soltakss

A couple of times recently, I've encountered a loop when viewing threads using the New Posts feature. I press New Posts and read the posts from the bottom (oldest) up. When I reach the topmost entry (most recent) and press Next it takes me to the previous topic, when I press Next it takes me to the last one and so on.

I'd say that in this example it would depend on how the climber learned the Climb skill. If he was good at climbing trees, went on to work as a cat burglar and specialised in climbing walls without ropes then I'd say he needed a new skill. If he was a mountain climber who used ropes then I'd say it was part of his skill. What you could do is use Climb with a penalty unless the PC has shown proficiency in rappelling, in which case the penalty is 0. PCs could also buy off a penalty through use of the skill.

That would probably work. The PDF is out now, so it is probably a moot point. If something is included in the Introduction explaining terms then that should be OK. Wasn't Tonto a Mythic Western character? Last of the Mohicans? Look at the number of films with Native Americans working alongside cowboys or soldiers, acting as scouts, gunfighters or lawmen. It's only an issue if the GM/Players make it an issue.

The AlternateEarthYahoo guys are - me. I try and approve people I have heard of or don't sound spammy straight away. I hope you find the group useful. I haven't checked my home email account since Friday (International Women's Day and my wife complaining that I always go on the computer when I get home) but I'll keep everyone updated if I get a reply.

It looks reasonable to me. I'd allow a grapple counter if the character has a free action, so a punch attack and grapple counter would be fine. Even without a hand, he should be able to counter some actions with a grapple roll, perhaps at -20%, simply by putting his arm in the way. I'd also allow things like body checks (SIZ vs SIZ) to barge the opponent out of the way. Above all, ensure that if flows well and doesn't get stalled by discussions about why the PC can't do such and such.

Ashes to Ashes? What's that? Is it for BRP? Sorry, I just wanted to watch your head explode.

And don't forget Realism Rule # 1 "If you can do it in real life you should be able to do it in BRP".

Not really. As a GM, I wanted the PCs to spend POW on everything but Divine Magic, so I encouraged them to spend on Enchantments etc. They were quite willing to build up 3 or 4 POW enchantments on each hit location as well as 7 or 8 POW enchantments on the whole body. In that kind of game, POW is cheap and fluid - you get it and spend it, then get some more. BRP is probably not as fluid as that, though.

I'm sorry about that - it wasn't my intention at all. I prefer RQ to BRP in any case. No, the system is not flawless. It all depends what is expected from a combat system. Personally, I find combat pretty boring in most systems - that's why I like to try new tactics and techniques in combat, or avoid combat where possible. It all boils down to how combat works. In D&D you work out a target figure (based on your Level and equipment, your opponent's level/Hit Dice and equipment), roll a D20 and apply damage if necessary. In BRP you work out a target figure (based on your skill, equipment and combat modifiers), roll D100 and apply damage if necessary but your opponent has a chance to react and counter some or all of the damage. So, BRP has an extra step to combat but isn't that different to D&D, really. It can be slow (with evenly matched opponents) but can be very quick (with mismatched opponents).

It's a gut feeling. It feels about right - I wouldn't want to pay a lot more and there's not much justification to spend 2 POW per point - BRP is normally based on spending increments of 1 POW to get things. If you spend 1 POW / Location to get 1D6 points everywhere then you spend 7 POW to get an average of 3.5 APs. If you spend 1 POW / AP for non-locational enchantments then you spend 3-4 POW for the same benefit. So, the enchantment for non-locational games is actually cheaper. You could raise it to 2 POW per point, but I can't really see why you'd need to. In any case, it's a suggestion for a way to convert an obselete game mechanic from a different game to BRP, so it's hardly canon.

I'd do what Thalaba says - make him attempt a Grapple/Fist Attack to get into position, then fire and auto-hit the head (I'd say 96-00 still misses). I wouldn't ignore armour, unless you aimed at the eye at half chance. Sure, it's bypassing an aimed shot into melee penalty but that's what Heroic actions should be able to do. In RQM I'd allow them to spend a Hero Point to try this, in BRP I suppose you could use a Fate Point.

The base chance is just a starting chance. It is not an absolute minimum. If you have a character who is at base chance and is fighting in the dark, fighting from the ground, swimming while heavily encumbered then his skills will be reduced, even though he is at the base chance. I wouldn't reduce skills to below 5%, personally, as 1% is too low even for me.

At Extreme Range you are at 1/4 chance. Throw in strong winds, poor visibility and so on and you are even more reduced. So, I'd allow it if only because players are unlikely to make it and they will feel really good if they succeed. As for historical bows, they were surprisingly effective especially when in the hands of master bowmen.

