RosenMcStern

Er... a guy with STR and CON of 18 is 10 Toughness 36 Effort, so 10/30 is in no way outrageous. Toughness 20 is a dragon with good stats, nothing a well prepared fighter PC could not handle. In my opinion the best way to handle divinities is "advanced combat not allowed". You can still try to swordfight with them, but the deity will be able to use its peculiar strengths to prevent the cunning player from overcoming it with a couple of sword slashes. Essentially, it is a matter of "not gaming the system". You can defeat a deity in a physical confrontation if you are truly a master of combat or another discipline such as Agility, not by gaming the system and packing enough damage to overcome an arbitrary Toughness. You know the old saying "If it has stats, you can kill it".

And after this please do not accuse me of bad jokes any more Now this is what one would call having a dirty mind... (in fact, I had almost replied that I felt sorry for Lloyd's players if their GM had such thoughts, but I made my Restraint check)

The answer to the second question is on Facebook.

A background trait is, for example, "Queenslander". You can possibly teach Australian English to someone, but in order to become a Queenslander you have to live Down Under for some time. Needless to say, "Queenslander" includes knowledge of English and the ability to talk with an Australian accent. As for Monk orders, just declare that the Member of the Order Trait includes the necessary knowledge of magic. The rules about Arcane Magic do not define the trait explicitly just in order to leave this possibility open.

Why? Isn't that canon that you die in ST when your shirt is red?

<teaser>Project Z will include precog rules.</teaser>

If they wear a red shirt, then they certainly qualify as canon fodder Another canonical way of doing this would be giving the ambushers the same shooting skills as stormtroopers (between 1 and 2%, but only with favourable weather conditions). Introduce glancing blows, bibles in the pocket, and other classical tricks to keep people alive. But in the end, the point is simple: modern weapons are deadly, one shot, one kill. If you wish to run a moderately plausible sci-fi game, then you have to accept the fact that characters can be one-shotted by a hidden sniper. And of course, there is the Revolution D100 way: the real combat is not the shooting, but the Perception vs. Stealth Conflict that dictates whether the ambush succeeds or not.

Aaah , Loz and Pete are as devilish as usual. Second time I say "no way we could even talk about doing this RPG" and then I discover they were actually much further in the negotiation phase. (and if anyone is wondering, the first time it was for RuneQuest)

And when even the Esteemed Competition starts making educated guesses, then you know your teasers are hitting the spot So what do you think? Did Loz nail it? Battle of the Planets first aired in 1978, so it meets the "more than 40 years" condition. As for Iron Sky... it was an IP we considered doing some years ago, as did Cubicle 7 which was our publishing partner at the time, but the copyright owners never wanted to engage in negotiations for RPGs. The rest of the entertainment industry does not have a great consideration for us, let us face it.

Conan 2D20 has a line manager who perhaps knows something about BRP, so some concepts might have transpired from one game to the other. And this is why in Revolution we compensate the single skill for Close Combat with the specalization given by Traits. You are generally good at anything, but only excel in the specific weapons you have studied.

You are not too far from the truth, Jakob (except that it is not Tekumel), but you did not hit the jackpot yet. Let us say that this setting is not very popular in Germany, so you might not have thought of it for this reason. Anyway, the answer to the first question is out on Facebook. Please go to the Revolution D100 or Alephtar Games FB page to satify your curiosity.

The moment of the unveiling of our next project is approaching. Soon we will have all the paperworks in place and make the announcement to our closest partners. And in a few days' time, our fans will know, too. What is Project Z, then? To make it short, it is... the Roleplaying Game you have been waiting for more than forty years! We will reveal the details about the project one little bit at a time. Maybe I will answer some questions about the game, and maybe not. For sure, I will answer the following four questions, one at a time and over a period of some weeks. And when all questions have a reply, everything will become clear. WHERE will evil come from? WHEN will justice triumph? WHO will fight for mankind? WHAT is the sound of justice?

I see where this is coming from. The point is that you are trying to recreate a casting procedure that is based on resource expenditure (EP) as its limiting factor. And then you are trying to automate the procedure for periodic recasting of the power so that you need not replay the casting at regular intervals. But this is unnecessary and prone to quirks and abuses. You have already found one weak point in the whole mechanism(sleeping). There are certainly others, and enterprising players will soon find and exploit them. The rules about Channelling represent exactly this, the repetition of casting and the act of periodic meditation to regain energies; abstracted in a single number so that you do not have to keep the procedure identical to the one you use in combat, and you do not have to continuously check whether there is something that disturbs your concentration. Your character knows how to do it, and that's all. The rules are not clear (I am rewriting them) but they are enough to keep long duration magic under control. Even skilled magicians usually have one or two long durations at most upon themselves, and something smaller cast on a shorter term basis on party members.

I am rephrasing exactly these parts of the rules at the moment to be clearer. This sounds seriously overpowered to me. Why should you pay less to maintains spells on yourself?

