vagabond

Ha. I think I found a solution to your Thriddle dilema. 2D6+3

Not far from my notes and why I supplied a range in the first place ...

Need to think about it a bit more ...

At the moment, tweaking the "professions" to trim the skill offerings in each one and balance them out some. In Jorune, you "buy" a "profession", so things balance out. However, it isn't too bad since most of the Jorune ones have analogies in the BRP books.

Ian

In the science fiction setting I am currently working on the characters will often

have to learn a new skill, one where their base chance is only 0 % or 1 %.

According to the BGB, page 184, "To learn ... your character must train for hours

equal to his current percentage ability with the skill." This makes little sense in

the cases mentioned above, because learning 1D6-2 % of, for example, a science

skill in 0 - 1 hours would be highly implausible.

Since I did not find any other rule for learning a new skill, I tried to come up with

a house rule. The learning time in such cases would be 40 (maximum hours of

learning possible in one week in my setting, instead of the 50 hours used in the

BGB) minus the Intelligence characteristic of the character: (40 - INT) hours.

This way an average character would need 27 hours of learning to understand

the basics of the new skill, which seems plausible to me.

If you see any problem with this house rule, please let me know.

I guess it depends on how much the skill will improve after the period of learning. For example, if the skill starts at 01, and will only increase by 3% to 04, it kind of makes sense that the character is studying for an hour, but really isn't learning much. But, as the skill improves, and the character is at 25%, to gain a deeper understanding, 25 hours o f study makes sense. And, when the character hits 80% and is an "expert" in the related field of study, finding out something new could take some time.

Ian

OK, looking at what I have so far:

Boccord 2d6+10

Muadra 2d6+2

I don't have a concrete roll for Thriddle yet - somewhere between 2d6+2 and 2d6+4. While shorter and weaker than Muadra, they are heavier. Since I am using SIZ primarily to represent mass and secondarily height - mass will be the main factor, and then one can choose a height based upon a range using the SIZ chart and moving up or down a number of rows to find an adequate height.

Ian

I've just caught up here. Nice to see some movement again. Blowing the dust off my BRP Jorune file and consulting the Creatures chapter therein, I find that I have:

Bronth: SIZ 3D6+12 (average 22/23, maximum roll 30)

Corastin: SIZ 3D6+14 (average 24/25, maximum roll 32)

Croid: SIZ 3D6+15 (average 25/26, maximum roll 33)

Not far removed from your own calculations, overall.

For what it's worth, I also have SIZes for Boccord (3D6+6), Muadra (2D6+2), and Thriddle (2D6+4).

Cheers,

Alan

Not too shabby. And, I still might wiggle some.

FWIW, Corastin presently sit at 3d6+12 and Croid at 3d6+14. More reading indicates that indeed Bronth are acutally heavier/bulkier than Corastin overall, that Corastin frames, even for 10+ ft tall, are thinner.

I think my numbers for Boccord, Muadra and Thriddle are close as well. I'll post them tonight.

Had a nice exchange with Joe Coleman today. We'll see what happens ...

Ian

Found a nice comparison to show I am somewhat on the right track:

MRQI SRD has Cave Trolls with STR/SIZ of 4d6+12 (min roll 16, avg roll 26, max roll 36, max race 41) and Dark Trolls with STR/SIZ of 3d6+9 (12/19-20/27/31).

Not bad when compared to my Corastin (2d6+18 -> 20/25/30) and Croid (2d6+20 -> 22/27/32). Maybe I'll adjust to 3d6+12 and 3d6+14 or such to give a greater range, and fall into place a bit better with Bronth having 3d6+11. Of course, this is for SIZ. STR for all three are not equal to the SIZ rolls ...

Ian

Read all the beastiaries you can find.

Map / tweak existing beasties to Jorune Beasties.

The players will not know the difference. That is what I would do.

Oh, believe me - I pull from whatever resources I have handy - my vast Eternal Champion collection, Ringworld, RQI, MRQI SRDs, CoC, etc.

Ian

Ian,

How about using SIZ for mass and STR for Height? My logic is that strength tends to be relative to size to a certain extent. ie you need to be strong enough to carry your body about. Not perfect but might be a better fit?