The "Great" Dalmuti has been stirring things up, hasn't he? As far as I know, Paolo (RosenMcStern in real life) does not work for Chaosium but has been playing BRP-based games for many years. He has written Stupor Mundi for RQM which is compatible with BRP and is planning to produce a number of BRP supplements. But a shill? I don't think so. "You'll have to excuse my tone" is a similar statement to "I'm not a racist but ..." - it just means that something rude is going to follow. Paolo is definitely not sycophantic but he does recognise what is a problem and what isn't. I think it is more a case of your incorrect reading of the intention behind his posts has clouded your judgement. When there are serious errors in the product then an errata is justified. The errors that have been highlighted so far are relatively minor and won't stop anyone from playing the game. It might be worth producing an errata as part of another supplement, in the same way that RQ had errata in the RQ2 rulebook and in RQ2 Companion. But, in my opinion, the level and number of errors does not make producing an errata a priority. Mongoose had far more serious erros in their RQ supplements and haven't produced an official errata, so why should Chaosium? It's a business decision and, I think, a fair one. The point that I think he was making, or what I immediately thought he was making, is that if his very picky group has no problems with the rules then most other people will have no problems with the rules. Older players will always argue about the rules. I am disappointed that BRP wasn't more heavily based on RQ and I would use more RQ rules in any BRP game. However, that doesn't mean that I am disappointed with the BRP rules. New players will accept that there are inconsistencies and either move on to another game or will try and solve them through forums such as this one, by buying new supplements or by houseruling. It isn't that big a deal. Paolo is definitely not an apologist for Chaosium. And what about being rude and argumentative? Has that helped your case at all? So, helping other people produce BRP supplements isn't being constructive? Not at all. Perhaps you are being over sensitive. And rude. Everyone has an opinion. If I slagged everyone off who disagreed with me then I would spend most of my time angry at people. Paolo's opinion matters. Your opinion matters. My opinion matters. Chaosium probably won't take any of out opinions into account, but hey that's life, get used to it. No, we should be as annoyed about people being rude and argumentative. Oh. sorry, that's just you. This has been a constructive thread. I hope it doesn't degenerate into a slanging match. Maybe the soothing sound of mandibles will calm things down a bit.

I haven't played D&D for a long time, but ... You attack a human or elf or half-orc fighter at the same level with the same armour and they all have the same AC. You have a chance to hit and you try and roll it. Just as boring as you say BRP is. You attack different monsters with different Hit Dice and the target number changes, but all you are doing is rolling a D20 to try and get under a certain number. That's boring as well. In BRP your Target Number depends on your skill, mainly, with a few modifiers. In D&D your Target Number depends on your level and the opponent's AC/Hit Dice. However, once you have rolled your target number, in D&D you roll for damage and that's it. In BRP your opponent can Parry or Dodge, you roll your damage, it may or may not get through the opponent's armour, it may, or may not, be a Major Wound and have extra effects, you may or may not have to roll Hit Location and the damage done may or may not have different effects depending on the hit location struck. Saying that you always have a 70% chance to hit is like saying that "Every unarmed human Level 0 NPC always has AC10" - yes, but there is a lot more to combat than Hit Chance or AC. You jockey for position. Get behind him - that's +20%. Get two people attacking him - who does he parry? Hit him with 2 swords - which one does he parry? Try and trip him up or knock him over - now he is on the ground you have +20%. He hasn't got a helmet? Try and aim for his head. He is using a 2H weapon? Try breaking the weapon instead of the opponent. He is sitting on a horse? Attack the horse's legs and see him fall off. He is using a shield? Grab the shield and try and wrestle it away from him while your friend hits him with a sword. Throw sand into his eyes, say his mother wears army boots, try and distract him with clever banter, rush at him with an ear-splitting roar, throw a dagger at him rather than hit him with your sword. There are many tactics that you can use to make combats more interesting. And in D&D? You hit a zombie (AC whatever) and do damage to it. Boring. The thing about zombies in BRP is that they don't have a concept of total hit points, so you can chop away at them and not kill them while they gnaw away at you. They are also dead and scary, especially when in a graveyard. If you are using Sanity then seeing a zombie in a graveyard will give you a fright.

And someone who has 40 points of Crush who blows 20 in one go still has 20 points left. If it's a case of blowing all your magic in the vain hope of surviving then that's what you do, in certain circumstances. An enchanted flying carpet is normally better than a Fly spell, an enchanted scrying mirror is better than a scrying spell, enchanted armour is better than spells and so on. Enchantments are normally better than using the equivalent spells because they are always on and don't need recasting. Different rules for different systems. If you use Hit Locations than 1 POW/AP/Loc is far too high a cost. If you don't then 1 POW/1D6 AP across the whole body is too low a cost. Nobody uses Hit Locations and No-Hit Locations in the same game, so it shouldn't really matter.

I know some people who played in a Traveller scenario where after 30 minutes the GM put down the scenario notes and said something along the lines of "Well, you missed the important clue and the ship you were meant to intercept has been destroyed by pirates" then he went home ... That's why I use BFAs in my games (Big Fluorescent Arrows in case you wondered).