This is a very intersting topic indeed. No silly question here. There are two facets to the problem. One of them is common to many non-Chaosium implementations of D100, whereas the other is unique to Revolution D100. The first facet is that not being able to "push" a specific skill advancement with training is a feature introduced with the often-blamed but in the end not entirely bad Mongoose RQ version 1. In this advancement model, which was inherited by OpenQuest, Legend, Mythras and Renaissance, too, the player has full control over what skills improve, unlike classic BRP where you are limited by "skill ticks". As a result, the ability to guide one's character advancement with training, which is quite big in classsic BRP, was nerfed in MRQ1, and I cannot remember if it exists at all in Mythras - and if it does, you cannot advance much with training. This is a good feature, as it keeps things balanced, and I have not seen many players of OQ or Mythras complaining about it. The second facet is that the specific skill system in RD100 is even less compatible with advancement by training than the other MRQ derivatives. An advancement in a skill has heavy consequences in Rd100, so I have strong doubts about letting players obtain one by throwin tons of cash at an instructor as we all used to do in the glorious old days of RQ. However, if you really want to introduce training, you should make it a downtime conflict. You could for example assess half of the trainee skill as the RP to beat, perhaps modifying it by the difference between the trainer and the trainee skill level. Then the trainer rolls Communication [Teach] once per week until the RPs are beaten, and this adds +1 to the improvement points for that specific skill, to be combined with any IP allocated to the skill during last improvement session until enough IPs are accumulated to grant an improvement roll. Consequences accumulated in the conflict should apply to the trainee and not the trainer, and could either be heavy debts incurred to pay for the instructor, or "Lessions not fully learned" that make some skill rolls fail at the most inconvenient time during an adventure. Finally, I invite you and your player to think of an important point. In classic BRP there was a limit at 75% for skill training, and the time needed to train a skill also put a cap on the viability of training sessions. In general, one used training to bring skill from its base value to approximately 50-60%, more rarely 70-75%, and then started to rely on experience checks. In other words, training provided the basic score for making the skill usable, but mastery came with experience. The Trait system in Rd100 does exactly the same thing in a simpler way. Assume you are not particularly gifted or trained in a skil, your base chance is around 25%. However, the first point you devote to a Trait brings you chance to around 55%, which is already enough to start relying on that skill during an adventure. This is more or less what you would get with RQ training, just with less maths involved and time spent at the table doing something else than roleplaying the adventurous part of the game. To me, it sounds more than enough.

You might have both Taste and Alchemy (Synergistic Traits, page 26) can do the trick, or that you can have Taste Analysis as a Trait that replaces the combination of the two but cannot be used for other purposes. Or require Taste Analysis with one or both of the other Traits as prerequisites, depending on how hard you want to make life for your potion identifier.

it works fine with random maps, too. You will not be able to appreciate how some of the races (aldryami, mostali, broos) work if you play only the Dragon Pass map. Not all races will "grow" in the same way.

Finalmente in italiano... La teoria della cospirazione! PDF gratuito, stampato disponibile a Lucca Comics & Games 2019. Nest steps... French and Spanish.

The second option will probably be dropped in the International Edition to avoid calculations. In addition to this, an investigator can use a Conflict against the full Value of a power or item to learn more detailed information about it. This is the most fun method because it leaves room for unexpected results and discoveries, particularly when the item has a will of its own.

And this is mythe main point: historically, 1H swords sucked against heavily armoured opponents. All re-enactors will tell you that axes, and even more maces, are the 1H weapons of choice to subdue someone wearing armour. Check Lindybeige, Matt Easton or Skallagrim on youtube. Historical research seem to confirm this, as the heaviest forms of these weapons evolved together with armour. So the point is: should the game provide a way to facilitate unrealistic, unhistorical use of a weapon outside of its range of effectiveness because he or she wants to use only a single weapon in all situations? I think not. If your player's character has no Might, then he should not use a sword against heavy armour: he should carry an axe or a mace for this kind of situation. Given that Revolution D100 allows players not to stick to a "main weapon" for all situations, I think the correct solution is encouraging use of a plurality of weapons. Historical fighters certainly did train with many weapons, not just one. When you use Coup de Grace to hit a gap that is not contemplated in the coverage values, small weapons are already at an advantage because you can use the effect only after stunning your opponent, which means that you will probably have few SR left yourself. A dagger might be the only weapon that can strike without a Penalty in that situation. If a gap exists and you can strike it, then weapons of any length should be able to exploit it, provided the blow bypasses parries. The rules are modeled around Pete Nash's statement that he can reliably hit an area 5-10cm wide on his opponent's body. And he does not fight with daggers according to the pictures I have seen him post This subject was tackled on the Glorantha Digest and RQ-Rules digest back in the 90s IIRC. Protection and Shield are not an impenetrable force field, but they can be regarded as something that makes existing armour (including skin) harder. Think of rhino hide: it is tough as hell, but there are weak spots over articulations, where the skin must fold.

