Tywyll

Ok, so many of you will remember the old Fireblade from RQ.

I'm working on other Elemental Weapon buffs.

I've got the Windblade and the Earthblade, but I'm having a lot of trouble with the Waterblade. Any ideas/suggestions? I'd like it to be about on par (in usefulness) to Fireblade.

Here is another way to handle that other than dropping prolonged:

Use the first degree for all difficulties and add a ritual, which means: Quick, 3 seconds, Fast, 10 seconds, Slow, 1 minute and Prolonged, 5 minutes, then add in a variable for Rituals.

I agree that the times are a bit weird considering some spells, but I don't find that one aspect of Atomik Magick/Grimoire being a problem, especially since you are encouraged to use what works for your game. Having 400 spells and a system to cast them is pretty darned handy, especially for the price.

It's been awhile since I looked at Atmoic Magic, and I do remember the casting time being a big turn off back in the day.

How do you integrate the 'systemless' aspect to BRP? I mean, how much damage do you have spells do, how much healing, buff, etc? Just curious. I'll have to look them up again.

I'm also realizing that I have the option of letting a starting magician begin with both a staff and a familiar. So a completely average character might have a starting reserve of approximately 30 MP. (Assuming 11 POW for the PC and Staff and 8 for the familiar)

In light of the extra MP from the items, I see the problem is partially solved, so I need to reconsider my math.

I agree with your assessment of the base Wizardry system in BRP and is one of the main reasons I don't use it. A wizard is far better off (mp to effect) casting buffing magic and then possibly hitting with a wizard staff than ever using a blast style spell (yes it ignores armor, but not dodges... so while the cow spell has a PvP roll, there is still a 'saving throw' involved in blast spells that makes them potentially binary).

The archer example is a great point and something that (*gasp, horror*) I think that new edition of /that other game/ handles very well... allowing wizards a reusable blast ability that is on par with an archer's arrow that they can use all day long. I'm uncertain how to fairly model this in BRP, but I'm working on it. If you play a wizard it's because you want to blast thing (well, generally) and BRP's roots in RQ never allowed for that.

Finally, just a note. If you use BRP RAW, unless you are starting your campaign quite powerful, characters shouldn't start with a familiar or staff... both only come at Epic and Superheroic levels of play because they are supposed to be quite difficult to gain.

I've been playing with a different spell system, wherein my player's main blaster mage either has a 1-4 mp spell that does d4 per level and ignores mundane (but not natural or magical) armor, or a 2-8 mp elemental burst spell, that does 1d6 per mp, over a 1m area per mp, but armor of any kind help stops it. On top of this he has 12mp worth of magic storing crystals and a familiar (old RQ style) that provides another 13 or so MP. Even with that, he's not overshadowed the party, and I'd say he's just only been able to stay contributing over the long haul to fights and stuff (though his 3 point unbreakable bond spell has done more to end fights than his damage spells). The most recent session was during the course of a siege and he was sweating something fierce when by the time the battle was over being so close to unconscious.

I guess the other question is how many monographs have been completed and sent for publication? I'm still working on mine. Are any authors waiting for theirs to get going?

No, it should be available in all weapons for which a master has devised some special techniques. This is true for unarmed combat (where there are several styles), for fencing with light swords and sabers, and for fencing with japanese swords. It is probably true for gladiator schools in ancient Rome, assuming gladiators were better at killing than legionnaires (and again, the bonus applies only to shortwords and tridents, the weapon they used in the arena, while legionnaires mostly used the pilum). It might have been true for medieval schools of fighters, but we have no written record of it, so we cannot know for sure. I am rather skeptical about anyone devising special techniques for pikes or halberds.

Personally, I think the MA skill, as applied to Weapons, is broken. I think the MA skill is insufficient for modeling more than a handful of real world MA. I also disagree that weapon skill encompasses 'martial arts' by which I mean the special, specific training in use. The reason I argue this is based on BRP's experience system... anyone can pick up a sword and, over time and with luck, gain 100% in it (a great deal of luck and decent stats could see this happen in only around 20 conflicts, unlikely yes, but possible). This shouldn't mean the same thing as someone who has trained extensively in combat methodology, as it obviously isn't in the real world. I think the illusion that these two characters would be the same comes strictly from the way the mechanics work and the 'reward' system that exists within it.

