Atgxtg

Yeah, RQ (and most other RPGs) undervalue padding. It's really what soaks up most of the damage. The mail, scale, etc. stops the sharp edges and points from penetrating, but the padding absorbs most of the impact. Not that the metal didn't help, just that a big thick cushion is made to soak impact. It depends on the backing for scale. Scale on lather, yeah it's more resilient and even semi-rigid. Scale on Cloth, less so. Yes, I know how RQ3 did it, I'm just saying that's not how it really works. Padding is what is essential in stopping/absorbing impact, and that's what it is the foundation for all the orther armors. No body wears just scale or just plate, they wear in over a foundation of padding. The gamebson is an arming doublet/aketon. Its the same thing.

This is the general BRP forum, for all BRP based games, not one specific to the BGB, All the various systems mentioned as as much BRP as the BGB. BRP was always Chasoium's umbrella term for it's various RPGs. Plus considering that the BGB itself was cobbled together from previous Chasoium games using the "basic role playing system" they aren't "other systems" they are the BGB sources. At least 90% of the BGB comes from those other games. Then why did you bring up the RQ3 blunt weapons vs. flexible armor rule? If you can go outside the BGB why can't anyone else? If you are going to jump into a conversation and bring in RQ3 then you can hardly claim that you are sticking only to the BGB. Other systems were included from the get go, and you incldued RQ3 when you brought up the blunt weapon vs. flexible armor rule from RQ3. Balanced slightly different as a result to what? Could you clarify your statement here. I think the main reason why the damages different from RQ2 and RW3 is that the authors drew more heavily from other BRP games such as Strombringer. If we have to compare just "the best" weapons then I say your point doesn't stand. But your point that 1H thrusting weapons are limited to 1D6+1 in the BGB holds true. Yeah, but not much overhead. Basically something like adding half the db (1d3 per d6) would do it and it could be incorporated into the existing charge rule. In fact, I could see adding something for partial db when someone doesn't get fully up to speed. It sure did more that squat for me on the shoulders. Now I was getting hit with bamboo and even a blunt steel sword (stupid thing to do), but padding stopped quite a bit. But if maces were more effective against mail then those other weapons wouldn't have been so prevalent. It became the armor of choice becase it was the best armor of available until plate came along. Look if some weapon showed a marked advantage over other weapons, and is cheaper and easier to produce then everybody would use it. If maces could just blow through mail then everybody who wanted to take down a knight would have grabbed a mace or a tree limb. Mace was also quite effective (with padding)) against maces and other blunt weapons. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. THe only reason why mail went out of service was that plate became cheaper to make. If that were true then knights would have had the mace as their preferred weapon over the sword, as they were more likely to fight armored foes. . You disagreed with my statement, then made one of your own about what "probably" might happen. So how did my statement prove your point? Which was what I said. Which wasn't what you said previously. You said Sword had an advantage vs. Spear. It doesn't. Sword and Shield vs. Spear is a different situation. And all of the fighters are more experienced with sword than with a spear. That showed just how much of an advantage the spear gave. Note that when the spearman also carries a shield (although that negates his reach) or works in a group things shift again. No the historical reality would have a group of spearmen fighting together. Not facing off against swordmen one on one. Plus also historically most people who carry a sword had more experience that those with a spear, since the sword was a more expensive weapon of the upper classes, `who tended to be trained warriors, as opposed to most spear wielders, who were not. And experience is the biggest advantage. Not to me. I've seen real weapons, they aren't all that heavy. Yes, his touches are light, and wouldn't be near enough to stop a real opponent, so what? The same was true with the swordsman's attacks, yet I don't see you mentioning that. Naturally both combatants could have hit harder and really inflicted serious injuries or death. That they didn't doesn't invalidate the results. And he still should recover and react faster than the swordsman would be able to with the sword. That's your claim, but you provide nothing to back it up other than your say so. In real fighting spearmen did backpedal, and they did fend off aggressive attackers. Men hunted with spears, for reasons. And "eventually" could be long after he skewered the swordsman.

