Atgxtg

I think Triff is onto something here. Maybe instead of the fixed AP being the max value, they should be the average value? IMO for variable AP, it would be better to use a bell curve that a lineral distrubtion. WHile it might be possible to hit a weak or strong spot, I would expect that much of the time blows will hit the largest sections. SO 5 point scale could be 2d4 rather than 1D10?, and so on. Of course variable armor opens up the possibility of the attacker using a special success to to to place the blow on a weak spot, affecting the foes armor rather than taking an "implae" type option, or even a "wear armor" skill that the defender couold use to try and take a hit on a strong spot.

Thanks Jason, You might have covered that before. You've been so good at answering questions that it is actually getting more challenging to come up with new questions! :thumb: I find the idea of writing something tempting, but will wait until I've read the BRP rules before taking any plunge. While I am famialr with RQ, RQ3, CoC, Strombringer, etc. it helps to see just how the core BRP rules look before starting something and having to revise it later to account for situations where I went left but BRP went right. P.S. The bestiary sounds like a interesting project for me. I've got enough BRP critter stats (Gateway Bestiary, RQ3 Creatures, CoC, even Pendragon) to tap for inspriation/benchmarks. If the BRP rules are as similar to the earlier RPGs as suggested, then it shouldn't be hard to tweak deer or bear stats a few points to get them inline with BRP. It's not like bears are suddenly going to have STR 80! in BRP.

Jason, What sort of supplements (if any) are in the works for BRP? Are there going to be some scenarios? Settings? Is the game going to get a lot of support?

Yeah, UY is deadly to the mooks, too, since damage is somewhat skill based (mooks take more criticals). I wish I could swipe UY7s wackly focus system for initiative. It is a bit counterintuitive for experienced gamers. Basically the side that attacks goes first, otherwise roll off. It works though because there are rules that let character do things like interrupt the acting character or counterattack, so having the first attack ins't quite so significant.

Perhaps, I'm not too familiar with SW. I adapted the crit rules from UY for a few of reasons: 1) Giving weapons different critical choices helps to make all the different weapon types useful. 2)Adding another crit for mastery seemed neat 3) By allowing things like disarms in as critical options that get picked after the roll, it makes combat much more dynamic. Many RPGs have all sorts of special maneuvers that rarely get used ecuase of the difficulty in pulling them off. If it is easier to kill someone that to give them a crippling inury or disarm them, then those maneuver become sort of pointless. With Usagi, it is a lot more fun and common. If someone is wielding a sai, they are going to get the option of a disarm as a critical, making the maneuver more common.

Some similarities, at least with the basic task resolution system, but UY has a lot more. Damage in UY works as follows: Roll weapon damage dice (from 1-3 dice, always in d20s), plus any critical effects against the target's soak number. Each die that isn't soaked inflicts a wound level. There are four wound levels (something like wounded, injured, incapacitated, and devastated/killed). Wounds don't accumulate (so four wounds don't kill you), but being wounded means you roll an extra damage die when hit. Critical effects modify damage. For example a slash critical adds 2d20 damage, but a stab crtical automatically inflicts a wound level UNLESS the target retreats. Where things get interesting is that characters have abilities called Gifts that give them more options. For instance anyone in the game can do an unarmed attack with the Empty Hand skill (or even without it, relying on their default ability),, but someone with the Empty Hand Master gift gets a couple more critical types (such as Trip), and can treat thier hands as weapons, allowing them to use Gifts that work for weapons (like Improved Parry) with their hands. I figured that some of the "mastery" gifts would translate well to an RQ/BRP format.

Sorloc, I've got Rolemaster and C&S. While RM is interesting, I usually preferred the MERP version of the rules with simplified damage charts. There are actually quite a few RPGs that use the mnargin of success in determining the damage. One of my favorites, was the method used in the Usagi Yojimbo RPG (Sanguine version). In that game combatants roll multiple dice (a die for stat, plus one or more dice for skill, and maybe some bonus dice). and compare results. High roll wins, but each additional die that beat the opponent's best die results in a critical. hHe winner can then pick critical effects, such as slash, stab, crush, disarm, impale, etc. that are determined mostly by weapon being used. I am working on adapting this idea to RQ/BRP, with characters picking their critical from a list available to the weapon. For instance a sword could get slash and/or stab criticals. Mastery with a weapon will open up another possible critical or two.

