Atgxtg

Yeah, that's why I brought up the "Defesive Grenade" classification. Generally speaking the thrower is ususally within the secondary blast radius of a frag grenade. Yes, that's why I like to use the range as a factor to detemine the amount of error. If you are throwing at a target 20m away you're grenade is going to end up within 10m of the target, unless you drop it, or it rolls off a roof, or you are to hyper and overdo it, or falls down a hole or something. BTW with the method I mentioned earlier, you'd need to fail by more than 50% to be off by more than 10m. Yes, and grenades are going to explode somewhere.

I'd suggest multiplying the distance to the target and the percentage failed by to get the distance missed by, in some random direction determined by rolling 1D8, with 1 being straight past, 2 being past and to the right (45), 3 being to the right (90) and so forth. If you want a simplier method just use half the distance tot he target. So if a character threw a grande at someone 70 feet away, and had a 57% chance of success and rolled an 89, he'd fail by around 30% (it's 31% but close counts with hand grenade) or 21 feet. If he rolled a 5 on the D8 it would be short and to the left (45 degrees), which would probably be bad news for both the thrower and the target. If using the simpler method the grenade would be off by 35 feet. BTW, fragmentation grenades all called defensive grenades because the thrower will be within the blast radius and will need to have cover.

Yeah, I think Stormbringer's roots were showing. One of SB authors, Ken St. Andre, designed Tunntels & Trolls, and RPG somewhat notorious for it's lack of any sort of game balance. Generally speaking, in T&T most contests tend to be lop-sided, and SB's magic rules are similar. Those with magic, especially demon items, tend to run roughshod over those who don't have magic, which is most people. It wasn't tough for a competent sorceror to summon a demon weapon that did far more damage than Stormbringer. IMO, the new scale used to rate (1 point per die shift) demon abilities in Elric! was a improvement, and I'm generally not that fond of the rule changes in Elric! I think they are trying to reinforce the world view. Modern people tend to expect people to "be fair" and look at other as equals, value all points of view and play by the same rules. But historically most cultures tended to be more tribal and believed that their own group and culture were superior o that of other peoples. Thus an Olanthi "knows" he is better than a Lunar and vice-versa. It not exactly hypocrisy as people don't actually view each other as equal or the situation as the same. The quote just extends that thinking to the spirit world.

Dou you place an there an upper limit on that? Otherwise novice archers with a high DEX 5% bow skill could delay their shots for 10-15 DEX ranks and shoot at over 100%, all the time. In Elric! the +10% per 5 ranks gave you a practical limit of +20-30% but with +10% per rank it could really add up. Just the sample Archer from the core book (DEX 13, Hunting Bow 60%) could delay for a dozen DEX ranks and attack at 180%! IMO capping the aim bonus at half again or twice skill would make sense

Oh, let me add Action Movie Physics as another RPG based off of the old James Bond RPG. It's not quite as close to the Bond RPG as CLASSIFIED, but very close. So close in fact that I suspect the author of one game was familiar with the other, as both game share the same air vehicle list, with the same stats.

So much of Gming comes down to presentation. A gm can make the kindest act appear cruel or vice versa just by presentation. Having Merlin say" Sir Reynard, hmm...what did I save him? Oh, yes, I remember, dragon bait!" can change how the whole thing plays out-even if the GM doesn't get back to it. "out of Story" is always a troublesome situation. Obviously the GM want's all the players to be active participants, but actions have to have consequences, so it's a bit of a juggling act. I think magical healing is okay as long as the players don't think they can rely on it. A trip into Faerie so Merlin could replenish his stash is always a possibly too. Player tend to latch onto any perks and never let them go unless given a reason.

You could come back to this later by having Merlin hijack Reynard for some task in the future to "make up for" the magic that Merlin had to use (not to mention the 3 moon nap he suffered later) to heal him. You could make some sort of nasty quest that the knight was fated to do and thus Merlin healed him for a specific reason. That would allow you to keep Merlin from seeming like some sort of paramedic or D&D cleric - especially if Merlin mentions it in an non-flattering way before (and after)sending Reynard off on a quest. "Hurry along, you're the one fated to delay the dragon long enough for me to fetch that moss I need. Wha? Will it kill you?, That's for you to find out." Then later on..."Yes, the moss, now I can finally have a decent cup of tea."