Quite a few, since the slash rule was brought up. In RQ3 Broadsword impales. Most of the examples I gave, and the slash rule were from RQ2. Remember the BRP forum is a catch all for all BRP games not just the BGB. THe OP in thise case is also working on his own variant rule and is going over various bits and pieces of the rules to see what he wants. That's true in the BGB but not in other BRP games. RQ2, and RQ3 both hand 1H impaling weapons that did more than 1D6+1. Hand Axe, Claw and Wakizashi are about in in the BGB. In BGB/UGE BRP that is true. But it's not true in all BRP games. Again only in BGB/UGE. Other versions of BRP use other breakage methods. Current version of BRP isn't the only BRP game. Remeber this furm of the site covers nmore that just the BGB. Not really. I mean a swung sword, ace or mace from a horseman riding by at 30 mph should still benefit from the charge. Not as much as an impaling weapon, but it should still hit harder than someone just swinging the thing. ANd the's not so much the sharp point that makes it more deadly by the fact that you are getting all the horses momentum behind it. A quarterstaff could be deadly in a charge. You don't have to take my word. The rule was that you got to add your db in twice. So obviously, a big brute with a high db, such as a troll could get really scary with the crush rule. Even something like a singlestick (1D6) could be nasty if wielded by a Troll with a few points of of the Strength spell up, and a current db of 3d6. In general the crush and slash options were something of a mixed bag. While they did help level the playing field somewhat against impaling weapons, they also made an already fairly deadly RPG more lethal, as an unparried special would usually take out a hit location. Okay, you disagree. However having worn mail over padding I can say it's quite effective against impact. The mail will spread out the impact as the links pull on each other. I soft armor was so ineffective vs blunt weapons as you think then mail wouldn't have been so prevalent. The real advantage from maces and such is that they tend to be a little heavier than cutting weapons with more of the weaight in the head so they tend to have more of an impact. Not to mention the fact that they can be used in formation with multiple spearman being able to attack an oncoming foe. Most of the little perks for weapon type is really a game design thing. People look at tables of weapons and compare stats that wouldn't even be known in real life. Players wonder why people would use one weapon when some other weapon on the table is clearly better. Except it is only clearly better on the RPG tables. That's why daggers tend to suck in RPGs. In RPG terms they tend not to do much damage compared to other weapons, lack reach, aren't very durable, etc. In real life they are very useful can kill and are still issued to soldier instead of "better" weapons. No.Go look up Lidybeige's Sword vs Spear video- the long one. The spearman has the advantage over the swordsman, especially if they are of equal skill, and it is not that easy to close on a spearman without getting stabbed, and more than once.. Thrusting weapons like spears are faster than swinging weapons too, so the spearman will tend to get more than one attack. The Romans expected to get three thrusts with a spear or gladius to one swing from a sword or axe. Yes it's a matter of genres. That's the point. D&D was modeled on medieval combat with some high fantasy elements tossed in. RQ was based on bronze-iron age combat from Glorantha. Now BRP came out of RuneQuest (not the other way around), and the BGB and current UGE came from a various BRP games such as Strombringer, RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu. So they reflect the impaling weapon bias of the source (Glorantha). Had RQ been a medieval RPG, or D&D been a Ancient Greece RPG the rules would have been different.