I disagree that there shouldn't be MA for all kinds of weapons. And in fact, we do have many surviving examples of medieval school styles, including styles for fighting with pole-arms. For example:

"'Flower of Battle' is an Italian treatise, which was started on Februrary 10, 1409 and completed in six months in late 1409 (1410 using the modern calendar). It is primarily composed of illustrations accompanied with short rhyming captions in a Venetian dialect of Italian. Some details of Fiore dei Liberi can be found in its prologues, one in Italian and the second in Latin. The prologue also explains the structure and conventions found in the treatise. Fighting styles covering wrestling, dagger, sword, spear, longsword, armoured combat, pollaxe, and mounted combat are included in the treatise with considerable discussion of disarming techniques in particular, in the dagger and sword sections."

And from wiki:

"Normally, several modes of combat were taught alongside one another, typically unarmed grappling (Kampfringen or abrazare), dagger (Degen or daga, often of the rondel variety), long knife (Messer) or Dussack, half- or quarterstaff, pole arms, longsword (langes Schwert, spada longa, spadone), and combat in plate armour (Harnischfechten or armazare), both on foot and on horseback. Some Fechtbücher have sections on dueling shields (Stechschild), special weapons used only in judicial duels. The long sword had a position of honour among these disciplines, and sometimes Historical European Swordsmanship (HES) is used to refer to swordsmanship techniques specifically.

An early Burgundian French treatise is Le jeu de la hache ("The Play of the Axe") of ca. 1400.

The earliest master to write in the Italian was Fiore dei Liberi, commissioned by the Marquis di Ferrara. In approximately 1410, he documented comprehensive fighting techniques in a treatise entitled Flos Duellatorum covering grappling, dagger, arming sword, longsword, pole-weapons, armoured combat and mounted combat. The Italian school is continued by Filippo Vadi (1482-1487) and Pietro Monte (1492, Latin with Italian and Spanish terms)"

I'd love to see BRP get a proper treatment on MA. I don't know what that treatment would be, or else I'd suggest a Monograph to Chaosium. I think that if BRP is going to be truly a universal system, it will eventually need a comprehensive MA treatment.

I do think that for weapons, the MA skill could simply add +d3, just like it does for Brawl. I realize it does this because it 'doubles' Brawl damage, but I don't see the need for that with weapons... it would be simple, special, and not so unbalanced (I'd think).

Haven't tried it, don't know how well it'd work, but it's something.

Just posting this quesion out of curiosity, and not seeking support for any hypothesis.

What I would like to know is who does or doesn't use Step Six in character creation in their games, and why you do or do not (whichever is the case)?

I see a lot of potential in the system for alternative ways of viewing the Step Six bonuses, and I am working on something specific as a result, so I am interested in any 'live' experience.

PS I posted the title with Step Six/step 6 to make future potential seraches easier. There was method in my madness.

I used it when I first ran vanilla BRP over the summer. I was familiar with the Elric! system so recognized the option and just rolled with it. I also used the 10xInt (ala Cthulhu minus EDU) and the Profession skills.

I found the characters to be quite powerful. The only thing that 'limited' them was their 75% cap, of which they had several focused skills at. Since I had thought I was running a fairly 'gritty and low powered' game by picking Normal level, I was surprised at how capable the characters were. Realized I hadn't quite thought giving everyone an additional 260% worth of skills through as well as I should have...

As it is now, I would only use Step 6 if I wanted the characters to be very skilled and effective across the board. If I wanted less powered characters, I'd leave it out. I've also considered allowing 'non-powered' character to take some or all of Step 6s bonus to compensate for their lack of ability compared to Powered characters, but I haven't settled on that exactly.

I think that if I did go with Step 6 I might leave out the Intx10 step, but I suppose that would depend on the style of campaign, not sure.

Actually that is exactly how I run my game, where I use the RQ4 parries and the BRP dodges. Since I don't differentiate between parry and attack skill, it makes parries somewhat weaker overall, but shields are 'Easy' skills and Dodge is 'Hard', so I think it works out. Most of my players have such a low Dodge value, they only try dodging when desperate anyway (or up against spells/ranged attacks).

