DreadDomain

I came to say this: And this: And would add that I prefer when they are bundled in skill categories (communication, knowledge, etc.) because it makes zooming in the right skills much quicker in my experience.

I am now convinced of it and base chance is an unfortunate choice of words. It would probably be less confusing to say "Under most circumstances, your character can only parry block missile weapons with a shield, at the shield’s base chance (see Shields and Missile Fire, page 153)" and leave the explanation on p.153. Since the chances are fixed and not based on skills, I agree it must be a passive defense. Furthermore, except for p.125, they mention blocking missile weapon and parrying melee attack (see p.132). This solidify my reading that the 30% penalty does not apply. In short, in my explanation above, option 1 does not exist: 1) deleted 2) Leave it to the shield's passive coverage (p.153). Bigger shields cover a larger number of areas so have more chances to protect. If you use hit locations, you don't need to roll since the shield table (p.178) tells you which location is covered. It acts like armor and the parry penalty do not apply. 3) Hide behind your shield (p.153). This is a subset of 2 above except that you actively hide/kneel behind your shield. If you use hit location, I'd say one extra location is covered. It acts like armor and the parry penalty do not apply.

That is how I read it because they use base chance on p.125 and base chance is clearly defined on page 4. Having said that, it would mean that it would never make sense to choose option 1 as the chances to succeed would always be lower than option 2 (or 3). Clearly, I must be wrong!

The way I read this, with a shield you have three options against missile weapon: 1) Parry with the shield (p.125) at base chance (which for most of the shields are 15%, 5% for bucklers plus skill category modifier). This is a parry and the 30% penalty applied - if it is not your first attempt, I effectively cannot parry 2) Leave it to the shield's passive coverage (p.153). Bigger shields cover a larger number of areas so have more chances to protect. If you use hit locations, you don't need to roll since the shield table (p.178) tells you which location is covered. It acts like armor and the parry penalty do not apply. 3) Hide behind your shield (p.153). This is a subset of 2 above except that you actively hide/kneel behind your shield. If you use hit location, I'd say one extra location is covered. It acts like armor and the parry penalty do not apply.

To ease into it, you have a few options which you can combine together - but first, do not use the optional hit locations. As already mentioned, you can use heroic Hit Points (CON+SIZ instead of the average of CON and SIZ) When suffering a major wound, do not use the Major Wound table (or at least ignore permanent effects). Suffering a major wound, the character will only be able to fight for a number of rounds equal to their remaining hit points. That in itself is a good warning to the players that depending on the situation, they should think about disengaging and fleeing or surrendering. My favorite is to take a page of CoC 7E. When a character gets to 0 HP they are only dying if they suffered a major wound (in this combat or if they still have a previously unhealed major wound). If they do not have a major wound, they are only unconscious. The reason I like it is that it gives the GM a lot of control on lethality of the game and unless they roll in the open, they can simply secretly adjust rolls to inflict just under the major wound threshold if they desire.

Well, the whole point of that exercise was to mess up with things, so ya...

I played with it because I wanted a single female face and I came up with this. The copy paste is terrible but we get the idea BRP Vitruvian Amazon

Yes, I agree it might too big and of course the resolution not being great doesn't help. Here was my first attempt. Bigger logos (top and bottom), zoomed in Vitruvian and less dead space. And the misaligned eyes... I'd rather have only the female or male face, not a mashup.

And I was ninja'd. Yes, the more I look at it, the more I think the face is the issue.

That was exactly my first attempt but I still thought the top logo needed some more punch. The current Vitruvian makes more sense for sure. I just find it less pleasing to look at then the others. I think the split face is what throws me off.

And the last one, the Man in Black!

And how about the Lunar Amazon?

While I understand why this Vitruvian was selected (the mix of genres) I believe others just look better. I like this straight homage to the BGB. Here comes Bolder BRP! Here comes the Homage!

I very much like the design and composition of the new cover but keeps nagging at me that it feels too tame, too unassuming. The BGB cover feels a bit more in your face and it occurred to me that on the UGE cover, everything seems too small. "Basic" is too small and too low, leaving heaps of blank space at the top The Vitruvian is too small and not centered The credit line is too high, leaving lots of free space at the bottow. The BRP and Chaosium logos are too small. come on, be proud! For a bit of fun I have played with alternate covers playing with the same composition. Now this was a "1-hour" project and I am sure that what I have cooked up is "all wrong" but hey, it was fun. Here is my favorite so far. I played with it because I wanted a single female face and I came up with this. The copy paste is terrible but we get the idea BRP Vitruvian Amazon

For human I prefer to roll 3d6 for all char and simply: assign a lower cap (say 6 or 8), or Re-roll 1's

I am curious to know what made them choose it? Was it overwhelmingly/no contest or a close call?

Good memories. I don't mind the cover but the Vitruvian was much better. Iconic!

