Tywyll

Is there an official errata somewhere?

In the description of the Wizardry spell Blast, it says at first that mundane armor and the 'Armor' spell can block the damage. In the last paragraph it says that the spell cannot be blocked by the 'Protection' spell. I imagine that the Armor spell reference is a holdover and actually refers to Protection. So the question is, does Blast get stopped by Protection or not? As written, Blast seems to be the weakest attack spell (unless it can ignore magical armor in which case it goes up a bit).

Would the greater number of powers from Superworld be translateable to BRP now? The super power section seems a bit thin. For example, I'd like to see some physical powers (Claws) that use the Superworld build system rather than mutations... as how would you compare two characters built in the two different systems?

How does someone learn a skill that starts at 0%? How long do they spend if being taught or researching before they get to make an improvement roll?

I think I've found the fix I'm going to be happy with. Spells cost 1MP per level. Max level worth of a spell you an cast is 1 per 20% (minimum of 1) So you'd need a skill of 40% to cast a 2d6 bolt, for example. Spells that do direct damage to a single target and can be mitigated by armor will do the d6 per level. Spells that do AoE damage and can be mitigated by armor do d4 per level. Spells that do direct damage to a target and ignore armor/defenses do d3 per level. Buff spells will be limited to +3-5 in general, so we won't have buffed combatants completely dominating the battlefield and making combat purely a measure of who your friends are. Since I'm going to mix and match several spell styles, this will keep Wizardry on line with the other stuff I'm going to put into the mix (and leave Divine Magic as more potent in a stand up fight).

I love Magic of the Young Kingdoms, btw. It is wonderful. Am currently trying to work on a way to make 'Paths of Elementals' work in my soon to be run BRP game.

I disagree that buff spells must by default be better than direct damage spells. Buffs need to be a viable tactic, but so do Blasts. Currently, this is not the case and Buffs are the only viable tactic. You've made part of my point for me: 3MP per d6 is good when HL is being used, but not when total HP are being used. The two values are _not_ the same and shouldn't be treated as though they are. Again, I disagree that the system inherently requires that buff spells be 'better' or that they be useless. If direct damage can remove an opponent from the equation directly than the tactical choice is relavent. If it cannot, then and only then to buff spells always become the better deal. And again, while a world in which the only spells a caster knows are 'buffs' is perfectly valid (Glorantha), it isn't the standard 'adventurous fantasy' setting. So the problem is fixed until MP storage items are entered into the equation, an then it reappears? That's not really a fix. Further, not all games are D&D like in that they expect characters to be pants until they get their gear. I'd rather see spell casters be potent on their own right. I use it as a thematic example only. I don't expect a mundane human to ever be a threat to a dragon. A spellcaster, by virtue of not being mundane, should have a chance. A guy with a normal sword, barring the most exceptional string of criticals, shouldn't. If the magician's potential unbalance is the concern, then I think that is a far better 'fix', in that the most unbalanced characters are only those that are very, very skillful (appraoching the same range in which warriors get two attacks for example). I fail to see how a -10 or -20 is that complex. Compared to the current function of the mage which is to make the other character's even better while he himself does nothing particularly effective. Situation plays a big role in which method is preferable. The problem with the current model, as I see it, is that it is _always_ preferable to cast a big buff than it is to cast a big blast, even if only against a single foe that must be dropped quickly, 4d6 damage is less reliable than the +60% +12 damage buff option. That's a problem. Anytime a choice is a given in a rpg then that choice is too good. The tactics should each have flaws and advantages, so that one style of play doesn't become the only style of play.

Personally, I love Witchcraft and Armageddon. I'd be interested in helping you, though as they say, it won't be coming up with a formula and plugging in the values, as that won't really work. But if you want to kick around some spot creations, that would be cool. Granted, I don't yet have BRP, so I'm having to go via guess work till I can get my hands on a copy.

Incorrect. Assuming we are in the kind of world that allows for it, the buff spell becomes king (and this was the bane of 3.X play, btw). A magician is much better off casting a 10 point buff on the Archer, that way he gets a constant +10 Damage (and +50% to hit if I remember correctly), versus a single 3d6 blast. From a GM perspective, which is more bothersome, which has more kill power? I'd say the Buff. Not counting magic or buffed armor. True. As it is, the rules encourage the caster to be a buffer rather than a direct damage dealer. Granted, this is more or less the style of RQ, wherein heroic sword play was the order of the day. But it doesn't allow for the kind of play involving dangerous lightning bolts and other such spells. The archer can't do anything, which is more or less as it should be. No one expects a normal person with a bow to take out a Dragon (Yes, Smaug got dropped by a single arrow, but its fairly clear it would have been a magic arrow in an rpg, and Bard was a Hero, not a scrot). Now, give that archer a magic bow, or a buff spell, and then he might be able to hurt the dragon. That may be, but that is why I'm arguing for alternative limiting mechanics. Granted, if you want to run a game that is item dependant, like RQ2&3, then I suppose it works... a powerful magician is defined by the goodies he carries. I'd rather it be more intrinsic than that, however. That's probably true, but when the average person has around 11-12 HP, you need to do 18 points to expect a kill, and that is just on the town guard. To average that, you are looking at 18 MP, or pretty much all of the caster's points for the day. If he opts for blasts over buffs.