So far the players haven't had an issue with it. My only concern is, since using the AP and damage values from RQ4, most parries are pretty much an auto-stop of damage (longsword does d8, but stops 8 damage on a hit). But, then, short of breaking a weapon, rarely does a parried blow actually 'pass through' to the target, so I guess that's ok.

I still maintain that Ki skills from LoN are the best bet for "feats".

SDLeary

As written though, that leaves them solely in the hands of masters and no starting character can have anything 'special'. That seems a bit limited.

Yes, a skill-based generation system means that players have to focus on what is important to them, at least at the start. So, a magic user would have spent on magic skills and spells but would not be very good at much else, a fighter could be good at weapon skills, a scout could be good at wilderness survival skills and so on.

Not all magic systems in BRP work that way, which was what I was saying. Sorcery costs nothing in terms of character focus, for example.

This is a problem with any game. You can have characters sitting around not doing much.

In the game I am playing in at the moment I play a were-deer who is really useful in the wilderness but completely out of his depth in towns and the other PCs are Trader Princes who are at home in towns but put of their depths in the wilderness. So, there are times where I sit back and offer a supporting role and times where I lead.

Back to your example, there's a few things someone can do in that kind of situation. Not all combats can be talked around or avoided. If you let people talk their way out of every combat then you are depriving people of the joys of cracking heads. Sure, let them be clever and avoid some combat but there should be times when they are attacked or have to attack and get stuck in.

Obviously, and I did this. But the player wasn't happy unless there was 1+ fight a session, which is entirely different. If you force the majority of players who want to avoid a fight into unavoidable encounters, you deprive them of the joys of trickery and stealth.

The player complained that his character didn't get to do anything cool in combat? What do you mean by that? Did he want to try exotic and challenging tactics and was told he couldn't? Did he want special abilities that he could use in combat? Did he want to swashbuckle all the while? Sometimes it is a good idea to improvise in a given situation and let players try new things to see how they work and how they pan out. That way, everyone has fun, which is the whole point of playing RPGs.

He wanted special abilities or tactical options, things go beyond the binary approach of 'hit/didn't hit'. Sadly, and I blame this on the player, he looks at the sheet and if he doesn't see rules presented there, he has a hard time conceptualizing what he can do beyond that. As a style of player, he's not alone or unique though.

Even with the spot rules, non-casters have a lot less to do in combat that is 'interesting' or mechanically effective, or represent any kind of special training or abilities for non-magic users. this isn't an issue for everyone, but for some, it is.

The question is one of degree.

If it hadn't have been specified in the text, I wouldn't have thought much about it, but the book does mention the difficulties of running campaigns with powered and non-powered types together.

If the difference between wizards is similar that in games like AD&D, then well, I'm not overly worried. But if the difference -is as mentioned in the rpg book- something that has to be addressed, then I'm not sure I'd choose this system to play a fantasy game.

Once again, I haven't read in detail regarding this issue.

That said, I'd love to run some old TSR D&D modules using this system, and wonder if it'd be a good choice for this style of fantasy.

I'm currently running a fantasy based BRP game and I have encountered the exact concern you are asking about.

From a balance perspective, I think that the systems that require skill points to buy the spells are the most 'balanced' and if running an 'old school' style game, you'd probably want to stick with one of those (wizardry or Psionics). Bare in mind that the Wizards will eventually (quite quickly I've found) run out of power points, unless they are using their Magic for Buffing (which is statistically a much better cost to gain ratio for them than direct damage spells which are fairly weak and expensive). People used to raining death with fireballs may well be disappointed that they just blew all their PP for the day only to have the bad guy dodge.

The problem with Sorcery is that, while the individual powers are only moderate in power, even a beginning Sorcerer who rolls lucky (or assigns his high stat to POW) starts with so many spells. It's a 'luck of the draw' style of 'balance' (which is to say, it's not really balance at all, but rather simulationism at it's harshest). Your players will need to be ok with the idea that one of them might win the lotto and simply be 'better' than the rest with no cost to their resources (i.e. skill points). I think you also have to be very harsh about dice rolls, so that if someone gets it, it's because they 'earned' it. It works well for certain kinds of settings, but I don't think it would suit what you are looking for.