Nah - too many real world examples make it a bad fit - Shawn Bradley, ex-NBA. 7'6, 275 lb AFTER considerable weight training. He weighed 235 lbs as a rookie. No STR whatsoever

Really, SIZ should be relative to height and STR, which is what I tried to do with my formula. It comes from muscle mass, fat mass, and structural size. But, that is too tough to fit into dice ranges. Hence, take a listed SIZ (looking at mass/weight), and then allow for some deviation for height (to represent variety in frame).

Ian

Ok. Been skimming the 2nd edition briefly and just have a few observations at moment.

Bronth. How do they stack up against Great Troills? I would put both more or less in same size strentgth bracket.

I figured Bronth would be closer to a regular bear, if not slightly smaller. The MRQ SRD has a Brown Bear with STR and SIZ 3d6+15. Polar Bears are listed as STR and SIZ 3d6+21. I think a Bronth would be similar to but smaller than a normal Brown Bear, which has a max rollable of 33 and racial max of 37. Considering adult brown bears range in size between 550 and 1700 lbs, I think things are a good fit for my Bronth SIZ.

I think a Great Troll with STR 4d6+12 and SIZ 4d6+12 (SIZ is too high - max rollable is 36 and racial max is 41 - way over the source's max of 1000 lbs).

Croid. There is a picture on page 11 of the Tauther guide where a croid picks up a Cleash with no trouble and is about to rip it apart. Quite fiercesome! It looks to be 4 or 5 times the size of a cleash. Ie as in how many cleash you could fit in its skin. I can't think of a suitable equivalent from RQ. Maybe a small giant?

A large Croid should be able to easily pick up a 325 lb Cleash. I think my numbers will suffice again. Picking up a Cleash would be an opposed STR (Croid) vs. SIZ (Cleash), and given a Cleash weighs around 325 lbs, that would put its SIZ around 20. I assure you, a Croid has a much higher STR

Corastin. I'd probably make them similar to Bronth in strength and size. That picture with the woman and corastin bodyguard. He stands head and shoulders over her, but she looks quite petite.

I agree pretty much, though again, the source states Bronth are 7 - 8 ft tall, while Corastin hit 10.5 ft. However, relative body frames would put Corastin in the same SIZ range overall, maybe a little higher.

Cleash, maybe heavy for actual displacement, but have spindly legs and armes. Bodies are bulbous. Although tall, its all legs. Same with scarmis. Tall but spindley.

Sorry I can't be any more help with stats.

No, it's helpful. For example, by making me pull up the MRQI info, I find this for a Giant Beetle - STR 2d6+12 and SIZ 3d6+6. Now, Cleash are stated to be pretty weak, but the Giant Beetle's SIZ is not too far off - average of 16-17, max rollable of 24, and racial max of 28. I'll have to look up what I may have already put in place. Could be close.

I think the main concept for me, and this is what I'll place in the docs, is that SIZ is more a representation of mass. To find the appriopriate height, use the rolled SIZ, and find an appropriate height by looking at SIZ chart, and looking at a SIZ value up to 3 points lower to 1 point hgher. For example, if the character/creature has a SIZ of 25, then an appropriate height would be anywhere in the range of SIZ 22 to SIZ 26. I'll play with the numbers to find an "official" fit.

Ian

OK, third try with a reply ...

Hmm interesting dilema. I don't know what your answer would be since it depends on the 'density' of the body in question. I'd try to work out SIZ both in Height and Weight and then apply a 'bodytype' multiplier to them. Anything from 0.25 to 1.75.

My formula took rolled STR and listed weight/mass, and came up with a decent multiplier that presented a nice scale to give a comparison of relative body style/frames and weight/mass between races.

I expect insectoids to be lighter than reptiles. Mamals somwhere in between.

I fudged the formula a little to give Cleash a boost. Given their low rolled STR but relatively heavier listed weight/mass (probably due to their heavy chitin carapace). All in all, it came outt OK. Also note - Croid and Corastin are not exactly reptiles ...

You might need a SIZ table like in SB1-4 with height/weight ranges for SIZ by bodytype.

I had originally considered this, but dumped it in favor of just using the broader scale/chart from the BRP book (actually, the ones posted here are a wee bit nicer).

Ultimately, use your instinct and rank them by how massive you think they are and apply figures accordingly. The info in the sholari pack may have been assembled from independent sources and may not be consistent.