RQ has always had woefully underpowered NPC Runelevels, with the honourable exceptions of RuneMasters, RQ3 Sazdorf and Dorastor. It always amazed me that NPC were generated as if they were highish skilled startups, not as fully fledged NPC characters. Fairly potent, but next to nothing when compared with Shield 10/Crush 10. Even Bladesharp 8 cuts through the armouring enchantment like a hot knife through butter. 1 AP per POW expended, adds to normal AP protection even with random APs, treated in every way as normal armour/skin armour depending on what form it takes. Against starting characters the Coders are powerful. Against reasonably proficient PCs they are a match. Against RuneLevel PCs they would go down without much of a struggle. The Damage Boosted arrows/javelins might cause a few worries, but not for long. If a campaign lasts for 10 scenarios then PCs won't get powerful enough to match the Coders. After 100 scenarios, the Coders won't match the PCs. It's all a matter of perspective.

Of course, RQ3 was the Prince of BRP ... Yes, it is very useful. Strangers in Prax has the Coders with cloaks enchanted for extra APs. They don't have enchanted weapons, but that might be because the Coders were not set up to be particularly powerful. Enchanting armour cost 1 POW to get 1D6 APs in a location, so for a human it takes 7 POW to get an average of 3-4 APs all over. For 7 POW you could get Shield 7, as a Priest or Acolyte (if cults have the Shield spell), so enchnatment is not that powerful. We had a house rule that no object could be enchanted beyond its original APs, so Iron Plate (9 APs) could only be enchanted to 18 APs. However, we also played that skin and clothing could be enchanted as high as was required - it's inconsistent but we liked the idea of walking around in our enchanted silk pyjamas. Absolutely. In our Dorastor Campaign, the PCs routinely enchanted their skin, armour and weapons. Sure, it costs POW, but with a POW-fluid game POW is a commodity that is spent very easily. As a matter of interest, why do you say this? What is it about the excellent Strangers in prax that you don't like?

Which is, of course, what the militia are for.

Trig (I don't know his/her real name) has some RQ material coming out soon and posted the following links: Wild West: Mongoose Publishing :: View topic - Runequest Wild West Rulebook Ancient Greece: Mongoose Publishing :: View topic - Runequest Ancients RPG - Preview Available I know it isn't BRP but it should be BRP compatible.

I think the rationale was that a 2H Short Spear has less leverage than a 2H Long Spear and a Pike, so you get less force behind the blow. They also have smaller heads and thus make smaller holes. Certainly, a 2H Short Spear does more damage than a 1H Short Spear because you can get more purchase/leverage with two hands than one. Have you seen a pike? Nasty looking things they are.

A small knife will do 1D3 damage, on an impale it does 1D3+3, doing a maximum of 6 for a weedy person with no damage bonus. Using the Location subrules against an unarmed character with 5 hit points in the abdomen this can knock them down and kill them if they do not receive medical help. With a damage bonus it can even kill them outright in a single blow. Armour tends to help a bit, but even knives are still dangerous. On the point of damages for javelins etc, I still use RQ3 damage for most ancient weapons simply because they seem to be fairly balanced and reasonable. This applies both to Mongoose RQ and BRP. Not using locations means that damage is less effective, but using such substandard subrules means you get substandard effects. But, I am a RQ-Head and my biais is now showing.

How fickle people are. First it was "I won't buy anything from Mongoose because they are Evil Exploiters", now it's "I won't buy anything from Chaosium because they are Evil Exploiters". Let me let you in on a secret - all companies are Evil Exploiters. If a company has cashflow problems it will stop paying invoices, if a company can find a way out of paying anyone for anything then they will do so. People should take legal advice if they haven't been paid for services rendered, that's why laywers exist after all. Once you have accepted this and don't take things personally then things (like morals) become a lot easier. I haven't been burned by Chaosium so I don't have a personal grudge against them, if I had been then I would probably be justified in not trusting them. However, I can't take it personally when somebody else is affected - it just isn't personal to me. Whilst I feel for Loz, Jason and whoever else has not been paid or has had projects put on hold, this won't particularly affect my purchasing decisions. I will buy BRP products because they are BRP products, not because Chaosium are Angels or Devils - they are neither. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but I don't think that throwing our toys out of our prams over the fact that Chaosium don't seem to have a lot of business sense is going to achieve much.

We normally play that you declare a parry/dodge in response to opponents' declarations but you only roll it if it is necessary. So, if someone hits then you roll the parry, if someone misses and you use riposte/disarming/swordbreaking rules then you can roll a parry. If you fumble your parry or dodge then something bad should happen. This particular fumble is important if you are facing a number of opponents - one of the other attacks automatically hits. I'd hold it off and let the next attack in the same melee hit as you are not in a position to defend yourself properly. I'd also allow you to use a combat action to get rid of the fumble effect so that you can start again from scratch.