vagabond

As Nick pointed out, SB5 corrected the early Elric! rule, and one only gains Chaos points when one learns a spell, not when one casts a spell. The example in both Elric! and SB5 regarding parrying and dodging in the same round uses these examples: Example 1: Parry 91%, Dodge 90% - First Parry at 91%, following Dodge at 61% (not 60% which would be Dodge - 30). Third Parry or Dodge at 31% Example 2: Parry 91%, Dodge 150% - First Parry at 91%, following Dodge at 61%. Unfortunately, the most interesting case was not given an example, Parry 91% and Dodge 30%. The rule, as defined and exampled in the book, shows that any subsequent Parry or Dodge attempted in a round is the previous chance minus 30% (example 1 shows this specifically as the minute difference in base values favors Parry). So, by the rule, first Parry is 91% and subsequent Dodge is 61% (Parry - 30) - which means the character is all of a sudden twice as good at dodging as a result of already parrying in that round. I know it is a tangential point, but I was illustrating the fact that Lynn, regardless of how well he designs rules and writes, sometimes misses things. In Elric! and SB5, in Lynn's forward he states that the Dodge/Parry and Allegiance rules were both co-written with others, to what extent we do not know. As a result, it is very possible that Lynn misunderstood/misinterpreted things in both cases. SB5 corrected the Chaos point confusion, but the Parry/Dodge issue was never addressed. BTW, my houserule is for the subsequent Dodge/Parry is previous iteration minus 30 or skill - 30, whichever is lower, as both you and Nick interpret the rule. Sometimes, if I am feeling more cinematic, it is previous iteration minus 30 or skill, which ever is lower. Back to the original topic at hand, there are a few things missing from how one summons and binds demons. The first is a minimum of 8 MP are spent describing the demons stats. Then, for a 2d10 damage rating, another 10 MP must be spent. So, we're looking at a minimum of 18MP to summon the demon. Also, for weapon binding, you need an eternal bind, which is a 3 POW permanent sacrifice. That isn't very cheap, and considering a Sorceror with a 17 POW would drop to 14 POW, well, I would wait until you hit at least 18 POW. Plus, you have the POW vs. POW contest to perform the bind. Even with a minor demon (3d8 POW - average of 14 or 15), that's a pretty big risk. Secondly, and this is more of a house rule instead of written, if you were creating a demon using the bearest minimum stats (1d8 in all but POW which must be 3d8), meaning STR, DEX, and SIZ are 1d8, but then making it a Combat Demon for the purpose of binding it into a weapon, by spending 10MP for 2d10 damage (and, IIRC, 100% attack/parry), well, that demon does not make sense. A combat demon with 100% attack/parry and 2d10 damage, but at best, a measly 8 STR, 8 DEX and 8 SIZ? As a GM, I would disallow this demon. More points must be spent - at least 3d8 STR, 3d8 DEX and 2d8 SIZ. Now we're looking at 23 MP. Plus, a combat demon should have appropriate armour powers, and, assuming something on par with the combat skills, you're pushing 30 MP. -V

Just so you know, Lynn has been "wrong" before. The old parry/dodge rules for example. If you parry first, than dodge later, you dodge at parry - 30%. Which is OK at first glance, but what if your parry skill is 90% and your dodge is 30%? You perform the dodge at 60% (90 - 30) !!! So, you automatically become twice as good at dodging a blow if you parried previously in the same round ??? I would say Nick's interpretation is correct, and well defined by the rules. Lynn's FAQ update seems to be an incorrect interpretation of the rules as he wrote them (which, quite possibly, he actually did not - a number of authors had their hand in Elric!). -V

The rights are owned by Andrew Leker, Amy Leker-Khalish, and Miles Teves as far as I know. Maybe David Ackerman as well. There might be a handful of others who helped bankrolled the original. But, definitely the first three. Chessex has the rights to sell and remaining stock, but that's it. Yes, I will make the docs available via pdf. I may go so far as to contact Andrew for a stamp of approval, but I doubt it will ever be considered "official". -V

I've mentioned this before, but will do so again. Working on my "Ultimate Stormbringer" ruleset using SB1-5, Elric!, Corum, Mongoose's Elric, and all of the various supplements for all, as well as some Call of Cthulhu, and other houserules. Doing a complete port/rehash of Skyrealms of Jorune, including some setting updates based upon notes from conversations with Andrew Leker, Joe Coleman/Adams, and stuff from the Jorune website, Sholari James, and the Jorune Yahoo group. Also, some of my personal spin on things. Doing a port of Victory Games' James Bond 007 RPG, including some updated rules for hardware (newer vehicles and weaponry - and updating the hints given in the old Q Manual to create your own - some of the numbers no longer reflect today's world). I will also try to add some more real world stuff for those who want to do less cinematic espionage/mercenary/private eye type games, as well as maybe some of the classic Sam Spade/Mike Hammer stuff. And, finally, try to get into gear porting Byakhee over to OSX and work on a more platform agnostic version using Linux, as well as making it more of a generic BRP app as opposed to Call of Cthulhu. -V