Which is where I wound up. To whit, this is where things stand ...

Bronth roll 3d6+11 for an average of 21-22 (~375 lbs), max roll of 29 (~740 lbs), and a racial absolute max of 33 (~1000 lbs). Fits the given data from the material pretty well.

Corastin roll 2d6+18 for an average of 25 (~600 lbs), max roll of 30 (~800 lbs), and a racial absolute max of 33 (~1000 lbs).

Croid roll 2d6+20 for an average of 26 (~650 lbs), max roll of 31 (~850), and a racial absolute max of 34 (~1050 lbs).

Over all I think this works well, and coupled with higher STR rolls, all three get decent damage bonuses, with Corastin and Criod really packing a punch.

Ian

One quick question for you Jorunis.

So, using the original descriptions, Bronth max out at 8 ft tall and 1000 lbs. Corastin max out at 3.5 m (or just inder 11.5 ft) and Croid max out at ~3m (9 ft 10 in). The only weight/mass values I have for Corastin and Croid come from the Sholari Pack where, IIRC, they were in the 600 lbs range. However, this same pack listed Bronth as bring on average 450 lbs. So, if I use some max stats, Bronth are quite massive (using SIZ as Mass), actually right up there with Croid and Corastin. But, the range will vary more for Bronth than Croid and Corastin.

Any thoughts ...

Ian

VG's James Bond was more of a "Hollywood Espionage System" in my opinion. Espionage meets Playboy. But I did plunk down the cash for it as well.

Actually I've talked about this before. James Bond is almost a direct drop in for BRP in many ways. And, it is very easy to gritty it up some, but leave some of the Hollywood stuff as options.

Ian

That's cool... real life takes precedent as always, but it's good to know you still have Jorune BRP on the brain.

Jorune is one of a few things that constantly resides there ... I always wished I had found a copy when I had copious amounts of free time as opposed to a decade or so later ...

I've been using some of the ideas I've seen here in our Saturday games... experimenting a bit with Jorune-style magic in a non-Jorune setting (that still resembles Jorune in the corners). I'm not sure how the kids feel about it... it seems less showy and mysterious/romantic compared to the stuff they've read in Harry Potter, etc.

I think Jorune's less "magical" magic (so to speak) comes from (and can be rectified by addressing) two separate issues:

1) The Dyshas presented in the source aren't all that interesting at first glance. Or second, or even third. Part of my aim with my BRP port will be a system which will allow one to fairly easily create new Dyshas that are balanced with the ones already present, thus allowing people to use their imagination some more and perhaps move things into new a cool directions. I have some ideas to go along with this, so there will be the source Dyshas (though they may be reworked a little to make the build system more consistent and less complex) and some new and interesting ones - imagine a Muadra creating an "avatar" around himself using a set of colors that create various effects - a red fiery glow with heat damage and defense, a blocky dark brown body like Marvel's The Thing, etc. Kind of like applying the info from Shanthas of Jorune and the Eevids with some other ideas.

2) Making the weaving of Dyshas, the effects, the unweaving/interference, etc. more descriptive. Sure, you can roll the dice and have the player "weave" something, or you can describe the actual process more in depth ("Colored strands if Isho energy snake their way towards the Caji, like a multitude of bright, colorful serpents, coiling into a ball just in front of the weaver's body.")

Ian

Hey all,

Sorry I have not been around much recently. Some very big projects at work have deadlines coming up -- soon (one of them has to be in place by the last weekend of June, and the other two follow quickly in July - really techie geeky stuff involving database migration, virtual machines, ZFS, failover storage systems, and all new cluster hardware, .. but I digress).

Anyway, when the dust settles, and my 1 yo son starts sleeping better at night again, and now that my mother-in-law has bought a new house and no longer lives on our couch, I hope to be able to pick things up again. I have been typing things up a bit slowly (more slowly then I had hoped in Jan/Feb), so things are still progressing. Just too damn slowly, even for my likes ...

Ian

Well the rules as written clearly say that on a skill of 5% your chance of a critical is 1%. Likewise, on a skill of 100 your chance for a fumble is 1%. You can compare the OP's system to your personal house rules but it seems to make more sense to compare it to the actual rules.