Point for beating me to the post.😊

Not really. Look at broadsword, long spear, pike, lance, etc. There really isn't much of a drop compared to slashing weapons. A handful of slashing weapons do a point more than a comparable impaling weapon, but usually at the cost of defense, as wooden hafted weapons tend to break easier. And a 1 popint difference doesn't compare the double damage of the impale. Not really. Impaling weapons hold their own with most of the slashing weapons. You might have a one point advantage with some weapons, but usually at a cost elsewhere. For instance a Pike (2D6+1) has a better SR , lower DEX requirement,cost less, and and more hit points than a Rhompilia (2D6+2). If we bring up mounted combat then impales are unmatched, since not many PCs can match the db of a horse. The RQ2 crush was nasty for big brutes too. Semi-realism. Padding is very effective against blunt weapons in real life. I rather be wearing a nice gambeson that curibouilli if hit by a mace. But in the RQ3 errata half of armor protection was the padding. I think it helps to mirror the late bronze early iron age battlefield, where spears dominated. In fact, historically spears still dominated the battlefield until superseded by firearms. Knife and Spear (bayonet) are still the secondary weapons today. The "sword fetishism" thing is due to sword having more status historically and in the legends. Everybody cam name (at least one of) King Arthur's swords, but few ever know about Rhongomiant. So I think it's less of a game system thing and more of a genre thing. D&D went with a model Medieval/High Fantasty/LotR model while RQ was made for Glorantha. Had D&D been based on, say, Ancient Greece, the sword probably won't have been showcased. RQ1-2. The Slash rule was one of the many optional rules tucked away in the legendary RQ appendix. The Slash let you roll your weapon damage twice, and weapons got stuck like with impales. . At the time, as I mentioned previously, impales were max+rolled and so were still technically better than slashes, but this was still nasty. Especially since some of the two handed weapons. A slashing greatsword doing 4D8 or a slashing pole axe doing 6D6, might not match the autokill/location take out that 1D10+12 longspear or 2D6+14 pike had in RQ2, but not by much.

More like just impale, and yeah that is pretty easy for characters who are out hunting dragons. I mean you don't do stuff like that with Spear 20%. I dunno. The thing is, concussion doesn't get you despite the armor, if you got the right armor. That soft padding that gets dumped on by most RPGs is really what soaks up most of the force of a blow. When I wore mail, I barely felt the blows, and that was mostly due to the sweater I worn underneath the armor. Even modern firearm blunt trauma effects could be prevented with more/better armor. I could see concuss giving a bonus to stun or knock people out with head shots. There is only so much you can do for the head short of making a turret.

Yeah, that's pretty much been the case since the early days. The old RQ slashing crticals used to help edged weapons, but back then impales did max+rolled. BTW, monster paws aren't exactly blunt. Oh, and if you wanted to downgrade impales there are a few options. I've known some GMs who only double the damage after armor, the idea being that it's not exactly easy to skewer someone in plate armor.

For targeting specific hit locations: I'd have to check the BGB, but most version of the game with hit locations have one or more rules where you can target a specific location. RQ had one rule where you attacked at the end of the round and if you rolled under half skill you hit the desired location. If succeeded but rolled over half skill you hit a random location as normal. RQ also had an alternative where for every SR you delayed your attack you got to shift the rolled hit location by one. Thus is you were supposed to attack on SR 7 but waited until SR 10, and then rolled a 12 for hit location you could hit anywhere from 9-15 (abdomen, chest and right arm). Oh, and Flashing Blades (a non BRP game) had you pick a desired hit location roll the D20 twice, and hit whichever location you rolled that was closer to the one you wanted. It was very simple and elegant and could be ported right over to BRP. For Bypassing armor: Most versions of BRP, including the BGB have weapons bypassing armor (other than parry armor)on a critical hit. So a human in BRP can indeed kill a dragon without needed big damage spells by targeting head or forequarters and getting a crtical (even a special might do it with the right weapons). Big damage spells help, but they aren't necessary. That's kinda why most BRP game never had big damage spells the way d20 games do. Easily doable with an impaling weapon. They were doable in RQ3 where they had 25 AP. I saw it happen in a game. An arrow that does 1D8+1 averages 11 on a impale and does 18 through armor on a critical. A lance that does 1D10+1 would do 13+horse db on a special and 22+horse db through armor on a critical. You can easily see why knights got the rep for slaying dragons. The lance charge is probably the best way to drop a dragon without magic or firearms. And that's without minor magics like speedart, bladesharp and such, which do help quite a bit. The hard part is lasting long enough to get that good hit in, and then surviving it's "death throes" as it usually takes a few rounds before mortally wounded dragon becomes dead dragon.

