McBard

All good points, RMS. I guess, going back to my initial point a few pages ago, I find it unsatisfying that someone with an ATT 10 can ultimately attain the same skill level as someone with an ATT 18. I wouldn't call this "broken" (the game can still be played), but I'd call it a feature of the rules that fails to reflect the real world and even fictional worlds. Or at least the fictional worlds I create in my RPGs. That's it. I would agree with several posters here that the actual number might need further fine-tuning—I've started with the x5 formula—because of Stats going above 100 etc. But in the end, the idea isn't that complicated: highly talented people will attain higher levels of skill than average talented people given the same amount of work.

Uh, no. This thread is about BRP's skill system and which system—as written in several sources or used in home brew—we prefer to use, as the initial post states: I've simply shared some home brew ideas, just as you did in your own first post in the thread: Clearly, you do care how flexible the system, as you've just tweaked it yourself. Look, you don't like the ATT cap idea. Fine. But pay attention to what the thread is about: discussing different approaches ("core" and homebrew) to stat chances.

That's cool. I think at this point we're just having different interpretations of the various adjectives such as "good", "master", "phenomenal" et al and how these adjectives should be reflected using BRP percentiles! To me "good" translates as about 50%, and thus a "phenomenal" stat of 16 or more would not be required to achieve this level...in fact, merely a non-phenomenal stat of 10 could attain 50% using my houserule... Ultimately, my opinion is that talent should not only affect how easily one can pick up a skill, but also how high one can eventually develop it. (e.g. Einstein would never have been able to reach Physics 99% with merely a 15 INT—and, inversely, I defy you to show me someone with an INT 10 who could come close to the same level of expertise merely through "hard work"...not gonna happen). In any event, I'd venture to say that we both agree that the beauty of BRP is that it's flexible enough to be able to fit differing visions.

I'd say even after character creation. Actually, it essentially does mean that—and not recognizing this fact is what is crazy. Or maybe it just means focusing your terms more clearly: being "good at something" is not the same as being a "virtuoso". I could see someone being a virtuoso pianist (i.e 90% or higher) with perhaps merely a 16 related stat..but nothing lower. Being "good at something" sounds more like 50% (so notice how a STAT 10 character in this system could achieve this level). I like to follow roughly CoC's guidelines that say 25% is hobby level, 50% is about an average level of professional skill, 75% is a noted professional level, and 90% is world renowned. There's absolutely no way someone should be able to achieve the 90% or higher level with anything less than a 16 related stat. And, on a side note, I like to assign the average of two stats to most skills. In the Pianist skill example, I'd probably assign DEX/POW. I like this idea--but I'd use it along side of a cap: the improvement die lessens to 1d4 after STATx3% and to 1d2 after STATx4%...and then stops at STATx5%.

Agreed. In fact, I've substantially increased the influence of stats on skills, and have weighted to a far greater extent talent (the Stat) over training (the Skill). I've always detested the fairly common RPG dynamic of a character with a very high stat (e.g DEX 18) but with a very low, stat-related skill (e.g. this same DEX 18 character with merely a Tumble 5%, for instance). And the inverse is just as bad, perhaps worse: a character with a medium to low stat (DEX 10) achieving master level in a related skill (Tumble 90%). D&D 3.x is very much guilty of this dynamic, but BRP over the years has only slightly mitigated the problem. The RQ3 skill categories still aren't weighted correctly, in my opinion. For starters, I think skills should be capped at Related Stat x 5. Thus, the above DEX 10 character can never develop the Tumble skill above 50% (10 x 5).

All good points, thanks. Per RQ3, since all melee attack modifiers use the Manipulation skills modifer— which favors INT, DEX (primaries) and to a lesser extent STR (secondary)—then a "finesse damage bonus" based upon INT and DEX might be a bit much. Especially with Impales occuring at the 20% (special) rate.

I'm curious to know people's experience with or thoughts on houseruling a "finesse" damage bonus. That is, where the core STR + SIZ damage bonus die represents additional damage from power-type attacks, this one would represent accuracy/finesse-based damage bonus. Using the same scale as the other (i.e. 25-32= +1d4 et al), perhaps certain types of weapons (rapiers, daggers) would receive a bonus damage die based upon, say, DEX + INT. This finesse damage bonus might include missile weapons, as well. My first thought on balance issues would be that one could only apply one or the other--i.e. an attack with a rapier would not also get the STR+SIZ damage bonus--only the DEX+INT one. Just brainstorming at the moment. EDIT: I realize the Impale is the core approach to the spirit of what I'm proposing, and so a finesse damage bonus die AND the possiblity of an Impale might be too much. Perhaps the finesse damage bonus would replace the Impale rules....

The chief reason I decided to go with a single special/critical mechanic at 10% was that it can be determined without math calculation at all: A d100 roll that ends in a '0' and succeeds is a special success. A d100 roll that ends in a '0' and fails is a special failure. Although I completely agree that the 5% or 20% calculation isn't too difficult to determine on the fly (no chart needed), I really like the game design elegance of the "roll ending in '0'" simplicity. If you want to retain the 20% rate, just rule that any roll that ends in a '0' or a '5' is a special result. (This is how Harnmaster works, btw, and it's the system from which I stole the idea...). I've never been a fan of the "super success" rule (i.e. criticals), but that's just me. I think a single grain at 10% splits the difference between two at 5% and 20% just fine in game play.

I have to agree. I think "more modern" would mean "less busy". In fact, I would prefer (perhaps in the minority) a cover without pictures, and instead in their place a very simple logo or icon. And nothing else. Something akin to the collector's edition of the Warhammer RPG: Obviously, BRP couldn't be this basic--you'd have to add some text--but why not just a simple, confident riff on the Chaosium dragon logo with "d100" or "BRP" underneath it? (By "dragon logo" I mean the image that appears in the upper-left corner of Chaosium's site.

Thanks! Ah, very nice.

(longtime COC/RQ player, first-time poster here--glad to have found you!) Two comments: 1) I think a look at ENWorld over the past couple of years will uncover a fairly large outcry for a more gritty d20 approach (e.g. Grim n' Gritty [obviously], even True 20 to a certain extent...). Whether this minority outcry translates into BRP gameplay and sales, I don't know. 2) I find it a bit ironic that BRP would be the perfect system to drive a Middle Earth campaign (whether a Jackson-based or more source-pure one) given that LOTR is usually cited as more of an inspiration for D&D and so very unlike Glorantha.