The other issue isn't one of 'balance' but of options. In my campaign I had only a single player who opted to not have some sort of mystical ability (I have a wide mix in my campaign, including some home brew and stuff from RQ, etc). So I had a 'Tank' fighter. He consistently complained that he didn't get to do anything 'cool' whenever a fight rolled around (which wasn't as often as he wanted because the other characters were predominantly rogue/social builds and wanted to talk past or avoid as many encounters as possible). So if you have players who are used to having lots of tactical options (ala 3rd/4th ed d&d) you may have your work cut out for you. I hate to say it, but the player has currently gone on 'hiatus' and since it's been three sessions, I doubt he'll be back. But most of the other players seem to love the game.

To be fair, I'm not hugely in love with the magic systems in BRP (except Sorcery, but that's because I loved it in Elric!). I think they are serviceable, but have some definite flaws (for one, I hate how weak and easily avoided direct damage spells are). Obviously, the same can be said about any game's magic system. I do think that the game handles fairly gritty fantasy well (think 1-7th levels in old school 1st ed dnd terms). I wouldn't use it to run games of 20+ level characters, unless you use the superhero rules!

Sorry, no, I meant could you point me to where they are written up? No offense, I just like to be able to look it up in a book. I thought the rule was in BRP, but Shaira makes me think I read it in RQ2.

Actually, the more I thought about the feinting rules, the more I thought that they would work as a plethora of "I do 'crazy' to get an advantage"... a very simple mechanic for players to get creative with scenery and such without bogging down play or using up actions (players seem so rarely willing to sacrifice their only attack for a tactic that only /might/ pay off).

In fact, I'm not sure that it should only be the province of 100+% characters, but anyone could sacrifice some of their accuracy (because combats are abstract and supposed to represent a number of actions not a single swing) for an advantage against an opponent.

Am I wrong here, is there a downside I'm not seeing?

Feinting rules...?

I know I've read them somewhere, but I can't find them now. Can someone point me towards them?

Pretty much what it says. How do you make combats between highly skilled opponents (or well buffed characters) more interesting? So far, what I've seen (and this is limited experience, I'll admit) if two high skilled opponents face off (80%+), then it devolves into a long exchange of dice rolls until someone fumbles or gets a critical.

Now, I realize there is some reality to this, as well skilled opponents fight a back and forth until someone makes a mistake and then its over.

But that's not a lot of fun in play, as eventually descriptions of attacks and parries fade after 10+ rounds of no results, and it turns into a dice game.

I realize that multiple opponents can wear down a skill combatant, and obviously spells change the dynamic, but what about two combatants, having a dual?

What tactics can a fighter employ to give themselves an advantage? How can they even the odds, or gain an advantage? what about throwing sand in someone's face or other tricks? How to use the terrain to put an opponent at a disadvantage?

What's a point build approach?

Also, the disadvantage system seems like something that can be taken from any other game system and added to BRP--or just created on the fly ("the PC has a 50% chance of getting drunk"; or just say the potential of him getting drunk is '10' or any other number, and have him fight it on the Resistance table as a POW vs. POW sort of thing. And the higher the number means more character points).

I disagree (that it is that easy).

Advantages and Disadvantages are fairly standard in modern games. As much as I love BRP, I do find it to be a fairly glaring omission that BRP has neither.

Skill based systems are great at saying what a character can do. Adv/Dis are great for telling more about what the character is/isn't. Yes, they have their problems and depending on how they are handled, they can be abused, but ultimately, I think BRP would greatly benefit from such an add on.

Oh, and a better point build for attributes. Mongoose RQ has one (though I don't know how good it is).

I was reading about Drakar och Demoner and I saw that in one of the earlier (assumedly BRP friendly) versions, they had new magic systems.

does anyone have any experience with this? Has anyone played the system at all?

I noticed that in new BRP, you only get a POW gain roll if your chance of success in a Pow vs Pow contest is less than 50%, whereas in old RQ2&3 you got one every time you overcame a target's resistance.

So, why the change? Was the old method too generous? Is there a probably playing it the old way? If I switch over, will there be a downside I'm not seeing?

What are people's personal experience of the old and the new ways of handling it?

I'm running a fantasy campaign and I'm finding that unless the casters go after other casters directly, there is little chance they'll improve their POW, without facing steadily increasingly potent enemy casters.