The thing, game design wise, is how do the verious skills balance off against each other, and are you happy with that balance. If one defensive option becomes clearly superior to the others then it will get used much more than the others. Actually it is quite realistic to dodge in the thick of melee. Melee isn't two people just standing within 5 feet of each other trading blows. There is a lot more movement. Generally you fight outside of weapon range and then try to step in and strike without the opponent striking you first. There is a lot of dodging because you are often fighting at just the right distance where moving a foot or two can get out out of reach. One of the things I like about the UY RPG is that there is a lot of movement. For instance when the attacker and defender tie the defender can retreat to win the tie.

When we were younger and messed around with shinai I found out that it was pretty easy to sidetep or backpedal out of reach from most attacks. Of course we were pulling out blows so the attacks were slowed, and didn't thrust as the shinai didn't collapse on a thrust, so it was easier than it would have been in a real fight, but even so it was mostly step away from the attack while parrying. It was only when somebody tried something fancy that we stood our ground or stepped into an attack. I mostly just assume that into the base skill percentage. Most skills in BRP, especially with category modifiers, start off better than Stat x1%. I think I might have failed to make my point. What I was trying to show was that attribute rlls tend to get used less as you add more skills as the skills tend to cover what the attribute rolls did. For isntace adding skills like Balance Dodge, Evade and Tumble reduce the use of DEX rolls for agility based tasks. Not me. I's an RQ3 fan where stat multipliers went as high as x10. For example, rolls to avoid asphyxiation started at CON x10. Oh there is a reason not to allow raw talent to rolls to do so, namely that raw talents never reach the same level of competence as a trained professional. Raw Talent is only going to take a person so far. But I would allow Stat multiplier to go above x5 if the circumstances warranted it.

Hi I'm not thrilled with it either, but I did try to explain how it evolved. Basically dodge had been the cheap and easy way to avoid an attack so they had to add some sort of downside. Realistically, I'm not so sure Dodge should exist anyway. Footwork is part of fighting. People don't just stand still and trade blows, they dodge and weave and sidestep and lunge and all that. In a real fight you both dodge and parry, often at the same time. So I really think it would be better to just include that into the normal fighting defense. For instance defending against a spell could mean putting your shield up in front of you. Maybe leaping out of the way dodging could be just a parry with a difficulty modifier for not being able to use a weapon to help with defense? As for the evade skill? Well, if it iexists, why learn how to dodge? That's the thing with multiple overlapping skills. Either one becomes the ultimate defense skill or else they get neref to the point where they aren't worth taking. The same sort of thing happens to stat rolls as you add more skills. For instace if you don't have a balance skill then GMs can default to a DEX roll or some kind. If you have a balance skill then you don't use a DEX roll for blance, as it would undermine the balance skill. Same with Dodge and Evade vs. magical spells. I suppose it would depend on how you redo the rest of the magic. By target hit locations, or bypassing armor? BRP dragons, while tough, are quite killable by a normal weapon attack. RQ3's cermony skill worked that way. If you had time you could boost your chance of success with cermony, but it greatly increased the casting time. Ususally it wasn't worth it when you needed to get something out fast, but if you were doing something that cost MP or permanent POW and where you had time, it was worth it for the boost. Okay, but again, why would people learn to parry if dodge does the same thing but applies against more threats? FP= Fatigue Points? I think if it matter of not will depend on how fast the FP eceonm,y affect the PCs. If they can get through a short fight unaffected then moster FP won't matter. If the PCs get worn down over a fight, then it monster FP might matter a lot. BTW, FP might be a way to limit/restrict dodge as it would probably take more FP than parrying. I once suggested making shield parry easy. It's not all that hard to duck behind a shield. Well RQ3 handled that by giving weapons and shields Armor Points. When an attack exceeded the AP of the parrying object the object lost 1 AP. In RQ3 you could also do deliberate attacks to try and break a parrying weapon/shield and in such cases the parry object's AP were reduced by the amount the damage exceeded the AP. For example, if a Battle Axe did 12 against a Buckler (8 AP) the buckler would stop 8 damage and get reduced to a 7 AP buckler, with 4 points getting through to the defender. . If the axe wielder got tired of the shield being in his way, he could attack the shield in which case 12 points of damage to a 7 point buckler would chop it down to a measly 2 points. BTW, this made shields nice because you could let your shield get chopped up instead of your weapon. Also in RQ3 special successes left the parrying weapon unharmed by a parry, and crticals negated the damage entirely So there was a chance of deflecting a powerful blow. I recall a PC surving his first fight thanks to a critical shield parry against a critical attack.