Rurik, You'd love Warpworld. One thing that can happen there is that animals and condemned prisoners can be used to power enchantments. So things like zombie rowers and draft animals were around.

Like Lord Twig, I used to use the RQ3 method with no problems. I7ve even tried having damage come off fatigue as well as HP (it worked and made some sense). But, most of the time in RQ3, since fights tended to be short and bloody, I could just ignore fatigue for most fights. I would see how much FP the characters had and that gave me a decent margin when fatigue didn't matter. Ingore a 2 or 3% penalty was no biggie. Fatigue only really came into play when people were heavly encumbers, like one guy who was wearing doublemail, and padding under a suit of plate (he started off at negative fatigue!), but he was dragon hunting, so it sort of a one off event.

THe progesion throughout most of the SIZ charts in RQ3 stuff was x2 mass = +8- SIZ. It doesn't hold up for very small SIZes (below 8) or above 100, but works fine for 99% of what we use SIZ for. I used to find that helpful for handing Resistance Table rolls when mutiple characters contributed to a task. As for mounts in RQ, few player actually seemed to bother getting their ride skill high enough so that they could use the mounts. The few who did, went out of thier way to armor up or protect thier mount somehow. One Rune Lord had his allied spirirt in his mount, and it usually came out of fights better off than the PCs. Few things are nastier in RQ that a big creature that gets it's combat skills up over 50%. A few points of Ironhoof can catch people by surprise.

I was looking at HARNMASTER last night and had another idea how to haandle damage. What if you compared the levels of success and did the following: Sucess vs. Success= Normal RQ damage For each level of success the attack is above the parry roll another damage die. If the defense exceeds the attack then the attack was parried, for no damage. If the defense is 2 levels above the attack the defender can riposte. That's the basic idea. I did up a little maxtrix with that and a few things like damaged attacker's weapon when parriny a miss, and increasing the damage as the defender's parry gets bewtter, fumbles, etc. Anyone interested?

Most of my experienced RQ players would work on developing a secondary weapon. What tends to happen is that sooner or later you are going to have an arm down or loose a sheild or something and get stuck. THe key encounter for my group happened when one guy lost his primary weapon to a foe who took it with him when he fell off the stairs (the PC didn't want to jump after it, go figure) right after he had lost his shield to a fumble (#"$%& shield strap!). Fortuantely, he had trained with 2H sword a little, off and on, and hard worked it up to 70%, so he just drew his sword and fought his way out of it. Generally, it is better to wait a little for Rune status. Especially since once you hit the higher% you can't train anymore. That's a good time to get a seondary melee weapon. Then again, most of my players didn't emphasise a missle weapon, but instead we had one or two dedicated archers. You get some tough units with a couple of melee fighters screening an acher. If we had a "tank" in front backed up by someone with a longspear (and the GM allowed them to attack from the second rank), the unit became especially formidable.

Jason mentioned special criticals for all weapons in his thread. As for Slash and Crush, they appeared in RQ2, but back in the appendix, and were sort of so-so. Crush added the db in again, making it faily weak for PCs but great for Trolls. I think the old slash rule was the same as the current implae rule (back then impale was max plus rolled). Personally, I'm not to worried about the loosing the weapon thing. Any decent warrior should have some sort of backup weapon just in case. Esepcailly people who use two handed weapons. For all round versatility a bastard sword is hard to beat in RQ.

