axe-elf

Sorry for intervening, but I find the discussion interesting

But taking the lowest score rolled on the dice as the winner still gives an edge to the lower skill that it wouldn't have otherwise.

But still, the higher skill score always have a higher chance to win an opposed skill test, if I understand you right?

Actually, I think this comes down to taste: How much should a high skill help you in a contest.

Personally I use the resistance table for all opposed rolls. I think success levels for opposed rolls are cumbersome. The resistance table method gives the lower skill quite a big chance, but for our group that is OK.

Still, the simplest way to solve opposed rolls would be that each part rolls d100 and add their skill, highest sum wins. I wonder why this method was not mentioned in the golden book.

Some people, (I'm not one) believe that low roll wins is unfair to the higher skilled character, becuase thier skill doesn't matter much when the other guy rolls low. But, it is debatable. Mathematically, low roll wins still favors the character with the greater skill. Just not quite so much. But the difference between low roll wins and high roll wins is not a lot, percentage-wise.

Sorry, I got a bit nerdy about this, trying to understand the math. I have an example here I think illustrates how fair the roll-low-wins rule is to the higher skill holder.

For simplicity I use only two success levels: success and failure. Higher skill win when same number is rolled within a success level.

A has skill of 75

B has skill of 25

Chance for A to win by own success and opponent failure is 0,75*(1-0,25) = 0,5625

Chance for B to win by own success and opponent failure is 0,25*(1-0,75) = 0,0625

Other rolls possible are success success: 0,75*0,25 = 0,1875

And fail fail: (1-0,75)*(1-0,25) = 0,1875

These are all rolls possible (0,5625+0,0625+0,1875+0,1875=1)

So, how many of these fail-fail or success-success situations will A win? Not so many:

If both roll success, A will win only on 25 to 01, if B rolls higher. That is 25 numbers of 75 numbers possible rolled, and only half of which will be lower than B´s roll:

25/75*0,5=0,1666...

Similarly, if both roll failure, B succeed on 75 to 26 (50 numbers) and half of the time when rolling 99-76 (24 numbers). Person A then succeed at a rate of:

1-(50/75 + 24/75*0,5)=0,16

Of all rolls, A will then win: 0,5625+(0,1875*0,167)+(0,1875*0,16)=0,6237..= appr. 62%

Person A will then have a 62% chance of beating anyone with skill 25, when using lowest-roll-wins.

I´m not sure about this math, but it seems right. The question is then if a 62% chance of beating anyone at skill 50 points lower is fair...

I think this can go on forever

Why not just use that lowest roll wins within a success level? So that critical, beats special success, and special success beats success, and so on. But if for example both have success, the lowest roll win.

The highest skill still have an edge because of greater chance of success, special success and critical.

And horribly unfair. A guy with a 90 skill looses to a guy with a 91 skill more often that a guy with 05% skill loses to a guy with 25% skill!

Yes absolutely. Sorry I wasn't clear. A tie is the same level of success.

I.e. crit beats spec beats success beats fail and highest skill wins a tied level of success

Ok.

... I wonder, what do you do in case of a tie between skills at same level (ie. 70 vs.70)? Reroll?

Rather than using die roll as a proxy for higher skill on a tie, why not use higher skill wins on a tie?

Well the answer is that it is pretty brutal.

I like it. No calculations, just result.

I would add though, that a special success beats success, and critical beats special success, in a tie.

Or do you mean use skill/5?

Yes. This is how the optional rule is described in BRP.

BTW, I was wondering just what people think the success chance should be. For example with 50% vs 70%, how do people think the results should be?

:30/70 (per the resistance table)

;42/58 (per the ratios)

:or what?

Maybe if we have the answer, we can look at the methods.

I think the table gives the lower skill an OK chance.

Im not sure about the calculation behind the 42/58 (I would say: 50% x (100%-70%)= 15% => 15/85), but it does not differ so much from 30/70.

(Edit: Lower not lover )

Reactions? Thoughts?

Why not just use the resistance table? Much faster with one roll. Special, critical and fumble can be calculated from the %-roll of the table also.

Um, guys. After arguing for 25 pages about shields and their use, are you now going to do the same with magic? Can't we all just get along? (Or at least combine the two threads by swatting that sorcerer upside the head with a buckler! )

About that, but there was an apprentice shaman profession that would be taken first.

BTW, If you plan on using Sorcery, you might want to surf the net for a copy of Sandy Peterson Sorcery rules. It address some of the drawbacks Sorcery has due to it's relaince on FreeINT.

