KPhan2121

FTF or Hangouts with distant friends.

When you play on Google Hangouts, what software do you use to help you play? Or do you simply have a character sheet and some dice?

Most of my RPGing is done electronically even if my group plays face to face we use laptops instead of character sheets and dice. We use a software called Maptools and I've been using a modified version of Booga's CoC 6th Edition Framework. How do you guys game? Do you prefer online using voice chat or in person? Do you use electronic tools or use good old fashion character sheets and dice? If so, why do you prefer one over the other? 

If a special success is countered by a normal success, it will move the special one step down the ladder - to a normal success (with some extra damage inflicted to the parrying weapon).

So according to RAW and the Attack/Defence-matrix, your player is right. According to your game, it depends.

Ah, the attack/defense matrix is a little confusing to read but I think the way you explained did was very good. 

During a session, one of my players stated that the a special success on an attack roll could be partially negated by a success in a defensive roll. Now I've ran the game as if rolling a special or critical always did a special success, unless the opponent rolls a corresponding critical or special on their defense roll. Is that incorrect to the rules? 

Your best bet it to study the existing spells and see how equivilent ones were converted. BRP has some built in consistancy with regards to spells so just continue with that. For example, damage spells are typically 1d6 per 3 magic points, as are healing spells. Balence them against those that already exist and you should do fine.

 

Rod

Thanks for the advice, I've been putting it to good use. Btw are you the guy who wrote the Classic Fantasy book?

Been using Classic Fantasy for BRP for some time now. I want to take some spells from D&D 3.5 and convert them to BRP. However, I can't seem to find any magic conversion rules for BRP. Do they exist? If not, is there anything I should look out for if I were to create my own conversion rules? 

So one of my players is using a dagger (Since he impaled a dude and couldn't retrieve the weapon). Another man (enemy) wants to move in with his spear and hit the player. He says he opposes the closing. Is that possible? I thought the Closing and Disengage rules were meant to be used by short weapon users to move inside a long weapon's effective range. 

So the question is, can you use the Closing and Disengage rules to stay out of an opponent's longer reach until you find an opportunity to strike?

Got into the Delta Green Playtest past it's deadline. 

I have to say, overall I really like it. The rules are simple and easy to read and understand. I like the fact that the weapon stats section is just a bunch of generic guidelines. The simpler combat rules are fast and don't get bogged down on dice rolls (auto-fire, anyone?). There isn't that weirdness when a character maxes out a skill since the highest it can go is capped by x5 it's correlating stat. It certainly maintains that BRP-style combat and straight forward dice rolls. I like how the sanity rules are given better guide lines to how it affects a character. Now onto the stuff that bothers me.

I feel that the mechanics of the RPG does not fully support the illegal conspiratorial nature of Delta Green. I think that bonds were a step in the right direction, but feels half-assed. Like it was added as a cool thing but never developed beyond that. There needs to be a mechanic that measures the amount of suspicion that surrounds your character/group. This "Suspicion Rating" should be a number between 5-95. Whenever a group does an unwarranted search on private property, their suspicion rating goes up. Whenever a group requisitions a gunship or calls the local forces for help, their suspicion rating goes up. In between missions, the GM rolls against the Players' suspicion rating and if it succeeds, one or more of the character's actions have gained the attention of the government and is under some internal investigation. The result would probably be lost in sanity points and/or losing bond points. After that the suspicion rating will reduce itself somehow to a minimum of 5. The point is to provide the players the ability to use their governmental powers, but at a cost. Most importantly to provide mechanical support for the professional and mental deterioration of the agents as they work for the group.

The mechanics of an RPG need to support the experience that it's trying to give to the players. If crucial elements of it are left vague and without structure, it will leave newer players and GMs confused and discouraged.

What do you guys think?

One more thing that is certainly not to everyone's taste, you could go the blackjack route.  When two opponents roll equal successes, take a look at the rolls and see which roll has a higher value.  The higher roll wins because it represents use of more refined skill.

 

For example, two characters are tussling.  One crits on a roll of 23, the other crits on a roll of 07.  The character who rolled a 23 wins because they are able to crit on such a high roll.  The second character's crit moves to a success (or the first character's moves to a special).

 

This will have the opposite effect of long combat.  Using this method, combat is usually over in a couple of rolls.  If you try it, I would suggest loosening up the definition of the combat round as that plenty of action is narrated between the rolls.

I suggested that as a house rules a few months ago. It works pretty well, but I've found that it screws over people who take martial arts. 

 

This is a very interesting idea, however I'm more inclined towards the combat rolls as opposed skill rolls. It's simply easier to implement. A suggestion for you, I wouldn't make parrying or dodging require a roll. Instead the attack penalty decreases as they parry more per turn cumulative. Less rolling in combat overall. 

 

Few games are so different as BRP and Dungeon World. If you try to pigeonhole pieces of DW into BRP, the chances that you fix a problem that appears in a specific situation but at the sam etime open the way to bigger issues in a different situation are very high.