I do definitely agree with RQ4 that your melee rank should be based on a total of Siz and Dex, rather than using them individually to determine their benefit.

However, I also think that large characters can get the advantage on faster ones, simply because they have such a longer reach and can land a hit before the small guy gets there.

But, as written, it seems to imply that you can get up to 5 attacks if your SR is low enough.

Was this meant to be at full percent? It seems so.

Does anyone know if Chaosium retains any rights to the old RQ mechanics such as the magic system? I mean, I realize the fluff has gone to Mongoose, but if they wanted to publish a book with some variant Divine Magic or whatever, could they? Or do they not have the right to do that with BRP? Anyone know?

I was recently reading BRP's new take on the old RQ SR system.

I noticed on page 201, in the section on multiple actions, it says that you gain multiple actions based on having a SR of 5 or less. It then goes on to say that this system isn't compatible with splitting attacks with 100% skill or greater.

So, as I read it, if you get multiple attacks thanks to speed in the SR system, you get to make them at your full value every time. Is that correct?

What method of parry/dodge works with it? I assume the progressive -30% method, but I'm not sure.

There's no penalty until the FPs go below zero and, since they start at STR + CON, your Conan does have some advantage. I agree it doesn't seem enough though.

Doesn't your ENC penalize your Dodge?

I think you hit it head on with the MERP conversions. Give the OB as the %. Take their attributes, divide by 6, add 1 for characteristics. This gives characters with a 102 attribute in MERP a characteristic of 18. You can determine size based any height/weight listed in the books.

For critters take their AT and divide it by 2 or 3 for Armor Points (so AT 20 gives 7-10 AP) and use their DB as their Dodge skill (if any).

Modify per taste afterwards.

Use spell lists for ideas and basis for what magic or abilities a character may or may not have.

I don't agree with the attribute conversions. A 102 in MERP/RM was quite sick, much closer to a 21 in BRP terms. I'd just divide the attributes by 5 and round up, then add 1/5th the racial bonus, +1 for every point their attribute went above 100. So someone with a a 102 would have a 22 plus racial mods (to allow for those pesky god-like elves).

ACtually, anything with attributes above 102 should probably get 3 or 4 or even 5 points added per point over 102, as those stats were supposed to represent godlike ability, something that a single BRP point doesn't quite reflect.

It's not so much max encumbrance I'm worried about... It's more the idea that conan is as encumbered by a heavy sack as Poindexter the wizard. It just seems... off, you know?

Like there should be a level of enc a strong character can carry without suffering penalties or something.

Does Strength figure into encumbrance anywhere?

I've looked at the BRP versions I have at hand (BRP, RQ4, and MRQ) and the only one where it has an effect seems to be MRQ (though that is a Binary effect).

Does this bother anyone, that the strong guy is as hampered as the weak one? Shouldn't strength offset some of that?

Fighting with two weapons is explained in the BRP rulebook.

In summary

a human can do 2 "things" in a round

he can attack with a wepon and parry with the other

he can attack once with each weapon

he can parry once with each weapon

he can replace one of those action by a dodge (or another action such as jumping,

tumbling, throwing something to a friend ....)

Splitting attack (ie attacking 2 foes with the same weapon) is a more complex sequence of moves (and thus a difficult action) but is still only one attack.

So with enough DEX and a high enough skill, a character can split his two attacks,by doing this he can attack up to 4 foes (remember split attacks aims 2 distinct foes), but

in the round when he does this he cannot parry nor dodge.

Splitting parries (or dodges) allows to parry attacks from 2 distinct sources, but is still only

one parry. Like splitting attack, it is a difficult action.

There is the option of substracting 30% from each parry after the first. I think that it applies only to all the attacks from a single source, and that to parry two foes one needs

to split his parries.

If you are using the SR options, there must be 3 SR between each attack, if not there must be 5 DEX ranks between each attack.

You cannot attack and parry with the same weapon in the same SR (or DEX rank), but you can dodge and attack in the same SR.

I hope this helps

Jean

[

Actually, could you give me a page reference on this? I read the Two Weapon Fighting section in my BRP book last night and it was quite different from the above. For example, trying to attack with two weapons resulted in only 1 attack with each, at difficult, and only if the primary was 100%.

am I reading it wrong or missing something?