Err, if you read what I wrote, you would see that I mention "GMs can choose to make 01 always crit (standard)" - as in that is the standard rule. I then present an option.

Using a doubled range on the d20 is one possible answer but as I said, using BRP raw then someone with a skill of 60% performing an easy skill is going to end up as 120% so my take on it is that you would end up messing around with changing the critical and special spread quite frequently. At that point it may be more trouble than it's worth.

Again, as I said, you would have to deal with rounding when exceeding 100. The price of simplification is losing granularity. By the rules, a 60% skill attempting an easy task rolls as 120%. A crit is 5% of 120 or 6%. Using the OP's method, and choosing some reasonable rounding, a skill roll of 120 would crit on a 1 and special on a 2 - 5 on the d20. Again, I said the OPs method handles skill rolls over 100 OK, I didn't say I would use it.

As for 'hating' doubles as criticals. Again RAW the chance for a fumble with a skill of 100 is 1% (4% fail, 1% fumble) while with doubles it is (3% fail, 2% fumble). You could easily understand that as saying that when someone is that good then a failure usually only occurs because something unusual has happened. Personally, as a GM I don't automatically equate a fumble with incompetence. Sometimes it seems to make more sense that a situational factor occurred: e.g. slipping on a patch of oil just as you took aim. Still and all, I usually only use doubles with new players or non-roleplayers because I have a mild preference for using crits as 1/10th and there's no particularly appealing way to handle skills over 100.

I stick with RAW - 96+ is always a fail, and 00 is always a fumble. For me, math is pretty easy, and 5%, 10% and 20% are no brainers to figure out, so I stick with RAW again. And, after years of playing Stormbringer and Elric!, skills over 100 work just fine for me as written. The chance for crits and specials increases, as well as the option to split attacks and multiple ripostes. But, to me, a fumble happening with greater frequency when an extremely skilled character is involved seems illogical. If anything, a higher skilled person should fumble less frequently. Again, fumbles are "spectacular failures" according to the book, and the result of "Bad luck, incompetence, or Murphy's Law". Why should more competent characters suffer a higher ratio of such failures? Again, IMHP< and RAW agrees with me, the higher skilled characters should suffer from such failures less often.

Ian

I must admit that when running BRP for new or non-gamers I use doubles as criticals. I tell them that a double is "twice as good or twice as bad" as normal. Personally I don't use the resistance table and I do make extensive use of "blackjack" style opposed skills.

One little quirk with OP's system is what happens at high and low values. E.g. if your chance of success is 5% then your chance of a critical is actually 1/400 (5%*5%) rather than standard BRP of 1/100. That's not a bad thing but it is a thing. Note that with *2 modifiers it is actually quite easy for a starting BRP character to have a skill of 120 or 140% so the skill+d20 method may struggle more often than expected.

It's not a quirk. Crits are 5% of skill level, not 5% flat. So, if your skill level is 100%, your crit level is 5%, but if your skill level is 70%, your crit level is 5% of 70%, or 3.5% (round whichever way you prefer). So, if your skill is 5%, your crit level is 5% of 5% or .25%. GMs can choose to make 01 always crit (standard), or judge that at a skill level of 5%, there is no chance to crit (non-standard).

I hate doubles being crits BTW. Makes no sense if your skill level is 98%, and failure rolls of 99 or 00 mean you fumble/critically fail. No chance for a normal failure. One would think such a highly skilled person who, though rarely fail, when they fail, fails "spectacularly".

BTW, the OP method for quick resolution works OK for skills over 100 - for example, if skill is 200%, then a crit is achieved on a 1 or 2 on the d20, and a special is achieved on a 3 - 8 on the d20. For skills between 100% and 200%, one needs to decide how to round things off.

Ian

Hello All:

First Post of my own

Okay. This is just a question on how the BRP Gold is organized and categorized. Maybe I'm just not wrapping my mind around it. Maybe, it's too many rpgs fighting for comparison and dominance... who knows.

I guess what I'm curious about is the opinions of those that played the game as to how they feel the magic/power system works and how they view it.

In the BRP they have the

Magic Powers: Like Spell/Skills

Psychic: Kinda like Psionics or Psychogenics

Sorcery: Seems like ritual and spirit based magic

Mutations: Powers of the mind/body

Superpowers: Powers of the mind/body/spirit

The Basic Magic adds the Divine Magic Category.

