vagabond

I think that is too high for a normal level game. Again, looking at the recommended 24 points for 7 stats, and a total increase of 1 to all stats is 13 points, a total increase of 2 to all stats is 26 points, adding in enough points to increase by 2 (6 points) seems in line with the original value of 24. Adding 9 points yields an increase of 3, which seems too high. Ian

There is no problem here if you follow the book. The book says that you roll 2d6+6 for EDU if you use that option, and this provides an average of 13. That makes the multipliers more in line with skill point allotment. Now, I think the real problem is that using point buy, the book says that you get 24 pts to spend for a normal campaign, but the 24 points is based on the core stats (STR, CON, SIZ, APP, DEX, INT, POW), with STR, CON, SIZ and APP costing 1 point to increase, and DEX, INT, POW costing 3 pts to increase. The problem is that by adding EDU without increasing the total number of points to spend, you have skewed everything. Off the top of my head, using the thought that an increase of 1 to each stat would cost 13 points, which means that 24 points almost allows you to increase all stats by 2, if using EDU in a point buy game, you should add 6 points to the total number of points to spend (30 instead of 24). This will definitely help offset things. Ian

It all depends. Variable armor point values were designed for BRP games that did not use Hit Locations. They are not really intended to work together. So, if you use Hit Locations, don't use variable armor point values. If you do not use Hit Locations, then I would use variable armor point values to "simulate" Hit Locations. That said, I use them all the time in Stormbringer as it adds to the chaotic feel. Enchanted lawful armor gets a fixed value to represent the consistency of Law (same with enchanted lawful weapons having a fixed damage bonus). Ian

No, the extra CA is gained when the character's skill hits a certain predefined level to reflect his expertise. The prone penalty does not take teh CA away since it is a penalty against his current chance to succeed while he is prone, not a permanent reduction in his mastery of the weapon. Same with Bladesharp and Coordination as they are temporary boosts in the current chance to succeed, and not permanent enhancements. The additional CA represents skill mastery through training and experience, not magical augmentation nor situation modifiers. Ian

I believe Ken took Steve's RQ core and "turned it up to 11". Goldar and Lawful Virtues were his "creation", though he pulled virtues from things like Myshella's bird and golem. Also, the original Demon Summoning rules were Ken's (SB 1 - 3), but Ben revamped them in SB4 (where he did indeed use the Superworld powers as a basis). Ken also came up with Elan (or if early RQ used Elan, Ken mashed it to fit the three cosmic powers, elementals, and beastlords) as well as creating the Champion/Apotheosis for the powers. And the racial modifiers and professions associated with the specific Young Kingdoms peoples. Overall I think Ken did a very fine job fitting the original stories into BRP. Some things were a stretch, but he did capture the flavor of the setting quite well. Ian

I'd probably go with this. I think associating the extra CA on a weapon by weapon basis makes for too much bookkeeping. Ian

I am talking Weapon Mastery in the BRP sense - hitting 90% Attack/Parry in Stormbringer I - IV, hitting 90% in RuneQuest, etc. Not the Weapon Mastery Heroic Ability. Basically, once you reach a "Master" level of expertise, you gain another CA (perhaps only with that weapon, but that would be extra bookkeeping - probably better to say when your first weapon skill achieves "Master" level, or even for every 5 weapons at "Master" level, a new CA is earned). Ian

I'm fiddling with a sum of DEX and INT, with additional CAs for weapon mastery (90+ plus if skills stay below 100, otherwise 100+ as skills go over 100). I am also toying with the idea that one must "learn" some of the CMs - seeking out a weapon master and training. So, some CMs are weapon specific, and some will have prerequisites such as specific weapon use and other CMs. Ian

I think you can work with this to some degree. You just have to weight things (no pun intended) differently, and apply speed (both wielder and weapon) and reach (again, both wielder and weapon) somewhat separately. Just stream of conscious thought right now, I haven't even begun working out any details, but ... if we break things into phases ... Let's say we go back to DEX ranks as the the basic mechanic - speed determines who can "act" first. So, using speed, we find out the order of action. Next we examine actions - missile fire, spell casting, melee weapon use, and movement. Movement has a "0" modifier since that is still based upon speed, but we can examine the basics of the rest and decide things like spell casting has a "0" modifier unless there is significant casting times associated - i.e. incantation, semantics, ritual, etc. which would add "segments". Weapons would eval next, and this is where weapon speed comes into play. Then, let's look at reach - again, both wielder and weapon. Since we have established an order of actions based upon raw character speed (DEX) and action speed (weapon speed, casting time, movement), we can then see how reach impacts the actions. Modifiers can be applied based upon SIZ and weapon size/reach, such that characters with distinct reach advantages can negate some some of the faster character advantages without overshadowing it completely. For example, a small fast character with a dagger can choose to close with the larger, slower character with the battleaxe, and would get the initial jump, but depending on the difference in DEX rank with all modifiers in play, if the gap is small enough, the small fast guy may discover that he wan't fast enough, and the axe wielder is able to react quickly enough to strike. Again, I need to think about this some more to see how best to work things out. Ian

