AikiGhost

Have you seen this? Barbarians of Lemuria - 1KM1KT Its really really good IMHO.

We always played that a roll of 96 or above was always a fail regardless of your skill level.

Yep I've been using doubles under skill = crit, doubles over skill = fumble for as long as I can remember (IE: About 6 or 7 years ). I first saw it in an old white dwarf article for WFRP some 20 odd years ago.

Because shields are hand held and when in use have some "give" therefore they soak more damage than Armour which is basically a surface that doesn't move held onto the target thats been hit and so has next to no "give".

Thats the mathematician in you talking rather than the roleplayer! As a GM i almost always like the simplest solution that gives vaguely in genre results. For semi realistic/dark genres thats always been BRP for me.

73% skill is so much more obvious than Stat +3 Skill +7 Situational Bonus +1 +1d20 vs target number, that you don't have to think about it. This means you can get on with roleplaying your character and involving yourself in the story.

Good stuff, just one comment about playability though. For such massive numbers of dice on damage rolls Id personally abandon 15d6 and so on and roll 1d6 x15 instead. having to repeatedly roll Bucketfuls of dice will only slow down play.

perhaps the thing to do would make it = to 1/2 of a PC best defensive combat skill? EG: If you best combat skill (this could include the dodge skill I guess) = 80% your Defense would be 40% which you could split as you wanted?

I wonder why they abandoned the defense rating? It would seem to make more sense to me. Giving you a default defense rating and the allowing a full parry or dodge as an action. What was the RQ2 defense rating based off?

Absolutely this is why freestyle wrestling matches look so much like combat judo (as opposed to Olympic judo) matches. Once you minimize the rule set all the grappling arts also start to look very similar.

Funny actually theres quite a bit of aikido in there

Well if fencing is anything like boxing you dont actually make any decisions at all. You basically do what you do in training, not time for actual thinking of any kind. This becomes more and more the case the better you get. For me a more realistic way to handle it would be to have a static defense skill of say between 0 and 50% which is taken from an attackers skill before he rolls. No need for a parry roll at all.

But surely a bad attack requires next to no effort to avoid (IE: no defence roll needed), whereas a decent attack requires a strong effort to avoid (IE: YOu must make a defense roll). Certainly I've never made people roll defenses against failed attacks, it seems unnecessary and also to slow things down for no good reason.

I'm not talking about real life, I'm talking game mechanics. Basic attack roll assumes the defender is not standing dead still anyway otherwise attack base would be 100%

Why would a defender dodge or parry an attack that was going to miss anyway?

This is the reason why for years I've used doubles as fumbles and crits. roll a double under your skill its a crit, roll a double over your skill its a fumble. Easy and quick, works like a charm.

I also ran a campaign set in the D&D 3rd edition setting "Scarred Lands" using Stormbringer 5th edition with no significant issues.

Id say that's entirely dependant on the GM and the world. I for example used to RQ3 in my own (ex D&D) campaign world and made it so that any non wizard or priest that wanted to learn magic had to roll POWx1 or less to have a talent for it, otherwise that PC would never be able to learn it.

Quick question for you, have you ever read a fantasy novel where the wizards were balanced with the non wizards? Which definition of fantasy are you using? IMHO BRP can be balanced, but personally Im not concerned either way.

In my case I do crits and fumbles on doubles so a d20 wouldn't be much use to me. If you want d20 play pendragon IMHO.

Em :confused: I just covered them in my post.

Allow the use of the feinting rule. An attacker can drop up to half their attack skill and a corresponding amount comes off their opponents dodge/parry skill. It will make the fights shorter if nothing else. This is good in highly skilled combats but its even better with extremely good swordsmen vs average guys. Is also gives people with over 100% attack something to do with all those extra percentages. EG: Attacker with 112% vs defender with 65% dodge. Attacker decides to feint by 30% therefore hes now rolling 82% attack and the defender is now defending with 35% dodge

I run A/State using BRP. I find the sanity rules are useful for encounters with the shifted

So what were saying is publishers need a license available from Chaosium that allows game designers to make full games using the BRP rule set that say "BRP compatible" or similar on the cover that contain the setting along with the rules fully tailored to genre? I think I agree with this one.

I think it's because hes trying to point out that what many new gamers see as a bug is actually a feature. Personally I have no problems with Adds/disads in BRP but when I said perhaps the new BRP core book should have them as an option I was shouted down.