Pretty good summary ...

For instance, would you categorize Necromancy into a Sorcery type category or would you make it a Magic type thing? Would it be considered a Divine Magic category if you are dealing with a god/goddess of death and the underworld (although necromancy would not really fit into the premise of most god/goddesses of the underworld and death).

That depends on you. If you prefer Necromancy to be just basic spells, than it would be a Magic Power. If you want to tie it to a god/goddess, then it would be Divine Magic. And, if you wanted it to be tied to rituals and such, then it would fit under Sorcery. Really, it depends on the setting and flavor you want to give it ...

Ian

As pansophy said - not at all.

All Allegiances can easily be handled independently of each other. Again, that is really how it worked in Elric! The three Allegiances worked independently of each other for the most part.

Ian

The original concept behind Allegiance was based upon Elric! - Michael Moorcock's Multiverse. That version of Allegiance had 3 "powers" - Law, Chaos, and Balance.

So, you could just set up Allegiance (deity) and not need any opposed Allegiance. Or, pair up certain deities that are the antithesis/immortal enemy of each other.

Ian

I'm sympathetic to the idea that a character that could normally split attacks on ranks 16, 11 and 6, who is stunned until rank 10 should still be able to get an attack in on rank 6.

But that's as far as I'd go. No delaying actions from while the stun is in effect, and I'd insist on the attack at rank 6 be at a reduced skill chance as though the character had split attacks normally that round.

Simon Hibbs

That's pretty much how I am going to apply things in all of my BRP adaptations. While going through this thread was a great exercise, for me, the optimal solution is to:

1) For the purpose of tracking the effects of something that last some increment of whole/full combat rounds, count from DEX rank to DEX rank.

2) The effects are in full play for the duration

3) Actions return to normal after the effects wear off. If multiple actions are in play, if delaying an action is not possible, then actions that are available due to having multiple actions must be resolved as if all actions prior were attempted.

Ian

so, to summarise:

- a stunned character looses all his actions during the current round

- attacks against a stunned character are Easy as long as the stun wears (DEX ranks)

- a stunned character may try Idea rolls as actions during the last round he is stunned, at each DEX rank he could normally act if not stunned

- each successful Idea roll will delay the action rolled for 5 DEX ranks

- if this delayed action still falls onto a 'stunned DEX rank', or the action would be at DEX rank 0 or below, the action is lost

- otherwise the character might act normally

correct?

Yes, actually- that is a little cleaner than my example. It covers orc C in that his action normally at DEX rank 16 would be attempted at DEX rank 11, but since he is still stunned, he must forgo that action. His action normally taken at DEX rank 11 can be attempted at DEX rank 6 if the Idea roll succeeds. His action normally taken at DEX rank 6 may be attempted at DEX rank 1, no Idea roll necessary since the stun effects have worn off. This is a nice way to incur the "penalty" as well - the orc acts a little later than in my example.

Ian

1) I think it is a valid advantage of being faster. A character with a higher DEX rank is able to 'adapt' to the situation in the next round and so can use his advantage to still make an attack roll - even if that happens at a later DEX rank caused by the stun.

IMHO, this is a yes and no. I'll explain it in detail later.

2) the character would still be the last one attacking during that DEX rank

Yes, I agree. I am also debating whether or not to just allow the attack to occur at DEX rank 1, with any necessary Idea rolls and/or other penalty. Again, I will explain this later.

3) ok, that is a valid point. Maybe the stunned character should be urged to make his decisions for the following round before anybody else. So he looses any advantage.

Again, I'll touch on this later.

If you disallow the deferred attack, it would make counting DEX ranks for stunned characters useless, as they simply are not allowed to act the following round at all. Not a bad idea though.

Not really. You still need to track the stun effect with respect to parry/dodge and flee/disengage. While stunned, a successful Idea roll is needed, when the stun effects wear off, things return to normal. Also, you need to track when the stun effects wear off for characters who can attack multiple times in a round since at some point, they will get their normal attack back. This is also true characters who normally attack at a DEX rank that comes after the stun effects wear off. So, regardless, you still need to track DEX ranks for stunned characters even if in a particular case the character does not get an action.

