Atgxtg

It might get stuck, it's not automatic. The weapon has to score an impale (so not just any stab will do). The character could avoid the weapon getting stuck if he could roll twice his chance for an impale. If the impale is parried by a shield then the shield is impaled instead. The idea here is that if you impale some one with a knife you probably have it stuck at least 6 inches (15cm) deep. So think if it as trying to pull out a grounded tent peg.

It's in the GW edition. I found it on page 34, third column, under the heading Special Knockback (do I get a Search check?). It's also in Book 1 of the AH edition, page 56. It also incorporated slashing weapons. The rule is as follows: Special Knockback When smashing or slashing weapons such as broadswords or maces score a special success, the target is knocked back one meter for every 5 points of rolled damage (as opposed to damage from normal hits which only use the damage in excess of SIZ.) If the target's player does not make a successful DEX X5 roll for his character, the character will also fall down. Use the standard knockback rules to determine further injury by incidental collision with intervening obstacles.

I find that very difficult to believe. Do you have any evidence of battles "usually ended with men bashing their enemies with shield only because all swords were broken". At the very least I'd think that most combatants wouldn't be armed with swords, and those who were also had a secondary weapon. I also find it hard to accept that a thin facing of metal made shield almost indestructible, while the metal weapons couldn't last through a battle. Putting even a 1mm thick facing of iron on a kite shield would add about 3 or 4 kg of mass, which would be very heavy. What I've read is that most of the metal went into frame of the shield. Most information I've seen on medieval warfare was that most shields were good for about one battle, at best. The durability of swords depended heavily on the the methods and materials used in construction, length (longer blades tend to break more often than shorter ones, since they are a longer lever), and just what they are being used against in terms of opponent armor and blocking weapons. As far as the LOTR props go, they were not weapons forged for actual combat, but movie props designed to look good. It's like comparing a $50 "Samurai Sword" found in some small ethic shops to an actual tachi or katana made for combat during the Sengoku or Tokugawa eras.

That's not "the good old impale" that's the new impale from RQ3. The RQ2 impale was max damage plus rolled, which was quite a bit (about half again) nastier. So does that mean the new RQ will use RQ3 impale rules?

Oooh, now THAT sounds interesting. Is that something other than spellcasting? Just how does it work? What can the augment? What is the benefits? Could the use something like Mastery and Beast could they augment their ride skill?

Because you come from a Civilized Culture and it's your cultural magic option.

Of course if the sorcerer has time to prep he can put up some pretty good defenses that can help buy him the time to cast something big in battle. I'm sorry they kept free INT. If psychic energy is the limiting factor them I don't see why free INT should count. Plus it really limits advancement for anyone who isn't a genius.

I agree. I also think that system and setting also factors in. I run RQ differently that I run Marvel Super Heroes or James Bond, or Star Wars, or Toon, just to name a few. In some games I'm more in "impersonal arbiter" role and in others more of a storyteller. In more cinematic campaigns, I'm more likely to run more tightly scripted adventures, but also run things more biased towards the PCs.

Why?

Yeah. One thing about Sauron is that he gets defeated in every fight that he enters. Its one of the reasons why he doesn't really appear in LOTR. What Middle Earth RPGs that exist tend to stat out Gandalf at very good human or slightly better, in BRP terms, high teens to mid 20s. And with the way BRP works, someone like Sauron could have very good stats, and still get taken down by a critical hit.

Well, in that case you just have to decide on how powerful the big baddies, such as Balrogs and Dragons are supposed to be, and then work in a sort of power hierarchy. In most ways, magic in Middle Earth is subtle, so you probably won't have a lot of levels of superpowers. And it does seem like a lot of the Istari's powers are held in reserve for times of need. Either by by thier own choice or by some sort of divine law. Probably a bit of both. A good bit of difficulty lies in the fact that we don't really see any of the more powerful beings go all out. We only get hints of their true power. You don;t even find out that Gandalf is a Maia unless you read through the appendix in LOTR and go through some of the supplementary material. Tolkien put a lot of stuff "off stage". But I'd probably start off by looking at dragons and deciding if they needed to be buffed up a bit. Maybe even look at dragons in MERP, LOTR, and TOR to see how big they are in comparison to RQ dragons and possibly scale up RQ dragons a bit. The look at Balrog stats to see how the compare to dragons (and men) and try to get something about the same relative ranking in BRP. F