The core rules in RD100 already work well for heavily armoured fighters, both in gothic and Renaissance armour. The suggestions you made seem either pointless or counter-productive to me. Weapon-armour interactions work perfectly and provide different outcomes depending on the type of weapon, rather than relying on a generic "ignore" effect. Note also that the concept of Coverage gives you more realistic outcomes in this case, because it differentiates between armour types: chain mail, which is a very popular armour type, offers little protection but it is very easy to clad a fighter completely in it (see Simon's comment in the other thread). Doing the same with plate increases the cost and cumbersomeness of armour dramatically, and very few cultures were able to do this. Muskets: plate cuirasses DID stop bullets. In fact, all Renaissance breastplates came with a dent which the artisan did by firing a bullet at short distance to prove the plate could take hits without being pierced. There is still a chance of piercing a plate, of course, but it is connected to the Impale effect which muskets have, and it is not easy to take down someone so protected. Do not forget that cuirasses were still in use in the 19th Century (and later) to protect charging cavalry from bullets, so giving muskets an anti-armour effect translates to making some armour pieces ineffective in stopping exactly the type of attack they were designed to stop. Cuirasses are ineffective against swords, which can easily target the back of the cuirassier by manoeuvring in melee, not against muskets which cannot strike from your angle of choice. Note that RD100 represents this in a very simple way with the +2 to armour coverage for ranged attacks. The difference you remark between bullet and sword is represented in RD100 not by making armour ineffective, but by applying the three damage effects, Slash, Impale and Crush. A sword is devastating against an unarmoured opponent, as it can easily sever limbs or cut you in two by applying the slash effect. However, this means that armour is doubly effective against swords as the extra damage applies after armour. Spears and bullets, on the other hand, while doing potentially less damage apply their effect before armour, and thus are much more effective against armour. A mere mail shirt will block the average slashing attack completely, while piercing attacks with weapons with the same base damage will go through. In addition to this, you can use the version of the Choose Location that comes with the Conspiracy Theory to represent aiming at weak spots in armour. A good stunt could allow you to gain a -3 to Coverage with your weapon of choice. Of course, the gap needs to be there to strike through it, otherwise you have to use one of the techniques below to open a gap where there is none. Stilettos: RD100 is probably the system that better represents their usefulness in combat without introducing super-complicate rules. If you have one in your left hand, you are almost certain to end the round with at least one attack available when your opponent has 0 readiness, which means you roll at full skill and he defends at -30%. And if you manage to drop his SR to 0 with a Stun with your main weapon, then you can ignore armour with a non-critical roll with Coup de Grace. Terribly deadly, and it corresponds to actual combat techniques used against heavily armoured opponents: stun with a mace, then finish with a smaller pointy weapon through a gap in the armour. Hammers can do both parts of the sequence if you prefer to have one weapon only, and in fact they were known as armour-killers on Renaissance era battlefields. Half-swording/ Rather than just "bypass armour", the half-swording techniques shown in page 1 should give more opportunities to use Coup de Grace, as the technique aims at creating a gap that is normally not there in the armour. I cannot remember whether I put this kind of stunt as a suggestion in a sidebar, but you can make up your own stunt in any case. There are a lot of other interactions that already implement most of the techniques used in armoured combat. It is just that not all rules that influence armour effects have been labelled as "anti-armour". But they are there, do not worry. We have studied and tested the subject intensively.

Quick reply: Shamanism will be in Wind on the Steppes. We do not have a formalised ETA but I have had plenty of discussions with Zit about spirit combat. There will be no "generic" shamanism chapter in the Companion, I prefer having this kind of rules firmly anchored to a cultural context, and you can see that it is easy to extrapolate them for a different one. As for NPC building, we may add some guidelines, but as Lloyd has explained, the process is extremely easy in RD100. You do not need to run through the character creation procedure.

Be careful then, the final exam has a high failure rate. What is left of the failing candidates is in their personal files, in a separate envelope.

While Enchant/Ritual only spells are still possible in Revolution D100, the approach we recommend is the same as that found in 13th Age: you use slots only for spell formats you can cast in combat, the rest is just a ritualized form of this basic magic. So basically a Golem is a construct you make by using the Shape Stone base power. However, which is the difference between a random guy with Shape Stone (not so common a spell in any case) and a wise Rabbi who can create golems? Well, in short it is a blueprint. The kabbalistic ritual to create a golem is nothing but a magic blueprint that the construct maker must use, and that you cannot learn until you also know Shape Stone. The crafting process involves both Craft and Concentration, so a good construct maker should be skilled in both. The result for stone golems is something similar to the statistics found in Merrie England. Toughness should be normal, otherwise the golem would be as resistant as a skeleton. Thank you for bringing this subject forth, folks. It was important to formalise it before we release the new SRD.