Strangely, this idea matches well with a BRP variant I am working on. I was thinking of setting the damage bonus by Damage Class (DC) set atv (STR+SIZ)/5, and then adjusted by weapon. The damade die being about twice the DC, so a DC 5 attack does 1D10 and so on. Weapons would give a shift up or down. While my variant was using special and critical success to kick up the damage, there is nothing to prevent this for working with Rurik's idea. Basically for each 20% of skill or so could be worth a damage die shift. IF we wanted more room to bounce up the damage dice, we could even go with HP=STR+SIZ instead of the average, allowing us to double most of the damages. So if we wanted a broasdword that did 1D8+1 in RQ3, and we wanted to incoprate skill (with double normal HP), we could use: [sTR(10)+SIZ(13)]/5 =DC 5 (1D10) Broadsword +0 50% Skill =+3 DC =DC 8 for 1D10+1D6 or 2D8 Just an idea....

Another "in game" reason is money. In RQ2 players started out with very little (CHAx100 lunars loaned from ther guilds), so they often started with a cheap weapon and upgraded as fortune allowed. In RQ3 players pretty much got to choose their weapons (according to culture and profession) and so they could get more expensive stuff. Plus in RQ3, broadswords can impale, giving them the same damage as a spear, and can damage attacking weapons that fail with a parry (polearms can't to that) so they wind up being equal or superior to spears in all ways except Strike Rank. Maces suffer from having no damage pluses, so a 1D8+1 that implaes is superior to 1D10 thaqt doesn't. If you use the 1/2AP vs. soft armors then maces are useful. Axes are about the only real threat to the sword. They tend to do more damage, but can't impale. SInce BPR is going to give slash and crush rules, I suspect the other weapons will become more popular.

I was thinking of something where either the number of dice varied by skill and or success level. So a good hit might be doing 3 or 4 dice damage, making a light weapon effective in skilled hands. BTW, MAthematically it lloks like you are using about 1/10th the skill as the average damage modifer. THat matched up pretty well with the old chart from Strombringer, so you could use: 1D2 1D4 1D6 1D8 1D10 1D10+1D2 (or 2D6) 1D10+1D4 (or 1D8+1D6) 1D10+1D6 (or 2D8) 1D10+1D8 2D10 etc.

That isn't a weakness of the spear per say, but an effect that could apply to any weapon. Any advantage is reach is significant. In many cases a foot or soo is more significant edge than 5 or 6 feet. It is sort of an in for a penny thing. If you got a reach advantange it translates into a speed advantage. Sure, but an undershield technique would be vulnerable to a low attack, and reach weapons are best for striking low, since the attacker doen't have to extend himself to strike those areas. Considering that the legs tended to be unarmored for most fighters, going low with a spear would cause most swordmen a lot of problems. Drop down to protect the legs and there goes your speed. Yeah, so. Speed isn't everything. Look at the axe, mace, flair, and halbeard. All are effective, and all could be used to fight against a swordman. Another thing to consider is that thrusting weapons tend to be two to three times faster than slashing weapons, so that "heavy" spear is probably as faster or faster than a broadsword. Guys with spears did fight and beat guys with swords. If the skill of the combatants was close, so was the outcome. Everything that you are noting for being able to be used against the spear has ways of being countered. Well, ask them why the Spear (and even clumsier naginatas) were so prevant in Japan during the Sengoku peroid. It isn't because of Calvary, since years on warfare reduced the horse to the mount for higher ranking officers. A pointy stick is an effective weapon. Even against a sword. True. But again, that holds for most weapons, and harder does not mean inefective. I have a two handed broadsword at home that I find too heavy to wield two handed, let along with one hand, but there are people who can do so. You would be if you had someone jabbing a spear into your face. Keep in mind that plate was very rare, and a spear can penetrate mail and most other armors. A determined foe who presses forward can very likely wind up impaling hilself on a grounded spear. That's one thing the spear can do that can't be done with a sword, axe, or mace. You loose. What did you bet? I was fighting outdoors, mostly on grass, and on various types of ground (inclduing mud). We would also move to the side, something that modern fencers don't do. About 90% of our injuries ended to being to the hands (the blades tend to slide down each other on a strike). What yo are failing to consider is that the armor slows down BOTH parties, so there is no advantage for the swordmans. In fact it sort of works the other way. As people get tired, they slow down, and that makes the intial reach advantage more signficant. Most spear points have a decent edge on them, too, through most RPGs don't note it. If someone cloes you can simple move your arms back and slice with the edge. The hard thing is for the swordsman to get in close in the first place. Once there the sword has an advantage, but it is tough to get there. Buut the thing is ideal sword prange is actually just out of striking distance (unlike an RPG real fights tend to occur outside of weapon ranges. If the spearman is using spear and sheild, he can push the attacker back with his shield.