The creature is the hyaenodon from the genus Hyaenodonts: Hyaenodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A prehistoric carnivore. -V

I've used it, and stolen quite a bit of it for my Ultimate Stormbringer stuff - the demon summoning, charioteering, contrivances, pacts, etc. Great stuff ... -V

For the most part, converting over to BRP would be pretty easy, assuming a few things like taking the Mongoose EoM magic system as is. Which is a good idea. Maybe a 2 or 3 (assuming 1 is easiest). I'll have to reread the core, but I don't think there is anything specific about allowing the PCs to escape by altering history, but there is some tidbits regarding travelling the Multiverse, so escape is possible. Of course, the GM can do anything they wish to the setting. And, older suggestions for the Chaosium line was to set the PCs in the YK prior to Elric's ascension to the throne. Combat and opposed skill tests are handled just like the current MRQ from what I recall. EoM was the first printed version of the rules that had the combat "errata". I don't think those mechanics stray too far from MRQ. I'm sure Loz will chime in - he wrote the book after all -V

Throwing requires rotating your arm and releasing an object. Swimming requires keeping your head above water, making crawling motions with your hands and feet, and not panicking. Also, how one moves their hands and feet must be rather specific, just splashing and kicking will not work. Do you really think they are equally simple? Yes, throwing with accuracy is not all that easy, but the basics of throwing is. And, gaining accuracy is something you can do yourself with experience. Swimming is far and away not so, nor can you necessarily get better at it on your own over time. Because if you lack the rudimentary skills, you will not live to learn from your mistakes. -V

In the midst of that mass of text, I posited that same thought. The second paragraph. -V

There is a difference. You can still throw an object. And, you can learn to throw better on your own. Swimming is different. Let's try to put this to rest. BRP allows for a couple of situations regarding difficult skills and "innate" ability. By default, even a skill at 0% can be attempted and succeed on a roll of "01". Also, with the optional skill category bonuses, swimming would start with a base percentage. It all depends on the setting/game. Now, excluding some edge cases with walking, since I can assure you there probably are adults who never learned to walk, there are some things that need to be taken into consideration. Infants are taught to crawl, walk, etc. They possess some innate skill, and can probably get up on their feet by themselves. And, the infants we see "swimming" innately usually do so for at most a minute or two, and then someone scoops them up. Why? Because, left on their own, they would drown. It's not necessarily fear, but it is lack of skill and stamina, all of which are parts of learning to swim. Children fall/jump into pools all of the time and drown. They may or may not panic, they may or may not dogpaddle briefly, and they may or may not hold their breath briefly. But, because they lack the skill to swim, any innate ability is insufficient to save their lives. It is sad, and I am not making light of the subject, but that is unfortunately the way it is. I am not against setting base swim percentages in your campaigns. That is your choice, and indeed, in many campaigns, it is appropriate. However, as a default, I do not see it. Also, my entrance into this discussion came from the concept of grouping swimming under a broader athletics skill, which I feel is inappropriate. It is much more specialized than running, lifting and throwing. And with that, I think I have beat the dead horse too much. -V

But, every non-handicapped human can swing a weapon. Maybe not well, but they can. Not every non-handicapped human can swim. Panic can play a part, but it plays an equal part in both instances. -V

Key phrase - "did what they had instructed us to do". I would say, that, barring any significant physical or mental handicap: Every adult human can run Every adult human can jump Every adult human can lift NOT every adult human can swim -V

OK, but if we go back to your premise that some - not all - young children will take to swimming in a single session via dogpaddling as long as their fears are conquered, then one can say that the "swimming skill" is part technique and part "overcoming the fear of water". Considering how swimming is taught, I would say that is the correct assumption. Now, as far as "natural" ability vs. "learned" ability, while I agree that some young children can take to swimming immediately, I know that all will not. And, since we cannot determine where the majority lies, it again makes sense that it is more of a learned skill than an innate ability in humans. As you say, there are outlayers. Who's to say which is the "outlayer" in this case? -V

Except for the fact that my son a) is not afraid of water, and cannot swim. He cannot even dogpaddle. The main reason we have enrolled him in swimming lessons is because he is unafraid of the water - he wades into the ocean/bay without any hesitation. -V

While I agree that an "athletics" skill might work, for me, in regards to running, jumping, and lifting, swimming and climbing are highly specialized. Climbing often requires knowledge of certain equipment (at the bare minimum, rope and grappling hook) and/or certain techniques (finding suitable handholds) that certainly go beyond the physical ability implied by a generic "athletics" skill. And swimming really is another kettle of fish altogether, and since there are settings where it is an absolute must (lest you drown) or where it is totally inappropriate (deserts), it makes sense that it be an individual skill. -V