I kinda get the feeling that some of the limits can be exceeded somewhat, but that the Istari have to justify it. For instance Gandalf could probably use more of his abilities against the Balrog or the Witchking, than he could against a common man or orc. And I thing Sauron also has some limits imposed on him. For example, after the faill of Numenor he loses some of his shape shifting abilities. So it seems likely that his powers are capped at some level below his full abilities. He also doesn't seem to do very well in battle, so he's probably not beyond man or elf as far as combat abilities go. In general the powerful beings get weaker on Middle Earth during the latter ages. The dragons are a lot smaller, and even the elves are "faded".

There have been a few attempts to do a BRP Middle Earth campaign. For Gandalf, the thing is that he isn't really a human, but a Maia (a spirit or Angel). So most of his stats would be higher than the typical human range. I could do up a conversion from ICE's MERP or Decipher's LOTR write-ups, if it would help.

Yea! One of the best features of RQ returns to the game. Attributes just do't mean as much without category modifiers. BTW, with the hybrid nature of the new RQ, are the category modifiers in 5% like RQ2, or 1% per point as in RQ3?

What I do when somebody tries for a long time and gets no improvement is just live it it. It happens. I once had a character who's shield parry was a running gag. Each week I'd make several attack and parries and at the end of the night my attack shill would always go up, but my shield parry didn't. I had a 30% shield parry for quite a long time. The reason why the system doesn't allow training for skills over 75% (and btw, RQ did allow it for academic skills) is twofold. First off, there is a belief that somebody can only get so good at something without actual practical experience "in the field". The second reason is that, back when RQ was written, it was a radical idea to allow characters to improve by a method other than adventuring. And I think most of the people who play RQ prefer it to HeroQuest. Those who don't won't be playing RQ anyway, and so there is no need to cater the skill improvement system for them.

Please don't make such blanket assumptions. No one was horrified. But if you value role-play over roll-play so much, why do you need an improvement mechanic anyway?

Yup, but even LARPs have rules/guidelines that govern how things play out. Inexperienced fencers don't just take down master swordsmen because the told the GM that's what they were doing. And I don't really see how any of this relates to check boxes or Improvement points.

I think you're missing my point. A GM has to try and be fair to the players. And if he lets some players who are good at talking roleplay through social encounters then he should do the same for other players who are good in other skills. Role rolplaying a fight is a lot more than just saying your going to try to ambush and flank an opponent. Do you just let you players say, "I'm going to con him out of his last coin." and let it go at that? Basically, it all boils down to being conflict. The player characters want things to go one way, and the NPC bad guys want it to go another. All the dice do is to help fairly arbitrate the outcome-so we don't end up with the "I'll killed you first!" arguments we had when we were kids.

No, what I'm saying is that you have to be fair and give a level playing field to all the PCs. If you let one player talk his way out of problems, with no regard to his character's social abilties, then why can't you let someone talk his way through a swordfight, by roleplaying how the character wields his blade?

Have you ever considered playing Amber? Basically the reason why there are skills, stats and game mechanics are to help the GM arbitrate various form of conflict in a RPG in a fair manner. Most RPGs don't role-play combat, vehicle operation, medicine, or language skills. If you just let players role-play social skills then it gives an unfair advantage to fast talking players, since they can save their improvement points, training and practice for the areas of the game that they can't just roleplay. Secondly, it limits the character to the interaction skills of the player. For example, when playing the James Bond RPG it's a common tactic for the PC to seduce some of the opposition, so that they can get information, win over allies, and so forth. Now, I haven't met anyone who can seduce someone as well or as easily as Bond can. For good reason, too, he's a fictional character. But if we want to game in that genre, then we need a way for the players to do so- and just roleplaying won't really cut it.

