserule, and brings it to zero.

Immediately after, he is engaged in combat. Now if he is hit in the chest he will immediately be put out of the fight by even one point of damage. If he is hit in the head he will resist much more.

What is the rationale behind that?
 
RosenMcStern said:
Then please explain something to me: a character is poisoned and takes considerable damage from it. The damage is applied to the chest, according to your houserule, and brings it to zero.

Immediately after, he is engaged in combat. Now if he is hit in the chest he will immediately be put out of the fight by even one point of damage. If he is hit in the head he will resist much more.

What is the rationale behind that?

Good point.

My own house rule: if general hit points are not used, systemic damage like ingested or injected poison or disease should be applied to the CON score, and not to locations. If CON reaches 0 you die.
For the sake of simplicity, location hit points are not recalculated because of the (temporarily) lowered CON, but Resilience rolls are recalculated.

So if Rurik drinks a poisoned drink and loses 6 CON and then takes a major wound in the chest he would have a lower Resilience check and a smaller number of rounds he can resist without assistance (CON+POW/2).

Remember also that Resilience cannot be greater than CONX5, so for expert characters with very high Resilience the drop due to the poisoning can be very sharp.
If Rurik (CON 18 ) had brought his Resilience to his maximum (90%), 6 points of CON damage would bring him immediately to 60%. Gord, a novice character has CON 18 and Resilience 31%. The same poisoning would only bring him a drop from 31% to 25%.
It's a bit quirky. But I don't find this disparity too disturbing: it's already very easy to die for novice characters !

Certain paralysing poisons might also affect STR instead or in addition to CON. A STR 0 character would cease to breathe and die.
 
Definitely a better solution. But I still think that General HP would be a good addition to MRQ. I would just rule that, unlike in BRP, you only mark off general HPs when a location wound takes the location below zero, i.e. only locations at negative HPs affect total HPs.
 
I think that someone at the MRQ design team kind of misread the intent of the original RQ system. It's fundamentally about total hit points - take that much damage from whatever source(s) and you are down and probably out.
The way the system played, however, was that the first effect of a hit was defined by location, perhaps leading to the perception that LHP were first and foremost. LHP are for detail and to prevent someone instantly dying from the loss of an arm and ensuring they instantly die should they get seriously malleted in the head. It also fits in nicely with the armour system.
Stormbringer/Cthulhu survived quite nicely without location HP's, but not the reverse.
IMHO taking THP out in order to simplify the system tore holes in a previously highly intuitive and consistent system, for all the reasons discussed above.
From my own experience THP added to player's tension by providing another way to die...Made combat more believable and, of course, more lethal.
 
I have come to like the MRQ Wound system quite a bit after using it and see no need to add total HP back in.

I will continue to use total HP in other RQ/BRP games, and don't have a problem with them, but MRQ works fine.

Though combats seem to take longer as combatants can fight on for a few rounds after taking the wound that ultimately drops them. This actually feels pretty realistic to me though.
 
Then please explain something to me: a character is poisoned and takes considerable damage from it. The damage is applied to the chest, according to your houserule, and brings it to zero.

Immediately after, he is engaged in combat. Now if he is hit in the chest he will immediately be put out of the fight by even one point of damage. If he is hit in the head he will resist much more.

What is the rationale behind that?

Its never come up so I've never really considered it. generally, poison in RQ is either blade venoms or magical, which will have a location anyway. The ones I apply to the chest are ingested poisons, and I don't think its unreasonable that they should damage your body most. That's where they are after all!

Its exactly the same problem with any attempt to reduce poison damage and impact damage to the same system. Why should they stack, in total hit points or otherwise? The alternative is to use CON, which is very complex if you track the effects and reduces poison to pointlessness if you don't, or to invent total hitpoints: an entire mechanic for no purpose other than tracking poison, which happens once in a blue moon.
 
Theres a lot of weird things that happen without total HP so I prefer them.

If not using them, Id definately use the injury rules from the GM guide. Otherwise, some critters will be almost impossible to kill
 
To be honest, I haven't missed total hit points... Not that I haven't been in a party that hasn't been hurt badly by enemies that just won't die and roll lucky. It makes combat less lethal if you alow players/NPCs to yield (and make players that refuse to accept surrender suffer for it) though.
 
When my RQ started, I quickly decided I didnt like the absence of the old core HP total and wanted to add it in. I was vetoed by my players, who it turns out preferred this system (it does seem to favor player survival, provided they pay attention to their resillience scores).

Anyway, after about a year and a half I've gotten used to the dispersed HP method and it keeps the game moving along better than I had thought, although grievous wounds that lead to lost limbs are as likely to kill as not; but given that, so long as the PCs are the victors, and the guy with the healing spells and skills survived to the end, most characters are quickly on the road to recovery. Still, it works well in actual play, so I stopped griping and just roll with it... :roll:

On managing NPCs, which I found to be even more tedious with a distributed HP system and no core HP than it was in previous editions, I eventually just got used to it (stopped being lazy?) and made it a habit of letting some foes automatically failr their resillience tests when they hit greater than -HP in the right locations.

On damage-dealing effects like Poison and such stuff, I simply use atribute-based damage: CON or DEX takes hits from poison, instead of limbs, for example. Works quite well, actually.
 
Back
Top