Can you tell me more about the new magic system? I'm very interested in the crunch elements of the setting before I think about getting the PDF. Cheers!

I still assume that it isn't irrelevant, personally. And if you use top end armor (say something like Melnibonean Plate in Elric! that does d10+6 ap, or Iron Armor in a RQ style game that stops 9-12 damage) you are looking at having a difficult time making your MP count for something. Now, maybe that is the answer (to yoink an idea from 4E): give Magicians an At Will effect that is very cheap (0 or 1 MP) so that they can still be effective, without being the equivalent of 1st or 2nd level magicians in od&d. I agree that its a lot of potential damage. But how powerful are top end monsters? Dragons in RQ3 had 12 points or more of armor. Can the mighty magician even threaten such a creature? Personally, if a spell ignores all armor, I'd probably leave the 3 per 1, but if armor was taken into consideration, I'd lower the cost.

Easier balance could be achieved by limiting the number of levels they can cast with the spell by their % in the skill. 1 level per 10 or 20% (probably 20% if you want to stay on the low end). then it takes a mage with an 80% skill to do 4d6 damage. For that, he is spending 4 or 8 MP, for a chance (he might miss and waste his MP) of doing that sort of damage. The archer can keep firing away, and even if armor does hamper him, he won't worry about becoming a 'one-shot magic item' like the wizard will.

If there is anyone who has a copy they are willing to sale, or could make other arrangements, please let me know. I am very interested in this book.

;-( Could you tell me more about what was in it? why won't it see print again?

Exactly! I think they should have offered options: Low Fantasy where one should use a bow, 3 per die. Middle/Adventure fantasy maybe 2 per die (at most) and High Epic Fantasy 1 per die. That seems reasonable to me. You might want to cap the number of levels a caster can cast in any spell to 1 per 10 or 20% in a spell. Otherwise, ta da!

I just heard about a Monograph for Elric! called 'Gods of Law'. Does anyone know anything about this? Does anyone know where I could pick up a copy or a pdf?

Personally, I have no intention of using locational HP. That being the case, I can't see how they think d6 versus total HP and d6 versus locational HP is anywhere near equivalent. I mean, yes, if I used Locational HP, then 3 per d6 seems 'ok' I guess (though I still think I'd lean towards 2 per d6). But with Total HP, 3 per d6 seems far too expensive. Why be a 'blaster' magician when a bow works much better?

If, as I've been told, spells like the AoE one do damage to all hit locations at once, I don't see how this can reasonably approach 'fair' or balanced. Also, in RQ1-3 yes, 1 mp did d3 damage, but that was also a spell for a world that didn't have magicians doing much in the way of 'blast' magic, so I don't think for a 'generic' rules set that is a fair comparison. Even with, the d3 ignored armor which in WoW, most of the spells don't do that.

I understand in the new Magic system that d6's of damage with spells tends to cost 3 MP. This is regardless of whether one is using Hit Locations or Total HP. I was wondering if I could get some input on this and some reasoning as to why. It seems that it shouldn't be constant, either you should decrease the cost for Total HP (which seems probably better) or increase it for HL, because 2d6 vs Total HP is not the same as 2d6 to the chest/head.

I'd love to see those house rules when you get them compiled.

Having done so, I can say that 'yes' fits the bill to all those questions. You may have limited yourself to playing it as a skirmish game, but that is up to how your group used it, not what you can and cannot do with the game. BRP could be played as a skirmish game if you wanted. All games if you simply focus on combat can be reduced to such. Since we aren't debating Gamist-Simulationist-Narrativist styles of play, and last time I checked, BRP still fell in the GS camp rather than the N camp, the only thing missing from 4E currently (and even that is debatable) is a detailed setting to use the rules in.

Elric! has grappling rules in it and intentional knockback, and barring BRP0, its one of the most recent versions of the BRP system. And if the rules don't specifically reference effects connected to the criticals, then its quite debatable what the GM should 'want' to do with the system. Since most resistance rolls are binary, not a lot of them will have much to benefit from special effects of the rolls.

Considering Resistance Rolls almost never use specials and criticals (I've never seen an example of such in CoC or SB or Elric!) its a moot point. So, a d20 would work perfectly well for a table/rule that was created for RQ2 where-in every %tile roll was in 5% increments.

1=Critical Special is just 20% of your score, rounded up or down or mathematically for taste. 2-4 usually.

Or you are playing supers... Or High Fantasy... Or sci-fi (cyborgs et al)... Or pretty much anything that isn't hyper focused on the 'mundane'.