axe-elf

BRP Ghostbusting

Proton pack

Weapon: Proton Pack; Skill: Proton Pack; Base: 05%; Dmg: 3d12; Attk: 1; Special: Impale;

Rng: 20; Hands: 2H; HP: 20; Parry: No; STR/DEX: 9/7; Mal: 97-00; Value: Exspensive;

SIZ/Enc: 8

Emit wiggely proton beam that affect ghosts. Has two settings, Attack and Containment. It takes 5 DEX ranks to switch. Attack with successful hit will remove d5 power points from ghost. Miss will damage surroundings. Ghost at 0 power points may be contained by containment beams, and by two or more of these beams guided to a ghost trap on a successfull cooperarive STR roll opposed to ghost POW. If failure, ghost escapes.

Ghost trap

A small box which stores and transports one subdued ghost.The lid is opened

by pressing a foot-pedal attached to the box by a twelve-foot length of tubing. As it opens, the ghost trap produces a luminous white cone of psychokinetic force which channels the target ghost into the trap. May sometimes need DEX roll to open correctly. After capture, transfer ghost to power grid.

PKE Meter

Detects location of ghost on successfull PKE meter skill roll (mental).

Ecto-Visor

May detect ghosts that have gone invisible.

Note about ghosts being ghostbusted

Ghosts act at INT or POW rank (whichever is higher) in combat round. Ghosts can dodge at POWx4. They can attack using powers or ghostly combat. Successful hit with proton beam interrupts ghostly combat.

This has surely been discussed before, but anyway.

p. 203

In settings where shields are also used, a successful

shield parry may not be enough to stop a blow, and

damage from the attack can potentially pass through

the armor value of the shield and to the character. In

these cases, armor values for both shield and armor are

subtracted before the character takes damage.

Contradicting rule on p.191 (in my printed version) stating that parries with weapon or shield deflects all damage.

Embarrassing..................

I fully do agree.

Another rule I read in “Basic” (the french version of the BRP system published by the magazine “Casus Belli”) is giving the shield a parry bonus: +10% for the smallest shields and +20% for bigger ones. The shield then gives exactly the same penalty to the attack (-10% or -20%). The reason of this penalty is that the shield is often in the way of your weapon when you want to strike your foe…

Since “Basic” limits the maximum bonus to +20% (and not +30%, unlike BRP) we could change this rule to:

– Small shield: +10/-10%

– Medium shield: +20/-20%

– Large shield: +30/-30%

And for those who think that exactly the same penalty to the attack is not fair, this penalty could be divided by two…

– Small shield: +10/-5%

– Medium shield: +20/-10%

– Large shield: +30/-15%

… Or even dropped.

Yes, that is probably better, since EASY parry for shields very fast makes it to 100%, making battles with shields very lengthy.

I´d give all shields +15% to parry. That will give buclers a base chance of 20% and most other shields 30% to parry. Detailed enough for me.

The rules for Cover can eventually be used with hoplite shields, not allowing parry when it is used as cover.

If you want a quick and easy houserule, shields should be easier to defend with, so you could make shield parries EASY (2xskill).

Yes *sigh* I have to fix the system (as always, has there ever been a perfect rpg-system? )

I think that houserule fix the problem quite easily, without having to use the clunky hit location rules.

Regarding the sword/axe issue I´ll give the swords possibility to do impale as well as bleed damage, but also raise their value one step. They might have a -10% to hit when used for impale, since impale seems to be the better special success.

I have to think through this, but i guess this is what I´ll go for.

Thanks for your advice!

Um, the effectiveness of a weapon is only one factor in the choice of using it - it's prestige is ALSO important. Historically, the masses were armed with pole / spear weapons (devastatingly effective and CHEAP). Swords were rarely, if ever a main battle weapon - they took a lot of expensive resources (lots of metal, lots of skill to make) and are, on balance, less effective in typical use than a spear, pole arm or an axe. Think of them as the pistol of pre-firearms warfare - very effective in the right role and in skilled hands; a highly portable secondary weapon and badge of prestige. But the Axe, Spear or Polearm are the main battle rifles of the pre-firearms era: they are the weapons the rank and file carry and the weapons that generally determine the outcome of an engagement.