I suspect it is because BRP was cobbled together from different games. Dodge was introduced in Strombringer where it was allowed in place of Attack & Parry, but in SB one would only dodge attacks that they couldn't or wouldn't want to parry for some reason. Plus there were limits to what attacks could be dodged (you could dodge a thrown spear you could not dodge a loosed arrow) This rule was carried over into RQ3 where one could do two out of three of the options of attack, parry and dodge, and RQ3 did not have the multiple reactions option, so you generally got one defense a round, two if you sacrificed your attack or were wielding two weapons. I think it's mostly due to it being a carry over rule, but some other reasons are: To prevent characters from dodging and parrying the same attack (despite the fact that people do just that in a real fight). To prevent dodge from becoming too powerful, since when it does work, it works better than a parry as it stops all damage and there is no risk of damaging your parrying weapon. Okay, but in that case why parry when you can dodge? With the way the BGB handles combat there is not much incentive to parry. In RQ3 parries were better against higher success levels. Shields suffer in the BGB because they aren't much better than any other parrying weapon, in fact they tend to be worse when attack & parry are rolled into one skill. IMO I think since dodge requires more of a full body motion compared to a block or parry it probably deserves a larger multi-action penalty, say -40% vs. -30%. THat way dodge would still be available for when you need it, but parry is usually the better option, especially with multiple reactions. It a lot harder to jump out of the way of an axe than it is to stick your shield in front of you to take the blow.

Since they have separated thie game mechanics from Glorantha, maybe they should just drop the mastery rune. Instead of 7M3 it could just be 67 (or 37 if using Murgen's D10 variant). THat would make it much easier to follow. Or dice and add notated could be separate the way they are in most D6 based games, so 3d+7 instead of 7M3 I was working on a base10 game mechanic where the average die roll would be approximately the same as the rating. So a value of 10 would roll 1d20 (average result approx 10)., a 20 would mean 2d20 and so forth. The core ideas were that: Any number could could be turned into a game stat by taking a base10 log and multiplying it by 10. Anything could be rolled in an opposed roll as the stat was the die roll. Passive resistances didn't have to be rolled but could use the default rating. Thus a 100 kg rock (Mass of 20 ) would have a 20 resistance to be lifted instead of the GM needing to roll dice, a 50,000 ton Battleship would have a Mass (SIZ) of about 77 and so on. If desired, NPCs could be treated like a passive resistance so that only players would need to roll things. For instace is a guard had Sword 25 a PC would need to beat a 25 to hit the guard (and get hit by the guard if they got less than a 25). Some of that might be useful for QuestWorlds.

Nice!

That is how RQ3 handled Spirirt Magic. POWx5%. Or you could go RQ2 ish and not require a roll to cast a spell that you know, and only require rolls to hit the target and/or overcome resistance. Ironically this is a problem in MERP too. A low level caster might start off with half a dozen lists but succesfully casting anything is another story. Okay.

I think that is the way to go here. Not only does it solve the spell list as a skill thing but it also somewhat handles the difference in power point totals vs. magic point totals. If the BRP mage with 250% skill is only paying half the costs (or less) half the time then it's like having 50% more magic points.