Anyway, here is the more detailed explanation of my position on this matter.

Considering multiple scenarios, where you have an orc A that can act at DEX rank 6, an orc B that can act at DEX rank 11, and an orc C that can act on DEX ranks 16, 11 and 6 (I use orc for brevity - three letters are much easier to type ) And, we will assume that our example orc is stunned on DEX rank 10 in combat round 1. I will ignore parry/dodge and disengage since all three are equally affected.

If the rule is that a stunned character loses its action during any DEX rank the effect of being stunned, here are our scenarios:

orc A loses his action at DEX rank 6 in round 1, but regains full capability in round 2 at DEX rank 6. Net loss is one action, and the orc can act without penalty in the round the stun wears off.

orc B loses his action at DEX rank 11 in round 2, and may not act again until round 3 at DEX rank 11. Net loss is one action, but the orc cannot act in the round in which the stun wears off.

orc C loses his actions at DEX rank 6 in round 1, and DEX ranks 16 and 11 in round 2, but regains full capability in round 2 at DEX rank 6. Net loss is three actions, but the orc can act without penalty in the round the stun wears off.

So, the real loser in this scenario is orc C since he loses three actions. But, then again, the whole reason the orc has those multiple actions is due to high skill and DEX, and since the stun impacts him for a whole round, it does make sense in some way - his ability to act and take advantage of his high skill and DEX should be hampered by the effects of the stun. Yes, orc B loses his action in round 2 while orc A doesn't, the reverse is also true in that orc B acted in round 1 but orc A did not.

So, in some respects, I like this method because it is clean and fairly equal. However, as I hinted at above, there might be a reasonable way to give higher DEX and higher skilled characters a slight benefit at the expense of a little extra bookkeeping and rules application (and some additional extrapolation of the rules).

Since being stunned means that a) a character cannot attack (and, in my view, perform any action that requires a clear mind such as spell use or tactical planning), and can only dodge, parry (or block) and disengage with a successful Idea roll (to represent overcoming the mental effects of the stun to attempt an intrinsically innate and instinctive reaction - also noting that the disengage also requires an Agility roll) leads me to this: a character who is stunned cannot make any tactical decisions while stunned due to the mental effects of being stunned. In other words, a stunned character cannot choose to defer their attack if the attack would normally occur during a DEX rank while the character is stunned. Their mental state does not allow this. Since one normally chooses to defer their attack on their DEX rank, this makes sense. However, for characters who have a high enough DEX (and this also applies to characters with a high enough skill to allow for multiple attacks/actions), any actions which are not available during the period when the character is stunned, are automatically deferred to being the last action in the DEX rank in which the effects of the stun wear off, or in the case of characters with multiple attacks/actions, the DEX rank when the stun wears off, and then 5 DEX ranks later, and so on until they can no longer act. However, to utilize this automatic delay, a successful Idea roll must be made once per delayed action, and, optionally, some sort of penalty is applied to represent the fact that the character is still shaking off the effects of the stun.

Using our example orcs above, and the combat situation, here are our scenarios:

orc A loses his action at DEX rank 6 in round 1, but regains full capability in round 2 at DEX rank 6. Net loss is one action, and the orc can act without penalty in the round the stun wears off.

orc B has a delayed action at DEX rank 10 in round 2 with a successful Idea roll and, optionally, at some penalty. Net loss is potentially none, and the orc may be able to attack with penalty in the round the stun wears off.

orc C loses his actions at DEX rank 6 in round 1, and DEX potentially ranks 16 and 11 in round 2, but regains full capability in round 2 at DEX rank 6. Net loss is three actions, but the orc can act without penalty in the round the stun wears off. Optionally, the orc may choose the option of using the delayed actions as such - at the end of DEX rank 10 the orc may, with a successful Idea roll and optionally, with some penalty, take an action, choose to skip the action that normally occurs at DEX rank 11, and use their third action that would normally occur in DEX rank 6 at full capability at DEX rank 5 (5 ranks after the action taken at DEX rank 10). Net loss is potentially two actions, but the orc may be able to attack twice, once with penalty and once without, in the round that the stun wears off.

