vagabond

I'd actually really like to read Lynn's original post on that rule. My understanding was that the PC got a -30 every additional time they Parried or Dodged regardless of which one they did first. Meaning, if a PC had a Parry of 80% and a Dodge of 40% and they used their Parry and then had to Dodge their Dodge would effectively be at 10%.

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

Yeah, you do. Here's the official FAQ from Lynn Willis.

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

That would be great. I've got 2nd and 3rd editions and the problem I had when trying to run it was that the learning curve for my players was too steep. They had to learn the system, the setting and the jargon. It was a step too far for some.

BRP's ability to sit in the bacground would be a definite plus for Jorune.

If you could make this official, that could be a tremendous boost for BRP and Jorune. Its been out of print long enough. Do you know if Chessex still have the rights, or anyone else?

Failing that, I too would be interested in a pdf download when available. .

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

Questions for anyone who may know...

I have avoided these (Mongoose Elric books) due to the binding problems, but I have noticed they are now perfect bound paperbacks?

Are there suggestions in the setting material for allowing PCs to 'win' by escaping the Young Kingdoms or altering history?

The books contain a modified MRQ, I understand. How is combat and opposed skill resolution changed if so?

If I was still not comfortable with the modified MRQ ruleset, how much work on a scale of 1-10 would it take to convert it to a full BRP version?

Any sincere replies welcome.

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

No, really, it isn't. The most basic element in swimming is keeping your head out of the water and making crawling motions at it, ideally with cupped hands. Anyone can do that, too. Is that sufficient to be successful in many cases? No. But hitting a target requires more than just picking up an object and making a throwing motion, too.

Swimming is not, at its basics, a complex skill, any more than throwing is, and its basics are things almost all people do reflexively. In some cases there are specific people who have traits that make those reflexive actions ineffective--just as some people aren't effective climbing or throwing things without further training.

(And yes, I'm aware its a dead horse.)

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

I see your point, vagabond, but don't you think a little 'survival instinct' was involved? Enough to justify a small chance on a character sheet, even if it is just the skill bonus?

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

paragraph.

-V

Note my comment about my ability throwing objects. I almost literally couldn't hit the side of a barn. I don't have any reason to believe that the nonswimmers aren't in the same boat I'm in; they don't have no ability with it, just minimal, and again, we ignore cases like me when setting percentages.

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

Well, honestly, by all evidence I've seen, the nonswimmers. That's the point. I don't think there's any indication that humans aren't natural swimmers as a group, but there is evidence to the contrary. Panic is an issue, but its an issue in combat too, but we leave that up to the players; I don't see a reason to do differently here.

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

Period. I did not know how to swim, and was afraid to get into deep water. But when I jumped in I kept my cool and did what they had instructed us to do, and passed the test...

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

There are aberrations in any population; I suspect if you look long enough you'll find people who fail at any common skill, no matter how natural it is. That doesn't change the basic point, as BRP ignores outlayers in other areas, too.

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

Actually, there's pretty good reason to believe it _is_ a basic skill, but that some default phobias get in the way of it. Very young children will take to it in a basic dogpaddle in one session if they're fears are assuaged, and that tends to suggest that humans are pretty much natural swimmers. The only reason almost anyone can't swim after a fashion is that they panic.

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

I agree, although the use of broad skills becomes difficult once characters

have different values in the sub-skills of a broad skill.

To use an example from my water world setting, most characters there are

excellent swimmers, but miserable runners. Instead of using Athletics for

both sub-skills, it is much easier to use a Swim and a Run skill for such cha-

racters.

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

Rules wise, it seems like it would be a pretty simple fix ( People with the martial arts skill and the Martial arts super power, stuff like that ) and probably around Epic level.

If you can find it, the Dragonfist rpg might not be a bad research tool. It was intially a free download at WoTC's site, but I think Green Ronin picked up the licsense recently.

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

Anyone who knows who the author or translator is? OR are they one and the same?

SGL.

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

I'll look at it this weekend, but it might be a simple glitch - it should do the special result.

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

Yes there is and yes it is. And its pretty damn good to boot.

I got the link from one of the BRP mailing lists (I forget which)

It is on my HDD at home. So if no one posts the link before I get back to night I shall upload it to the files section here. (With the usual rider that if author or translator objects I shall have to pull it straight down again)

Al

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

What about the Hide skill if it is suppossed to be an oppossed roll. What spot roll are the modifiers listed in the hide roll result descriptions suppose to apply to?

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

What about the Hide skill if it is suppossed to be an oppossed roll. What spot roll are the modifiers listed in the hide roll result descriptions suppose to apply to?

It looks to me that the results descriptions under the skills where created before the oppossed roll system.

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

So using the oppossed roll system in the main rules someone using Stealth makes and oppossed roll against a Listen roll. Any level of sucess means that a new Listen roll is made (noting that under success in the Stealth skill text it says a successful Listen check must be made and not has to have been made). On a failure the character making the Stealth roll must make a luck roll and Fumble gets the character noticed by everyone)

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

Is the Opposed skill text on page 173 supposed to be in the main text as it duplicates the optional rule on page174? Also it does not really gel with the results listed under skills such as stealth on page 81.

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

If you weren't a C++ jockey, I'd suggest RealBASIC... supposed to work across platforms quite nicely.

SDLeary

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