 

 

There is still a lot you can do without entering the realm of "forbidden moves". For instance, a typical move you would attempt in a trial by combat would be disarming your opponent and humiliating him instead of wounding/killing him. The rules for disarming are on page 221, and they clearly specify that a disarming attempt bypasses any parry, so the chances of a "no event" round will drop a lot.

 

Other items among the spot rules will probably contribute to the solution of the "too many uneventful rounds" problem in one on one combat, too. You should take the time to browse the Spot Rules section and pick the ones that stimulate your and your friends' imagination for introduction into your combat sessions. Even if you do not want to pre-declare that you are using them, have a list of the available options memorised (don't worry, it doesn't occupy a spell slot), so that you know that there is a specific rule in the book that covers that fancy description your player has just made to insert variety in a boring battle.

Started looking at the spot rules, thanks for that. Didn't realize how important they were. 

Funny thing is in the middle of the duel the PC just went "fuck this" and rushed the guy, knocked him over, disarmed him and held a dagger to his face kinda like what Briene did to Loras in Game of Thrones. We did it almost as written in the rules. Rolled few grapple checks and done in a turn instead of a few of them.

Do you use fatigue rules?

When i run, it's rare that a party encounters combat after a nice rest. Typically they've been marching, exploring, spelunking, etc for some time. If so, they're already -2 to -5, or whatver, in fatigue when combat starts. So that -2 to -5/whatever penalty will only increase as combat proceeds. Additionally, they're encumbered, that's its own penalty, or adds to more fatigue, but you get the picture.

 

And If possible, team up. So gang up on an opponent, get bonuses and dont play fair, your job in combat is to win... I know i'm preaching to the choir and someone already alluded to this. So maybe several of these factors can help.

I don't use the fatigue rules since I only recently started playing BRP(only had a few sessions under my belt) so I'm sticking to basic rules till me and my group get use to the rules.

Well, this situation I brought up was a one on one duel, a "trial by combat" situation and they couldn't do any underhanded stuff without the judges seeing.

Like I said, it's not that it doesn't work, but it is more reliant upon player/gamemaster creativity than mechanics.

Yeah, I had to pull out some stuff that wasn't part of the rules. Borrowing concepts from Dungeon World like soft moves (set up descriptions) and hard moves (the actual rolling and results) in order to make break outta the hit-parry cycle.

How do you guys handle fights between two opponents that have 85+ weapon skills? Alot of whats going on is hit-parry for alot of turns and the occasional special. Is there something I'm missing? I'm using mostly standard rules, like Weapon Skill to parry and -30 penalty per success. I know that you can make multiple attacks per round if you have at least 101 weapon skill but no one is there yet. 

It seems that you roll for attack normally and another, separate roll for the MA-skill?

You only roll once - and compare the result to both skills. In your example above the attack would have been a normal success, regardless of the martial arts-skill.

If the roll was within the MA-special range, it wouldn't do anything extra apart from the double damage (which is hairy enough). Special- and critical effects are dependant on the weapon- and weapon skill used, not the MA-skill.

Does that make sense?  

 

 

edit: reading comprehension

 

Yeah, I misread the part where it said "used in conjunction with Unarmed, Grapple and Melee Weapons Skills" as you roll the skill dice on top of the attack roll instead of rolling a sucess or better under the martial arts skill with the attack roll.

A player character took European-style Sword Techniques as a Martial arts skill. In a combat, he rolled a normal success and got a special in his Martial Arts check. After a few seconds checking the rulebook I went with what was written, changed the attack result to a special. Am I missing something? It feels like I'm doing something wrong. What would do you guys do?

Hi, unfortunately due to circumstances beyond my control, there will be no BRP Classic Fantasy II.

 

I have since signed on with the awesome Design Mechanism, publishers of the acclaimed RuneQuest 6, and Classic Fantasy will be published using that system.

 

The entirety of BRP Classic Fantasy has been rewritten and will be included along with all of the unpublished material, and a complete set of rules under one set of covers.

 

The entire package is nearing completion and should be turned in no later (hopefully) than the end of January.

 

I'm sorry for any problems this may cause, but I am very proud of this new book and I believe the added playtesting and extended experience on my part will make for an even better product.

 

Rod

Cool, I'm glad to see it continue on in some form. There needs to be a D&D style RPG that uses d100 system.

I agree that due to the small HP range in BRP then these Pathfinder rules may not port over cleanly, it will may lead to too much auto-kill and take the random aspect out of combat.

Modelling the level cap from the Stormbringer magic is probably a sensible way to go.

 

Perhaps another option is to allow for an attack roll  to be made as a Difficult roll (halve skill roll), and grant some options - obviously one option is Aimed Blow, but another perhaps could be a Damage Bonus ( maybe increase current damage bonus by one dice level perhaps?)