While a little more complex, I like this approach since it does give some benefit to both higher DEX and higher skilled characters. Taking both rounds into consideration:

orc A loses his action in round 1, but keeps his action in round 2. Net loss is one action, but still gets a normal action over the two rounds where the stun is in play, or, he retains one out of two actions over both rounds.

orc B has an action in round 1, and may have an action in round 2 at, optionally, some penalty. With a failed Idea roll, net loss is one action, but the he still acted in round 1. With a successful Idea roll, there is no net loss, he acted normally in round 1 and with penalty and delay in round 2, so he still retains two out of two actions over both rounds.

orc C has two actions in round 1, and may have two actions in round 2, one with, optionally, some penalty. With a failed Idea roll, net loss is three actions, but he still acted normally twice in round 1 and once in round 2. With a successful Idea roll, there is a net loss of two actions (DEX rank 6 in round 1 and DEX rank 11 in round 2), but he acted normally twice in round 1 (DEX ranks 16 and 11), with penalty and delay in round 2 (DEX rank 10), and normally but with slight delay in round 2 (DEX rank 5), or he loses two actions, but retains four out of a possible six actions over both rounds.

Again, it is a little more complex, but does give you a nice "heat of the battle" feel, and the higher DEX and skilled opponents still retain some measure of their normal advantage even when taking the effects of the stun into account.

Ian

I am still not 100% behind allowing the deferred attack.

1) This creates a situation where the character who is stunned and loses his action in the current round is placed at a significant disadvantage over a character who is stunned after performing an action in the current round, but who would be stunned during his DEX rank in the next round. While both characters would be at a disadvantage defensively for the same period of time, the latter character would not lose any actions, just have them deferred.

2) Considering the rules for being stunned, a character must roll a successful Idea roll to be able to parry or dodge while stunned, and considering a parry/dodge is a purely reaction based action, and a character may attempt to flee with successful Idea and Agility rolls, allowing the character to defer the attack at no penalty seems too generous.

3) Being able to use the Statements phase to defer an attack is considered a tactical choice. A stunned character should not be able to choose to defer an attack until such a time that they are no longer stunned.

Considering these points, I am still leaning towards disallowing a deferred attack for consistency. Optionally, I would consider allowing a deferred attack if the stunned character succeeds at an Idea roll during his normal DEX rank, and/or applying a penalty to the deferred attack to represent shaking off the stun effects during the heat of battle in that round. I can see where a character with a better DEX rank might deserve some advantage over one with a lower DEX rank, I do not think the advantage should be as great.

Ian

:-) looks that we all do agree now !

BTW: Jason Durall?

Yes, Jason Durall.

He's been pretty busy with his "day job", as well as working on Interplanetary and other projects. But, we IM'd briefly and he will probably look over this thread when he gets a chance.

ian

I wanted a logical solution why Ian said the orc would not be able to attack in the next round at a later DEX rank.

Anyway, I think it is like I said before: everyone has his/her own interpretation of a combat round.

Even the amount of time can be flexible as the rules say, so I do not see a point why the definition of a combat round can not be flexible as well

Whatever works for a group might not work for an other, but as long as the rules are applied every time in the same way, it should not be a problem.

Actually, on second thought, I agree that the orc can plan for an attack after the stun effects wear off. However, any benefit gained by delaying such an attack should not be applied. Basically, for the round in which the stun effects wear off, the orc has a temporary DEX rank of the DEX rank the effects go away (assuming it would normally attack earlier in the round when the stun effects are still in play).

Anyway, I contacted Jason, and he will take a look at the thread when he gets a chance.

Ian

Do I get this right: If the orc is stunned at DEX 10 and the effect would wear until DEX 10 next round, it would be unable to act further during phase 4 of this round (sure, that's where everybody agrees so far).

Now, the new round starts at phase 1, but since the orc is still stunned until DEX 10, it is unable to do any actions during phase 1-2, because it is stunned. That means the orc is essentially stunned until the end of DEX 0, because it cannot state/declare any actions during phase 1?

During phases 1 and 2, the orc cannot make any declarations during the Statements phase that relate to attack, and the orc cannot invoke any powers in the Powers phase that relate to attack since the orc may not attack while stunned. The orc may declare an attempt to flee as per the rules, and may do so during its normal DEX rank even if stunned, with the necessary Idea and Agility rolls, or the orc can defer its escape until after the stun effects wear off.

Ian