Now - they are, by definition, exceptions to every such sweeping generalisation - but looking for mechanical performance differences between side arms without first looking at the social and economic factors is IMO a mistake.

The main equipment of a norse warrior was a shield, a spear, and an axe or a sword, if they could afford it. Also chaimail was only for the wealthy. I find it unrealistic if a warrior would go into battle with a weaker, more expensive weapon, just because of the prestige.

And why? Shields are designed as a passive defense against missiles, not as tools used to parry close combat attacks. A swashbuckler may well be superior to a barbarian with a round shield if no missile fire is involved.

Also, if the dagger is held in the left hand, its chance to parry is halved for off-hand use. This is not true for the shield.

In any case, it is a well-known fact that this is the weak spot of this incarnation of BRP. What we are trying to tell you here is that it is not such an imporrtant problem. You can fix it, but if you are not familiar with BRP, you risk introducing even bigger problems with the fix. Better adopt a previously tested solution.

I don´t agree that shields are designed only for missile defence. If you try some live roleplaying, you will know why. Having a shield usually makes you superior to anyone at same skill level as yourself with the same weapon. Also if you read the viking sagas of Snorre (real sagas), lots of combat is described. Shields are used to block incoming blows, as well as arrows. They usually had more shields, as they got broken during combat.

As you may understand, I´m planning a viking/norse campaign

Note that if you use the optional hit location system, a shield is also an armor for the body parts it covers. A shortword is not.

Yep, that makes shields usable for more than arrow cover. I´m considering using that system. I overlooked this possibility.

a) Shield (and two-weapon) use: look at the optional strike rank system. There is a rule that says "You cannot parry and attack with the same le weapon in the same Strike Rank". This means that in a fight between a 2-weapon user and a 1-weapon user, all that the 2w user has to do is state "I wait until the SR he swings and counterattack". The 2w user can both attack and parry, as he is parrying with the shield, but the 1w user cannot! This is a very good reason to use a shield. Transfer this rule to the DEX Rank system, too, and you will see how useful shields will become.

Thanks for the answer, but actually I cannot find the rule you are referring to in the strike rank system. Still, in close combat a dagger would be a better choice than a shield, as it has greater chance of parrying, and can deal more damage if you use it for an attack. Think of it, greater chance of parrying with a small dagger than a big round shield... that is what i would call a flaw in the system.

Not sure what your talking about with shields

Pg. 206 " Your character parries melee attacks with his or her shield just as he or she would a hand weapon, using the same system."

Being protection against Missile fire is just an added bonus

Just that there is no reason to have a shield, when you can parry just as well with a hand weapon. For example a short sword and a kite shield both have a base chance of 15 to parry. For a character, there is no reason to spend time and energy (skill points) to learn parrying with a shield, when the shortsword does the job.

I´ve just read through the combat system of the BRP 4th edition, and I have to say I am a bit disappointed. This is mainly because I think the simulation of real combat is quite good, but on certain, very unnecessary points brakes the illusion badly.

I hope I in some way have misunderstood the rules, and can be proven wrong by someone here

First: Is there any reason to have a shield? OK, it might be good against missile fire, but that is not the main reason you would carry a shield into real battle. The shield was used to parry incoming blows, and in the BRP system there is no reason to use a shield when you can parry just as well with a normal hand weapon like a sword or an axe....

(Most shields and hand weapons have the same base chance of parrying)

Second: Have the game designers considered the relative efficiencies of weapons? In the BRP system a battle axe is surly better than a longsword giving damage of d8+2+db (compared to d8+db for langsword), and has no other real drawbacks. Historically the longsword was the more expensive weapon, usually worn by the higher classes. Would they really settle with the weaker weapon?

Third: Why is only one possible type of special success on weapons? A halberd or sword can certainly impale, not only make bleed damage?

All these "mistakes" can be fixed by some house rule patching, but it annoys me that the system was not more thought through by the designers. Or am I wrong? Please prove me wrong...