 

Actually I'm not sure if these options are already available...well, the Aimed Blow is, but I'm unsure about the Damage Bonus... I have read it somewhere....RQ6 perhaps?...

 

(I need to check my RQ6 and BGB Spot Rules tonight!)

How about instead of extra damage, it allows for armor penetration? 1 point of AP for every 5% of accuracy?

I think it will probably kill off your campaign- or at least your PCs! 

 

One fundamental difference between BRP and D&D/Pathfinder is with the way hit points  and armor work. In D20 systems, hit points increase as the characters gain experience and go up in levels. In BRP, hit points are basically fixe. In D20 systems characters take damage from every hit, with the reduction of hit points representing parries, fatigue and minor scratches-while in BRP , parries and armor are used to prevent damage, and any hit point loss represents a serious injury.In D20  5 or 10 points of damage isn't that much of a threat to a character of moderate level. In BRP 5 or 10 points through the armor will kill, incapacitate and/or maim most characters.  Dead characters tend to stay that way in BPR, too. 

 

If you let players trade of 5% of skill for +1 damage, I think you will end up with a lot of dead PCs. It won't take much of a penalty to get the damage up to the autokill level.

Well, I really love lethal combat, makes it alot more tense for my players. A solution would probably be to use Heroic HP values or limit the amount of bonus damage to maybe +5/+10 damage?

The Classic Fantasy Revised book keeps referencing a Volume 2, but I can't find any information on it? Am I crazy or is it not out yet?

A few weeks ago, I had a dilemna about low damage-dealing weapons vs high armor and people offered alot of really good suggestions(most of which can be found in the rules btw). However alot of it went against my creed of simplier and faster. I really wanted to have it where every turn, some dynamic of combat changed, did not like the situation of hitting the same thing and not scoring some damage for alot of turns. So I asked my question to my players, after some dicussion we've thought to add power attack and deadly aim from Pathfinder. The idea is that any attack can sacrifice accuracy for damage, every 5% of accuracy can be sacrificed to add 1 extra point of damage. This allows combat to flow pretty quickly, while keeping the advantages of wearing plate mail since you have to stack more damage to reliably penetrate it.

What do you guys think of it?

A character with a 40% skill can still take down an 80% fighter if he rolls a special success. In fact, using opposed rolls would give the high skill combatant an even greater edge, as he is more likely to make the "higher but under his skill" roll that allows him to deal damage.

 

With the current ruleset, even if both combatants are very competent at parrying a hit is scored on average every three rounds (one hit in five is a special, and you make six rolls in three rounds) so there is no desperate need to change the rules to make hits happen more often.

Well I tend to throw alot of weak minion-type enemies at my players and its a huge hassle to try and record their parry modifiers, I thought about this idea because you wouldn't have to keep track anything, just roll and compare.

Martial arts can be used with melee weapons and it adds another damage dice to an attack, so if I take a halberd, I can deal 4d6+damage bonus points of damage per attack. Does that sound a bit op to you guys? How do you deal or not deal with martial arts.

I was thinking, why don't we use the opposed skill rolls rule for combat? For those who don't know, the opposed skill rolls is that the two opposing characters roll for the skill, they have to roll under their skill rating but over the opposing character's roll as well. We apply that to attack, parry and dodge skills. Would that make combat way to swingy? Like a character with 80% melee skill could get downed by a 40% pretty easily if their luck was bad enough. What do you guys think?

Based on all the suggestions, it seems using rolled armor values is a small price to pay in complexity and avoids having to homebrew too many little rules into my game.

The guy with daggers can't damage the guy in plate armor even after strength/size bonus? (I don't have my books in front of me).

 

You could rule the minimum damage on a successful hit is 1. That would be pretty simple, and it would mean armor can never completely ignore damage, but it can come close.

I still wouldnt want to be the guy with daggers though.

 

You could armor up two guys in plate mail and give them both daggers, then have them fight eachother, for a whole new take on padded sumo.

 

Or you could be cool with the fact that a child just can't hurt the fully plate armored dude with a sling bullet. That would also be pretty understandable.

 

No, he doesn't have a damage bonus cause hes an elf with average str and size and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't like having to hit a knight 100 times for him to not go down.

 

 

 

I prefer for a way let them attack at the gaps on the armor intentionally instead of relying on getting a crit. Maybe its a difficult attack at 1/2% to hit an area that doesn't have armor like the slit of the visor, or maybe its a normal attack but the damage dealt is minimized so a dagger wielder with a damage bonus would do 2 points of damage per sucessful hit. I think it's a bit fairer while keeping the lower damaging weapons usable since daggers and many thin swords realistically don't do that much damage, but were created to penetrate plate better.

 

 

Yeah, in runequest II, the armor values are lowered and you can choose to attack a location without having a crit, you simply have to attain one degree of success higher than your opponent and you can choose a list of appropriate manuevers to use, one was to choose a location to attack and you'd attack an area that was vulnerable