Although I understand your disappointment of not having the options you wanted included in BRP (I would have like some of these options too), in the comments on drivethru, there is already someone (8 April) asking " The previous BGB didn't cover the newest CoC 7th/Pulp Cthulhu mechanics. Does this new release include those?" To which Jason answered "For very sound reasons, none of the Call of Cthulhu or Pulp Cthulhu unique mechanics are in the new edition of BRP. Those are part of those lines and are not destined to be part of the new SRD, which encompasses the whole of the new BRP manuscript" Now we may or may not agree with the reasoning and may or may not be happy about the end result but the outcome is clearly laid out. There is no ambiguity or foul play here. So they say "Basic Roleplaying: Universal Game Engine is the complete guide to BRP—the same system that powers Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Rivers of London, and countless others." Again, there is nothing wrong or false here. BRP is not a monolithic system like GURPS and they never said they would include every options. Strike ranks were left out, so were push dice, bonus and penalty dice or RoL damage (characteristics on d100 are de facto in with the characteristics roll). Would I have preferred it? Sure. Do I feel cheated? Not at all. I understand reading the book that they tried to stick to a baseline with options adding to it, rather than replacing part of it. That is reasonable. I don't believe your comment was removed to hide some kind of truth but rather because you were attacking the product, making it sound like there was some kind of foul play and asking for a refund. That is fine if you feel that way but the better way to handle this is to contact Chaosium customer's service and try to get your money back.

Not to mention GURPS Traveller for wish an impressive amount of material has been published if the setting is of interest.

I am generally quite happy with the result @Jason D, job well done! The BGB has been a treasure trove of information and ruling and it seems this new edition will now take the same role with, hopefully, a greater footprint on the market. If I may, there are a few more streamlining/clarifying that could be considered. There is nothing below that is groundbreaking but at the same time, I understand if it's too late for tweaks. 1) Closing, Close Combat p.145 and Weapon Length p.156. I found the Weapon length section concise and well explained while Close Combat and Closing are repetitive and confusing. I suggest removing these two sections or heavily rewrite them. The space could be used for an example instead. 2) SIZ Chart p.189. - I suggest the weight continues doubling every +8 SIZ even after SIZ 88 (similar to SuperWorld). That change doesn't change much, if anything for most of the lower power games but does make BRP much easier to use for superhero games. 3) Skill bases. Some skills have a base calculated from characteristics, which I find an unnecessary distinction compared with the other skills. The one that strikes me the most is Gaming. Why is it based on INT+POW? Why is Projection based on DEXx2 but Throw and thrown weapons are based on static values? It just seems odd. For consistency, I suggest all skills have a static base (eg. Gaming 20%, Fly 40% or 5%, Language 50% or 0%, Dodge 20%, etc.). 4) Skills and Skill Categories. Some skills in the Physical category are oddly distributed. "Drive" and "Pilot" would work better in Manipulation with "Heavy Machine". Also note that Dodge is a Physical skill but is listed under Combat on the character sheet. 5) Step Six - Personality p.11. "Brutal" has a very negative connotation. I suggest renaming to "Physical" or "Brawny". 6) Characteristic Rolls p.10, for ease, it would have been clearer to name characteristic rolls like their characteristics (Strength Roll, Power Roll, Charisma Roll, etc). Small detail but it is a lot more intuitive. Anyway, aside from 1 and 2, which would further clarify and streamline BRP, the rest are details that would just remove some more finickiness (totally not a word, I know).

The more I read the UGE sections the more I believe 95% of the useful text is under "Weapon Length" and the "Close Combat" and "Closing" sections are mostly confusing things.

Agreed. Actually, Stormbringer and Magic World are much clearer if only because they cover the topic in 1 section intead of 3. The keeping at bay maneuver is not included though. In the Weapon Lenght section,there is a sentence ommitted in UGE that is in BGB (and similarly in Stormbringer and Magic World). This omission might be intentional or not. Either way, it totally messes up how longer weapons and short weapons interact together. To be fair, this is probably the intention of this bullet in UGE "Weapon Length". At first I read "can attempt to hold off" as a reference to "keep at bay" in the close combat section but it's probably just a generic expression. Note that under this rule, the short-weapon-user can use "parry or Dodge" to slip inside. Also, note the last sentence I have bolded. Once "inside the guard" the long weapon user is at a serious disadvantage (as you would expect)! The way I understood and played the game before (long weapon user = LW, short weapon user = SW). This was my interpretation of the Stormbringer/MW/BGB rule LW and SW engage. They are at long weapon range: 1) LW strikes first irrespective of DEX Rank. The SW can parry or dodge normally. If the SW has successfully dodged (not parried) the attack, proceed to 2). Otherwise, proceed to 3) 2) The SW slips inside the LW's guard. They are now in close combat (which is a subset of being in melee combat). SW can now attack and LW can dodge normally or parry at difficult. 3) The SW cannot attack this round but can attack to slip inside LW's guard by succeeding at a dodge roll. If he suceeds they are now in close combat and move to the next turn. Note that SW could also attempt to disengage by succeeding at a dodge roll. For the following rounds, use normal DEX Ranks and proceed with close combat if SW has closed or with normal melee combat if he hasn't. In BGB, keeping at bay is a defensive maneuver that works the same as 1) above except that no damage is inflicted and many opponent can be kept at bay.

Love the art. Thanks Lionel!

I assumed you were so apologies for being Captain Obvious here...

They are in the middle of the night in the US so I think it will take a few more hours...