So, you were supposed to roleplay student and assistant shaman all the way also, even for starter characters? I think I´ll stick to the BRP version, where shaman is a starter profession. The challenge is to balance so the character is neither boringly weak, nor numbingly powerful. My campaign is at normal power level, and 9 points of spell is maybe a bit too much for a starter charater.

I´m not using sorcery (wizardry it is called in MB), but thanks.

It has already been suggested that Chaosium may have not done the wisest move when choosing a "skim for inconsistencies and reprint" strategy for Magic Book. A rework from the ground up, like Jason did for the core rules, might have worked better. Many inconsistencies survived the check. You may have seen that Chaosium changed its strategy after this episode, and the latest publications are no longer reprints but reworks, or original works (like Mythic Iceland).

Mythic Iceland is of good quality. I have not read all of it, but it seems like solid work. A very good sourcebook indeed. I like those CoC Dark Ages spells in there also, even though not entirely compatible with BRP.

Good that Chaosium have changed strategy regarding reprints.

The main issues are non-BRP skills and character generation. Referance to non-BRP skills can usually be ignored. For summon/enchant/ceremony skills, I thought of using Perform (rituals) only. All references to non-existent tables can also be ignored I guess. The same goes for “magic bonus”. BRP rules for spells in combat round should be used, as those in MB are totally corrupted.

Regarding character generation, I have looked into RQ3, and understand that magical training is supposed to start at the age of 15. For shamans in BRP this would mean around 9 levels of spirit magic spells, and +2 POW, for a starting character.

I understand you were converting RQ3 on the fly Nick, but not actually using Magic Book?

Am I the only one that has actually tried to use MB in play? Guess that says something about the book.

Yes, I bought this mess. Happy with it? No. Anyway, I would like to use spirit magic in my campaign. As you probably already know, this book contains magic systems from RQ3 that has not been truly converted to BRP. All references to undefined RQ3-terms, makes this book unusable for BRP without some work.

I wonder if anyone has used this book for BRP, and how they have dealt with BRP conversion.

Ok, we played BRP today, and had a blast!

Among other things, Tor-Erling the hirdmann and Eirik the seidmann (the players) were sent to kill Fjonir the rapist at his farm. There they met him and his brother, trying to ambush them. Tor-Erling won the initiative and cut down Fjonir on the first blow, so he did not even get to try his two hand battle axe. His brother was a bit more resilient, fighting with shield and sax, but was also killed in three rounds by Tor-Erling´s sword in his gut.

I love battles that are fast and bloody

The shield rules I use are basically, no cumulative -30% on shield parry. This is a good quick fix on the shield problem

I use the shield rules described in Mythic Iceland, where shield parry does that you cannot use shield AP in same round, and the DAR rules for swords, I described earlier.

For anyone interested, I put my house rules here:

Shields and off-hand weapons, dodges and parries

Several defensive actions (parries and dodges) can be done in a round, but they are affected by a cumulative -30% chance on defensive actions beyond the first. Shields parry at full skill rating, and are not affected by cumulative -30%; use shield rules described in Mythic Iceland p. 194 . Shield and off-hand attacks are difficult, except for bucklers and parrying daggers. Parry has average difficulty.

Double action rating

Most weapons give the ability to divide skill rating in two (or more) attacks when skill rating is at least 100% (BRP p.198). These weapons are therefore are said to have Double Action Rating (DAR) of 100. Some weapons are faster, such as swords (except great swords) and have DAR of 70. More attacks in fractions of at least 35% can therefore be done with swords. Rapiers are even faster and have DAR of 50. In a round using DAR multiple attacks, you cannot parry with off-hand weapons or shield.

However, there is a second part of the answer that is about melee? What do you think about it?

I´ve bougth Mythic Iceland now, and there are some shield rules clarifications there that give meaning if interpreted in a certain way.

Basically they say that in a round parrying with shield, you may parry with full shield skill rating, but then you do not get the shield AP for hit locations (because the shield is moving around when parrying).

If “full skill rating” mean not affected by the cumulative -30% after the first parry, it gives meaning to have a shield skill in close combat. Then you would parry with shield if you have a reasonably high skill rating, and only use weapon parry once or so in a round if it has higher score than the shield skill. To be attacked more than once in a round is quite common in my games, when meeting more enemies.