No they didn't. Like many other things the clergy didn't approve of. Think of that the next time your knights get shot at by Milanese Crossbowmen. Plus it could away open the door for an indulgence.

I think the thing is that knights will end up eclipsing heroic ancestors, making the link less important. Being related to some "great hero" who died with 6 000 Glory probably doesn't mean as much when you've got 20 000 Glory. Exactly. Glory is sort of a knightly prerogative, so almost any knight is going to have more glory than a non-knightly ancestor. It's also why medieval historians used to retoractively make famous people such as Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great knights. By chivalric thinking such men would have had to be knights in order to be so great. Probably, but it would most likely be frowned upon by the church. Most such vows were usually sworn "by" something, typically a God, and is actually what constitutes "swearing" -not profanity. Some. I kinda used them to add flavor to some Saxon NPCs, but didn't use them for any PKs- mostly due to my downplaying Saxon heritage in order to make the Saxon PKs part of Aurelius & Uthers cadre or "modern" knights. I did adapt the shapeshifter rules (quite a bit) to have a PK Ulfsark. A PK went mad during a fight, accomplish a few heroic things (the player was rolling low, and the penalties he was suffering ended up turning his die rolls into critical successes), and chased the enemy off into the forest. When he came too he met a strange one eyed traveler...

The simple solution would be to subtract 10m/second from their MOV to overcome the force that is pulling them downward. Yes that's like a bug hitting a windshield causing the car to explode. Plus even if the griff were travelling flat out, it would also have to withstand the impact. Exactly. I'd be inclined to just add add some multiple of it's MOV to it's STR for it's damage bonus.

He is, just not his own. It must be all the Mythos tomes the academics run into while making Library Use rolls. A few failed SAN rolls and they start thinking that adding two numbers use natural LOGs is the way to go.

Fair enough, I'll point the finger higher up on the educational food chain. Still, somebody somewhere decided upon this method.

Yes. You can use one for critcals and the other for specials. The idea is to eliminate the tables. Another possibility would be to have crticals end on 1's specials on 2's &3's and so forth. That way you could get up to ten different success (and failure) levels without any sort of table. -In fact, I think I might just write up a game that uses that.

You could go with the 0's and 5's like HARN does.

Probably. To strike with the second weapon weapons the rider would have to twist and lean over more than normal, not to mention exposing more of hisemlf to attack in order to get within reach. I could see negating some or part of the mounted bonus. Maybe +2/-2 instead of +5/-5? I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble though. There are a lot of reasons for a mounted knight to carry a shield, or even to dismount.

The solution there would be to shift 00 into he success range, but then 99 would always have to be a fumble. Yeah, pretty much. Unless the characters are ultra skilled, I know I don't have to bother looking at any roll over 25, and that's most of them.

Wow! I really am starting to think modern teachers are deliberately trying to sabotage the education system. Couldn't they have picked another method? I'd have done a partial subtraction method. That is I's subtract 25 from both values to get 13 and 300, then take the 13 off of the 300 to get 287.

Yeah, I've noticed an anti-math trend among gamers these days. Don't get me wrong, I think gaming math should generally be easy for the players at the table, but I've seen people be so obsessed with keeping the math simple that they are willing to accept rules that don't make sense and/or don't work very well.

I can do the math in my head, it's pretty easy. Critical Chance in standard RQ/BRP is 1/20th skill, so 1 know that it's 1% in skill is below 30, 2% at 30, 3% at 50, 4% at 70, and so on. Special Chance in Standard BRP/RQ is 1/5th skill, so I know that 1% is skill is below 8%, 2% 8%, 3% is 13% etc. Basically is't twice the tens die +1% if the 1s die is a 3-7 and 2% if it is an 8-9. Fumble Chance is the reverse of the critical chance, and the two will add up to 6% as long as skill is below 100% So I can tell right away that a chance with a 73% skill has a 4% chance of a critical,a 15% chance of a special, and a 2% (99-00) chance of a fumble As for other methods: Doubles works good although it gives a 10% chance of a critical, and is close to what some BRP variants, such as Stormbringer use for criticals.. HARN uses rolls that end in 0 or 5. This is within 1% of the special chance in standard BRP. If you use 0&5 for specials and even tens digits for crticals, you get chances very close to BRP.