Actually, it reverted back to Green Ronin - sort of. Chris Pramas created Dragonfist - it was a precursor to the whole d20 boom, using an early version of the core rules - kind of the bridge between AD&D2 and D&D3. So, Chris bought the rights back back in 2002, and GR had planned to release it in 2003. Interesting, GR just announced they will not support D&D4 ... I have a copy lying around somewhere. -V

The translator is Stephen L. Posey. He used to host the doc on his website, but the site is no longer up. The original was by someone nicknamed "Jee Pee". -V

In my book it says Special Attack vs. Failure/Fumble - Attack achieves special success. Attack does full damage, plus normal damage bonus and appropriate special result. So, the attack does maximum weapon damage, rolled damage bonus, and any special result (bleeding, crushing,etc.) I assume the failed/fumbled parry/dodge improves the special attack result up to critical level damagewise, however, a critical result ignores armor, whereas a special result does not, even against a fumbled parry/dodge. -V

You may find it here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060502161822/http://www.concentric.net/~slposey/Games/BaSIC_Conan_Eng.doc Warning, the link is a direct download of the Word doc. I have no problems with it because I have downloaded it before, but do it somewhere safe. -V

OK, my interpretation of how to handle it, so don't count it as "written in stone". Jason can chime in on it as he sees fit. Stealth/Listen is a true opposed skill test. Both events happen simultaneously. Both skills are tested against as active skills at the same time. You try to move silently while someone is listening. Hide/Spot is not simultaneous. One does not try to hide from someone else while they are being observed by that person. One does not try to hide an object while someone is watching them (that would be Sleight of Hand). So, the "Hider" rolls against Hide. Once the result is determined, refer to the skill description to see how the "Spotter" is affected. In the case of a Fumbled Hide, for example, the Spot roll is now an "Easy" task. In the case of hiding an object, the Spot roll gets a bonus. So, roll against Spot, modified by as described in the Hide skill description, and determine results. In the case of hiding an object, the final roll results are compared as if a normal Opposed Skill test including modifiers. In the case of hiding yourself, the skill description says basically that the Spot need to have a greater Level of Success than the Hide, that there are no "ties". This is fine with me since, as I said, Hide/Spot are not truly Opposed Skill test. However, you can easily use the normal Opposed Skill test to resolve it. The exception to the simultaneous Hide/Spot is when someone is attempting to sneak past someone else. But, in the Hide skill description, that is covered with two successful Hide rolls and a successful Stealth roll. Hide assumes the person is sitting still. -V

Again. I'll have to re-read the Hide skill description. The skill descriptions were most likely not created before the opposed roll system, but it is possible that they were written without consulting the opposed roll system. Or, the skill descriptions are meant to be "descriptive" more than "mechanical". Either way, I'll reply later. -V

I am actually testing out some translation software at the moment. I have studied French since, oh, maybe 3rd or 4th grade, on and off, up through my first 2 years at college. Unfortunately, I was never able to "think" in French, but I have been told my accent is very good. There are some great Elric and Hawkmoon resources in Fench, especially some supposedly very interesting Dharzi material. If I find a solid piece of software, I'll pass the info on. -V

You're not quite understanding it. The description on page 80 says that a Stealth success of succeed or better requires a Listen success of equivalent or better level to notice. It does not say to roll again. It is just laying out what is required. In other words, it pretty much echoes how the Opposed Skill test works. So, using the main rule, one side rolls against Stealth, and the other against Listen. Compare the levels of success to determine who "wins" the contest, with any necessary success level shifts applied. Finally, in the event of a tie (i.e. both sides rolled equivalent success levels), the side who rolled highest wins. -V

OK, I finally got a chance to read this stuff in detail. The text on page 173 is different from the first optional rule on page 174. In essence, the main rule states that skills are rolled, and degrees of success determine who succeeds. The better degree of success is the winner, with the loser's degree of success can reduce the winner's success. In the event that both sides roll equivalent degrees of success, the higher roll wins. This favors the side with the higher skill level, but still allows the lesser skilled side a chance. The first optional rule basically says to ignore the degrees of success and just compare dice rolls Black Jack style. The highest successful roll wins. Again, this slightly favors the side with the higher skill, but still allows the lower skilled opponent a chance. If you reread it closely with this summary in mind, you'll see the difference in the text. The main rule retains the degrees of success, so the description of Stealth on page 80 (not 81) is still valid. The different levels of success indicate what level of success is needed with a Listen roll. The first optional rule does away with levels of success altogether. -V

I'm not a C++ jockey - I actually hate the language. I prefer Objective C and C. However, no sense reinventing the wheel. Byakhee is pretty well done, and C++ is pretty portable. If I can get it all working with C++ and the platform specific GUIs, I might come back to it and try something else. -V