T

In the end one would have to design different combat rules for different weapons and sty-

les, the more so the more detailed one intends to simulate a real combat. There simply is

no "one size fits all" if one aims for detail and realism - which is the main reason why I pre-

fer BRP's somewhat abstract approach and low level of detail, it avoids a lot of problems

which are almost impossible to solve.

Agree that a more abstract approach is preferable, not least because of game flow. More detail also means more time spent on stuff that is not necessary for the story in the rpg.

I lean toward a "change as little as possible" approach to the shield problem. Bonuses on shield parry quickly grows to 95% chances of shield parries, so I do not like those. Maybe shields and off-hand weapons can give an extra unmodified parry, the same way fighting defensively gives an extra doge, then of course without loosing opportunity to attack.

I suspect that many of the participants here are not using the same definition of the words Parry or Dodge and may even be thinking of differing amounts of time for a combat round all of which will lead to arguments that make no sense to other participants.

Combat rounds in most BRP type systems vary between 5 and 12 seconds according to which iteration of the BRP mechanisms you are using. Dodge may mean a movement of the body - sway, lean etc., or may encompass actual physical movement or even diving out of the way. Parry could be used to describe the deflection of a weapon or the complete blocking of an attack. Even Attack in BRP systems refers to series of swings and feints, cuts and parries with only the actual impact of the weapon being the result of the opposed Attack/Parry roll.

Does it make much difference? If an attack is a series of attacks, a parry would e a series of parries, and a dodge a series of dodges.

Definitively, yes.

That is interesting information. So, If you can parry and attack each round, but loose your attack if you dodge, do you consider it more realistic?

OK, so now we're considering...

Yes, the only thing is that this would make creatures that are unable to parry a lot weaker in the game. They would have to rely on dodge, and defy their attack. On the other hand, this is maybe more realistic. An unarmed man fighting one with an axe, would have to wait to get the initiative (if using initiative rolls) or an unsuccessful axe attack, to attack himself.

I would point out that I suggested Mr Axe-Elf went away, tested his changes in actual play, compared them to the existing rules and the suggestions made here and came back and reported his conclusions. I, in no way, suggested that he permanently depart however offensive his attitude might be.

I´ll do that But it´s nice to test the rule in silico first, to use an experimental term.

Well, I am afraid I have started the unpleasant facets of this threads and I will take the responsibility to cool things down.

Axe-elf, you may have noticed that your latest comments have triggered a negative response that was the exact opposite of the initial reaction. I knew perfectly that this would come, and I was able to see through that initial wave of "Awesome!" that your comments elicited before they were properly discussed. Your rules need a lot of re-thinking before becoming really functional. I am sorry that you were mislead by what sounded like a general praise, but people were just trying to be polite to you. Once you started criticising the authors, things changed, as you noticed.

Life is not all candies. Making good rules requires A LOT of effort and thinking. I hope you are on the right way, but there is little doubt that you are on the first mile of a long trail. nclarke asked you to go away. I disagree. Please stay and discuss your ideas with us. Please, just change your attitude. You will not "fix" in a week or so what others have been trying to improve for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS.

Yea, let´s cool down, and focus on what is important

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/83.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/94.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg

Yes, this is better simulated by the last parry and dodge rule I posted. Better?

I rather suspect that stating that you've read BRP4e and don't think that it does a good job of dealing with combat strikes many here as very arrogant. After all the rules in one form or another have been used for 30 years by thousands of GMs and players, many of whom have at least as much experience of weapon handling as you mention you have. To specify that all those players and GMs are wrong and you with your testing of the rules, not even in an actual game of course, deem them inaccurate and wrong really irritates many people.

You have been told the concepts behind the way the rules are and still persist in your own way as being superior to those of the collective membership here who suggest that making your changes is not going to work that well.

I recommend that you go away and test the rules as-is, test them again with your own house rules, try out the suggestions that people have offered to make your combat more to your taste and then come back and report on how those tests work in actual games rather than paper simulations.

I´m not the only one thinking BRP combat is flawed. I try to fix it, and if that´s irritating, so be it.

Hmm ... you want to make a shield more useful because you consider this more realistic,

but you accept dodge as a standard defense although this is extremely unrealistic ?

Yea, OK I´ll change that around. It is actually more in line with what i learned training kendo. Dodging will get you out of reach for an attack while a parry will not. So:

Parries and dodges

In a round you can parry once and dodge once. Only one defensive action can be done against any one attack. If you dodge, you loose your attack that round, and if you have already attacked you cannot dodge. Shields and weapons in off-hand give you an extra free parry - but this parry has to be done with the off-hand.