What probably needs to be done is, like characters/creatures where SIZ and DEX affect SR, weapons should also have a SIZ (Reach) and DEX (Speed) that affects SR. That way the rules would work as intended - a larger combatant with a weapon with considerable reach (Andre the Giant and claymore) would get an advantage in the initial attack (acting first due to improved reach), but since the claymore is slower and, relatively speaking, Andre has a slower reaction time/speed than Jet Li, Jet with his superior DEX and dagger with its superior speed would then have more opportunities to strike. I also believe that while you can use the optional Strike Rank system to determine initial Strike Rank, you might still want to use the rule from the normal DEX based system to determine how many actions a character can have (i.e. DEX determines this regardless of SIZ, or again, use character DEX plus weapon Speed). Might have to work on such a system ... Ian

I think these are better served in a sourcebook. I like the light and terse info provided in the BGB, too much detail, and we're looking at 1000 pages to cover more genres in greater detail. Ian

I'm going with max roll + number of dice/bonus since that is what is in the book (when the setting "needs" some sort of limit). But some settings either can dispense with such limits (Stormbringer and no max POW), or have other limits in place for other reasons (my Jorune conversion has Isho limits based upon race and roll). Ian

Umm, there are levels of success. Critical, Special, Success, Failure, Fumble. All levels affect what is needed for the opponent to parry/dodge (usually, an equal or better success level to ensure partial block/parry/dodge) as well as affecting how much damage is applied. Ian

Oh, and I can also see using the Art (Forgery} and Technical (Forgery) to differentiate things. That way you only have two skills to worry about.

One would assume that a skill called "Forgery" would adjust based upon setting such that in a high tech Sci-Fi setting, it would include the necessary "elite haxxorz skillz" to forge an electronic document. I prefer the broader skill since a highly skilled "professional" would know the various techniques necessary to forge a variety of items. I could also see using a skill tree so that you would have a top level general forgery skill, and then break down into forgery:art, forgery:electronic, forgery:document, etc. Ian

Agreed. I believe this is how it was done "officially" - I'd have to look at some of my resources. Ian

And, playing with the formula a little (since I have no idea what the STR of the battleship Yamato would be, so I worked with partial volume knowing length, beam and draft), I was able to get the Yamato's SIZ as 788. Figuring out the Hindenburg's SIZ is a problem - the structure weighed about 129.9 tons (~117.82 mt), but that beast was huge dimensionally (245m long, 41.15 m wide at the widest point). Ian

Well, besides the fact that the Hindenburg couldn't handle that much power without ripping itself apart, you still have the fact that the Yamato's mass (and thus SIZ) would be exponentially (at least) higher than the Hindenburg. And, you would have to figure out how to equate HP to STR. I think you would find that using some sort of reasonable scale, the Yamato's SIZ (mass) advantage would sufficiently outweigh (no pun intended) the Hindenburg's fictional ramjet STR. Again, you need to figure out the proper power to STR conversion, and see how much of an effect it has on the STR+SIZ average. No it doesn't, which is something that needs addressing. In a vehicle's case, STR would be structure points - some combination of STR(ength) and CON. Something to measure the relative sturdiness and power of the vehicle. So, while the fictional ramjets on the Hindenburg may have high power, it is still nowhere near as sturdy as the Yamato. Ian

The Hindenberg had 4 × Daimler-Benz DB 602 diesel engines producing 890 kW (1200 hp) each, for a total of 3560 kW (4800 HP). The Yamato had 4 steam turbines producing a total of 111,855 kW (150,000 shaft horsepower). And, you assume a vehicle's STR is solely determined by the output of its power plant. I do not believe that to be the case. Ian

Yes, which is why the (SIZ + STR)/2 average works out nicer. The Yamato would probably have a much higher STR than the Hindenberg. And, if you modify SIZ to either be lreative to mass, volume and STR, or more closely aligned with mass, the standard HP formula would probably work out nicer since the Yamato would have a higher SIZ in both cases. Ian

OK, I guess at this point I can dredge up my old formula that takes STR, mass, and height (in meters - and by height I mean longest distance along an axis) and calculate SIZ. Maybe I can rework it bit to give it to scale it properly. I think it was discussed in this forum before, and I gave some example calculations ... Ahh - found the discussion: http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/702-The-Chaosium-s-BRP-Size-Table-and-Superworld I was able to wrestle with my formula and given mass, height and STR (some values had to be guessed at) and came up with what I thought were reasonable SIZ values for an average human woman, a D&D chimera, a skeleton, and Dhar Corondon, Corastin, Croid and Bronth (all from Jorune). Ian

Yep - which is why I brought it up.

For example, the Hindenberg is actually about the same length and volume of the Japanese battleship Yamato, but the Yamato definitely weighs significantly more. Good point. Ian

But CON is a measure of health. A fat person is not generally regarded as healthy. I'd hate to add stats, but perhaps we need to replace SIZ with MAS (mass) and VOL (volume - though this still requires some intuitiveness) or MAS and LEN (length along the longest axis i.e. a bird's wingspan, a human's height, and a snake's lenght). Ian

More and more I am thinking that SIZ should reflect mass primarily, and then the chart can secondarily be used for dimension by shifting up and down rows as appropriate. However, this does indeed pose a problem for dirigibles (for example) ... Ian