Well unless you use the lower of the spell list and the magic casting skill. This is similar to what what RQ3 did with sorcery. There were a bunch of magical skills and when someone would cast a spell they would have to roll against the lowest magical skill that applied. For example if someone had Create Fire at 80%, Duration 70%, Multispell 65% and Range 50% and they wanted to create a half dozen fires spread out of a 100 meter circle, that would burn for an hour they would roll against the 50% Range skill (the lowest of the involved skills). You could have Spell Lists and a Basic Magical Casting skill and use the lowest. Since Level x10% will usually be higher than MERPC caster's Base Spell OB or Directed Spell OB, you usually be rolling against the magical sting skill for converted NPCs, which keeps things simple. I kinda think you need the spell list % to monitor spells known, as least if you want to keep it MERPish. Regular BRP would just let the caster have access to the spells but give more potent spells a higher magic point cost.

No problem. THe trick here is figuring out where you want to bend BRP to emulate MERP and when not. I still favor the idea of using the specials and crticals for any extra benefits. Not only would that make magic skills over 100% mean something, but it would fit in with how BRP handles other skills.

But to get the 36E the mage needs to either roll very well (A critical in BRP) or have a very high Directed Spell OB. SO it probably wouldn't matter much until higher levels.

Good. I agree that 2d6 per mp would have been over powered Sounds like a plan, but much as D/E crtis are nasty the A and B crits are really just the point where actual injuries start to occur For the most part BRP crticals and specials can do the same thing. You might just bump up the success level of those particular spells. Yeah, MERP used two skills, Base Spell OB and directed Spell OB for most things, and had a couple of outliner for using magic items and reading runes.. It probably used two skills to slow down advancement a little. If one skill did everything then every spellcaster would max that one skill out. With a couple of skills they have to make choices. But I thin you will probably want to keep the Spell List% to work out spells known, as previous discussed. One possibility would be if casters rolled against the lower of their magic skill or their spell list. So if a 12 lvl Mage with Fire Law 120% and Directed Spell 58% were to toss a fireball it would be at 58%. That way when a mage learns a new list he won't be a master of it right away. This wouldn't hurt with NPC stats since you will be given them 10% per level to start, so it will usually be higher than their Base and Directed OBs.

Exactly. I have a friend who is really big on crossover ideas, but most of his ideas depend on accepting his interpretation of the relative abilities of the characters., or forces a character into doing something in a situation that is out of character in order to make the idea work. Often the idea isn't all that interesting except for the crossover bit. IMO the best crossover stories are those where you already felt like the characters lived in the same world. But this really happens when you deal with anyone else's fictional setting. Your Game May (or MUST) Vary stems from this.

LOL! But it wasn't like Gandalf took out all the goblins and wolves with it. IN MERP, with his stats, he'd flash fry the lot of them. You can say that he was holding back but in MERP every 8 spellcaster with Fire Law can do stuff like that.

Yup! That's also the reason why crossovers are so tricky, as that means two sets or parameters to be balanced off against each other, and we have to hope it was done so in a way that fans of both properties can agree on.

There is plenty of that in MERP. In fact, I'd say there is a bit too much of it. You don't see anyone in LotR throwing around fire ball spells, raising walls of flame or teleporting. MERP/RM pretty much adds D&D levels of magic to Middle Earth. In the character writueups pretty much everybody has a +20 something or other and a x3 spell multiplier somewhere on their person.

No both deals the same damage. Both use Attack Table AT-7., and both add the Base Spell OB. Fire Bolt costs more PP and has a higher Risk Factor, but that's in MERP. Not really , it's not just comparing Shock Bolt (Lvl2) to Fire Bolt (Lvl6) but comparing the entire Light Law List to Fire Law. List. . A mage who picks up Light Law gets a bolt attack at level two while one who takes Fire Law won't get that bolt attack until level 6. But they will get Boil Liquid and Warn Solid. So someone who takes the Fire LAw list is getting more that just Fire Bolt but a bunch of other ifre and heat related spells. So it's not a system conversion thing it's one list vs. the other, MERP or BRP.