No, it's a bit more complicated. If you let the player role-play everything you nerf the value of skills, and limit the character's abilities to those of the player. It also means that inexperienced characters end up knowing more and doing better because they are run by experienced players. I think that for it to work out fairly, a GM has to do a bit of both.

But then isn't the skill check system an improvement point system in disguise? Once you get the check the rest of the game mechanics are the same. The differences, mechanically, as far as I can tell, come down to: Determining what triggers a chance for improvement If the number of things that can be improved are capped at some predetermined number.

Even if the player were better at handling the situation than his character? If so, does the player really need the skill anymore? If the character has low social skills the player shouldn't get a free pass just because he happens to be a charmer in real life

So, do you think that if everybody tries the same things they should end up with different skills? If people want some variation in skills then they should try different things. When they don't know that there is a lion in the area. Most of the GMs I know don't usually say "Make a Spot roll to see if you notice the lion that's approaching." Sure everyone has a chance to succeed. And depending on the roll and circumstances, everyone has a chance to mess things up and make them worse. For instnace someone who fumbles that perception check might be watering the wrong shrub when someone else notices the lion. As far as picking the lock goes, maybe the character could be allowed another attempt, and almost certainly it should be harder. The problem I have with just allowing rerolls, even at increased difficulty is that at long as the player is rolling dice he will eventualyl make the roll and succeed. Realistically, if somebody doesn't pick the lock in the first couple attempts, he probably isn;'t good enough to do it, and should have to improve his ability (higher skill, better tools, magical enhancement) before he can have a chance to doing it. I don;t consider either of those situations to be "spamming". What I consider spamming is when a player runs around making a lot of frivolous rolls or other to get more skill checks. Something like somebody picking the same lock over and over again every day with no real reasonother than to get a skill check. Now, as I posted earlier, I do not consider than a "skill check issue: but a "GM issue". In my campaigns the guy who keeps picking the same lock everyday wouldn't get a skill check, but would count the time towards practice. Yes, he stops doing wizardly things if he isn't doing them. Just becuase somebody claims to be a wizard doesn't mean that he is working towards his wizardly abilties. While bhe certainly is working towards improvement in the things he actually is doing during the game.

The failures of simulation complain is the one complaint I've seen in the thread that is consider to be a valid complaint about the skill check system. Most of the other complaints I've read aren't really a problem with the skill check game mechanic, but more a matter of personal preference, Even the skill check hunting thing seems to come down to GMs who either give the checks out easily and/or won't let a PC die while attempting it. But I don't see how an Improvement roll systems are any better as far as Failure of simulation goes. It's still just as unrelated to context. As far as in terms of game play goes, I can see your point but don't entirely agree with you. What skill improve depend on what skills the PC use. If most PCs end up with a fairly similar skill set then it is because they are most all doing the same things. And so the similar skill set makes sense. If they are all climbing trees and sniping trollkin, they should all get better at climb and missile weapons. Once again, I don't see how assigning Improvement rolls stops this. With fewer improvment rolls per sessions, PCs are going to be ever more tightly focuses with an ever more similar skill set. Let's face it, Sword, Spot and Shield, are far more important in most adventures than evaluate, plant lore or Craft. The whole spamming skill rolls thing is more of a GM issue. If it isn't a stressful situation, no check. So spamming shouldn't work. And yet again, I don't see how assigning Improvement rolls fixes that. Since most IP systems say that a player has to use a skill to be able to spend IPs in it, PCsare still going to run arround spamming skills so they can improve in the one they want. For those who allow PCs to improve skills without using them, you wind up with D&D type silliness where a guy who climbs up in a tree and shoots goblins with a crossbow fails to improve at climbing or crossbow, but instead becomes a better wizard! As far as POW gain through disruption goes, I blame the game designers. They made POW so crucial to the the magicians and then give only one way to improve it, and it is basically an "optional" process to engage in spirit combat. If you took the fights out of the adventures, and made all the opposition reasonable and willing to negotiate with the PCs, you find the warrior PCs becoming more belligerent so that they can get weapon skill checks. The other abilities don't require a successful roll on the resistance table to improve. I think it would be much better if the POW vs POW bit were dropped and POW improvement rolls triggered with a special success on a casting.