Yup, it is. It depends. Most two weapon styles are actually defensive in nature. For you variant, I'd suggest letting them swtich between the extra d6 damage or an extra d6 protection on a partial success. That way it's not quite as good as a shield on defense. Not really. Keep in mind that the splitting of attack also keep the character open to getting hit more. In Pendragon two attacks at 10 aren't as good as one attack at 20. Or raise his DEX. Imagine what a knight with a 22 DEX could do. Two attacks at 22 is going to devastate most opponents. Mechanically, the high DEX requirment not much different than having another skill except that age will eventually play a factor, making it much tougher to maintain. That's nice,but it leads to a lot more dead characters. Like it or not, "what works best mechanically" is going to be a huge factor in determining the outcome. It's why most of my PKs tend to stick with Sword & Shield. Mechanically, it surpasses all the other options. Someone with Sword at 20 essentially has 6 extra points of armor, and doesn't have to worry about his weapon breaking.

THat's a perfectly fine take, except that two weapons aren't the same as a two-handed weapon. The idea behind the bonus for two handed weapons is that you'll get more force behind a heavier weapon used two handed, something that wouldn't happen with two lighter weapons. Two swords just don't hit like one greatsword.

I came up with the following hoserule as I didn't have Tales of Mystic Tournaments at the time : The character's might have skill in each weapon. The character uses the lower of his DEX score or the weapon skills for his skill score with both weapons. Each attack is treated separately (like with animals that get two claws) and opponents must split their skill. A character can opt to give up one of his attacks to get 5 points of protection on a partial success with the other weapon. For instance, let's say that a Young Knight had DEX 12, Sword 18, Mace 15. If he fought with Sword &Mace he would fight at a skill of 12 (his DEX, the lower of the three scores) for both weapons. If his DEX were 16 or higher, then he'd be limited by his Mace skill of 15. Overall it's pretty close to the official rule except that: I used DEX instead of creating a new skill (There are pros and cons to each approach- the skill makes a lot of sense, while DEX really limits this to well coodinated people) I treated the attacks as two separate attacks, as with most animals.

If you wanted too, you could reduce it down further by just using characteristic rolls. Skills, if you want them, could just apply a modifier or multiplier to the attribute rolls. It all comes down to just how much you want to abstract things.

The danger of course is that of making something exotic become mundane. Stuff like magic, epic quests, and even high stats are good in large part because of their rarity. Once they become commonplace they loose their impact. As I used to tell my players, "if everybody has an 18 Strength, then nobody does."

I had a player who wanted to try this, but it was slightly more practical in their case. Early on the original PKs had to get a griffon egg in order to complete a quest (one PK wanted to marry a faerie and her father set some conditions, including the grffon egg, and a golden bridle that tamed any beast it was placed upon-that I subconsciously plagiarized from the Myth of Bellophon), and fought a pair of griffons to do so. After the adventure the PK decided to form the knightly Order of the Griffon, and made retrieving a griffon or griffon egg a requirement for membership. So, some year later, the sons of the original PKs were on an adventure and came back with a couple of griffon eggs, which hatched in baby griffons. The knights gave one away to Count Salisbury, but kept the other one, with one PK hoping to train it as a mount. I used the menagerie rules from the Book of the Manor (one of the few bits that didn't make it to the Book of the Estate) making it a very expensive pet, and I have some horse training rules that could have been adapted to the griffon - I figured it would be more stubborn and harder to train than a horse, but it never came to be. In general I agree that a PK riding a griffon is probably too high fantasy to fit Pendragon. It's okay as a one off for an adventure, and might work for a PK during the time of great enchantment, but otherwise feels too D&D-ish. BTW, my intent was to foreshadow the Adventure of the Knight of the Griffon, from the GPC, and I wonder if my players will put it all together when it happens.