Not all version of BRP have this sort of rule. Stormbringer7s Major Wound might be the best. But, even with such a rule, in many cases the way damage works means than some weapons are not going to be able to do half someone's HP. Maybe , but that sort of makes you CoC campaigns an exception. Most CoC games I've played in and all the published adventures I've read use the Mythos monsters. I did enjoy one exception when a local GM ran an adventres based around gansters that threw us for a loop. We were expecting Mi-Go and ended up facing bootleggers with Tommy Guns. One way to go. BTW, does that work against PCs or is there some sort of save/resistance? Not really. Any game with Cthulhu, Deep Ones, etc isn't realistic. The underlying BRP mechanics are more realistic than d20, but it really don't play much of a factor for that sort of setting. Name a realistic RPG that doesn't have some degree of rle complexity. Please don't imply that GURPS is my game of choice, it isn't. IMO GURPS does more things wrong than it does right (1pt knife damage, the inability to defend youself with a weapon without a superhigh skill or armor). I7d take Timelords, CORPS, HARNMASTER or a bunch of other before GURPS. Because I've yet to see published CoC products that promote any other sort of adventure. Yes, you can take CoC throw out all the mythos stuff, and use it for something else, but that isn't what's been published. Admittedly CoC is my least favorite Chaosium RPG. Again it depends one what sort of campaign. I think I prefer a "medium" caqtegory just to dintinquish between the typical pistol that most people, law enforcement, etc carry and a hold-out gun like a derrigner. But in some games and gneres, it can be important and worth differntiaing. For CoC Light/heavy is fine. For, say a James Bond style episonage game, a modern warfare game, or a Old West campaign, a bit more detail really helps.

I7ve played AFTERMATH too. Yeah, it was a bit complex. Even wrose was the way the boooks were organized. There were lots of sepcial case rules that yo really had to hunt for to use. THe game love of using it'S own technical jargon, and hiding most items behind some sort of identifcation code didn't help. But, if the GM was really up on the rules, it could play fairly well and fast. THe GM really had to but up on the rules though, or it could bog down. It had a couple of things that I wish RQ had (like the different hit location tables you used depending on how you were fighting, so guys with shields tended to get hit on the shield side more, while guys fighting with rapiers took more hits on the leading arm and leg)

I'd say it depends on just what sort of style of gaming you are aiming for. A lot of people who I gamed with who play D&D were quite shocked by how deadly combat is in RQ. I had one group practically going into shock when one guy actually lost an arm. Some poeple like hit locations, other's don't. Likewise if you are shooting for (sorry couldn't resist) a style of play that models reality better, then a little more detail is fine. In fightfights, things like "stopping power" and suppression fire play a factor. They just don't in BRP. Now for CoC that's no biggie, as most of what you can shoot at tends to be bullet resistant anyway. But, for BRP to be used to play in other genres then problems will pop up. For instance, the ability to take out a sentry with a sneak attack with a dagger is important for certain modern day types of adventures. If you can't do it in the game, it's a problem. It is all a trade off between what you want to do, and how much you are willing to pay for it. I've played and liked both simple/abstract RPGs and complex/realistic ones. It depends on what you want to do with it. If reality doesn't make much difference and isn't important for an RPG you can go with D20 Modern. CoC combat rules are pretty weak in general (IMO the worst version of BRP. The goal of the game is what, survive long enough to go insane? Practically everything is immune to most weapons anyway, so the combat rules are almost unnecessary). Sure, loading makes a difference. But the standard damages should be based on the standard ball round. Otherwise the whole damage chart is sort of pointless. I can think of some loadings for 9mm that give it stopping power comparable to a standard .44 magnum round. But I don't expect to see the 9mm listd in the book with the same stats as a .44M. My problem with the 5th edition COC chart is that it out of whack. THe .38 does the same damage as the 9mm, when it shouldn't (a .38 caliber round is actually a shorter, 9mm round with less power, the .38 SPECIAL is the one that is close to a regual 9mm and the ne that is usuable in a .357mag); and the .44M is performace wise too close to the 5.56 and 7.62 rifle rounds. As a side note, I'd agrue against the .357M. Basically it's a 9mm (.357 vs .355) with a lot more power, so much so that it tends to overpenetrate, injuring or killing bystanders. That is why is is no longer the wondergun among the police that it used to be. As for what is easier to shoot mutiple times, so what? If we were running "Gun Range the Role-Playing Game" that might be a factor, but as far as a firefight goes it doesn't make a difference (well, I suppse it might for the D20 crowd. They might need a second box of ammo to get through all those hit points).

There uis some truth to that, but then again shields are not the big problem to a warrior wielding a spear. Most of the time the spear is going to "rebound" off the shield making it easier to bring back into play. Another big thing to consider is just how much of a reach advantage a spear has, especially when used in two hands. WIth a 8 foot spear or so, you probably have about 4-6 feet or reach. Now a foe using a sword and shield is probably reposed behind the shield, and so has to lower his guard a little to swing the aword (another plus for the gladius and other thrusting weapons). So that gives the spear user a good three feet or so. Since most combatnatant tend to stay out of reach of the longest weapon and dart in, that gives the spear user an easier time of attacking and retreating. If the foe manages to get in close, step back AND use the shaft to move his weapon out of line or even bind weapons. If you are fighting with a one-handed spear in a spear and shield arrangement, then you can always fight reposed to get an even fight with a swordsman. I can imagine just how must disagreement there was. There is a lot of variant among spears, especially among Yari. I wouldn't want to try to choke up on a 18-shaku Yari of the Oda clan. One key to choking up on a spear is just how it is weighted. A Point heavy spear is probably a bit easier to pull that off with. I'm not that strong and I have done it. You don't need a big sweeping arc, just a few inches. It doesn't need to be a powerful attack, just enough to mess up you foe and get you time and/or distance.

It actually ins't that easy to get in under the business end. At least not without getting stuck. That's why the boarspear was so useful in hunting. Since the spear is a thrusting weapon, is is very easy to do a bunch of quick stop thrusts to keep an opponent at bay. Choking up on a 6-8 foot spear is effective, although if you really want to take it into melee do what the Zulus did and snap it in half. A 3-4 foot spear in great in close. Also keep in mind that spearmen can use the shaft as a weapon. While the point is the business end, the shaft makes a decent truncheon and can be be rather effective. And then since most weapon are swinging weapons, getting in closer that two feet or so is counterproductive. Then then is backpedaling. Basically in real fighting whenever somene ts too close you step back. So for spear & shield fighting it would go something like* Stab, Stab, Stab. Foe knocks spear aside, steps in, spearman retreats, brings spearpoint back into line.

The "double whammy" makes sense though. Generally speaking someone who has a higher degree of skill tends to produce better quality results than someone who doesn not. This is over an above the success/fail thing. Whne I was working on circuitboards, pretty much everyone could solder a board (that was their job), but some people did better quality work, had better solder joints, didn't "wick" as many wires, etc. My "blah" work was usually better than some people's "best efforts".

I've been working on a BRP variant, and considered the following idea for handling criticals ans specials without the math. It is also slightly inspired by HARNMASTER. Criticals: Any successful skill roll than is "doubles". I.e. 11, 22, 33, etc. Specials: Any successful skill roll than ends in 0 or 5 (ala HARNMASTER). The exception being 55, which is a critical. Fumbles: Any failed skill roll ending in doubles. The character gets a Luck roll to avoid the critical. Note that this will give percentages that are very close to 10%/20% (if you toss in a Luck roll to confirm criticals, you end up close to the 5%/20%).

Not too much, the limitations isn't that of the of the spear, but that of the Phalanx. Phalanxes overlapped the spears for the front four ranks or so. This made turning somewhat tricky. It is why the Phalanx was eventually abandoned. The spear itself is a fine weapon.