RosenMcStern

Ah, the Giant-with-a-dagger paradox! Maybe just "damage bonus cannot exceed base weapon damage"? (Or twice base damage)?

But again, impact-based weapons benefit more from strength, so a general rule may be impossible to define. A realistic rule might become too complicate for most groups to adopt, as most players prefer KISS games.

I'm afraid the logic of this convention escapes me completely.

(Also, it plain doesn't apply to SB5, where a 1H mace does 1d6+2 damage. I thought the new BRP book took its close combat weapon stats from SB5?)

I was not advocating either RQ or SB. In fact I see maces having a higher minimum, as in SB, as being more realistic. The point is that they are different and they should do different damage.

I don't see the point in difference for difference's sake.

peterb has already replied to this.

(in fact, the sword is slightly better at punching through armour).

Flexible armour. This was the point. Vs. hard armour, sharp weapons are more effective.

Also, as was already mentioned, flat adds leads to the anomaly where you can't get grazing hits. This is particularly noticeable in CoC with rifle damages like 2d6+4.

But a grazing hit is impossible with a weapon that is basing its damage on sheer impact force. You cannot be grazed by a modern .45 shot, and I am very uncertain about a heavy maul grazing anyone, too. An arrow or a super-sharp katana is another story. The point is exactly what you have just reminded us: the SB way where blunt weapons have the highest minimum is superior to the RQ way where the sharp weapons do. But whatever the right way, having a difference is realistic.

But will it need conversion to be used for BRP in Glorantha, or can it be used as is?

Why are you assuming that it is aimed at a different system?

In truth, it is multi-system - a true d100 system. But you'll be allowed to comment freely after you are back from Tentacles. Say hi to Simon & Loz on my behalf.

In a real fight the real differencing factor would probably not be whether one of the combatants had a scimitar and the other a mace, but who had the greater skill and tactical ability.

Well, this is still true in BRP, because your average parrying weapon will absorb 1d6+2 or 1d8 in damage equally well, assuming you are skilled enough to parry. The difference is just that the scimitar is a bit more likely to cripple if it actually strikes an unarmored foe, while the mace has some extra chances to knock down a lightly armored foe (if you use the old rule of "halve soft armor vs. maces"). Which is somehow realistic. And, as you pointed out, much more fun.

I think he's saying his group does like and use flat RQ4-style damage bonuses, in fact - he's just not keen himself.

Exactly. Except that about one month ago someone (not me) started considering that the overall damage was reduced and taking down enemies was becoming increasingly difficult.

There seem to have been several improvements in RQ4, including both flat damage bonuses and removal of fiddly "+1"s from weapon damages.

You are just assuming that "It is good because it was in RQ4". This is no point. Removing the +1/+2s has just the effect of reducing variability among weapons, and this is by no means an improvement. The flat additions represent weapon shape in RQ3/BRP: curved blade weapons have +2 but a smaller die, straight-bladed weapons have +1, blunt weapons have no blade bonus. Polearms are the only exception.

Removing flat bonuses yelds the improvement of scimitars, battleaxes, broadswords and maces having about the same statistics. If that is what you call an "improvement"...

No reflection on Jason's superb effort with BRP - he had to base it on what was actually published.

What if he just thought the +1s were ok?

Hmmm, I am writing something similar at present. It will become available for comments next week after the EU people are back from Tentacles.

The problem is that it is all about Glorantha. And the big G is officially off limits for BRP. So I see no chance of proposing it to Chaosium.

It's a variation of the Degree of Success used in SPQR (Steve Perrin's system). It is nice, but it creates a totally new system. Also remember that even 4d6 is not enough to bypass a Dragon's armor, so a success level of 10+ is not equal to a critical.

D2 sucks big time, but when the reward is taking that pesky trollking down one SR before he possibly impales you, I think that no one would choose a fixed 1 instead. The lack of granularity in Damage Bonuses wa the first time I wanted to correct when I learned RuneQuest 3 in (gulp :shocked:) 1987. After 21 years and all manners of houserules, I think this is just a minor nuisance and there is no real need to correct it. Either you have 1d4 at start, or you'll manage to learn Bladesharp, sooner or later.

First of all, rolling a lot of dice is more fun.

With RQ4 modifiers, you usually deal only 1 pt. extra damage, rarely two, where you used to deal 1d4. This decreases the damage dealt, so it is more difficult to down opponents. Having monsters do a slightly lower damage is not as important, when it comes to balance, as being able to take them down in one blow, as you are supposed to parry them with a 12-15 point shield and they are not supposed to parry you.

STR+SIZ RQ3 RQ4

21-24 - -

25 1d4 -

26-30 1d4 1

31-32 1d4 2

33-35 1d6 2

Not everything that was in RQ4 is necessarily better than RQ3. If nobody has revived this concept it is because it does not add anything, not because they forgot.

I cannot see any real advantage in having a fixed number for the damage bonus. RQ3/CoC have a sudden increase in damage bonuses, going straight from 0 to 1d4, and this may result in the "poor granularity" you lament. MRQ uses the same progression as RQ4 (1 step every 5 pts. of combined SIZ and STR), but with dice (1d2, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8 etc.). My group has adopted the RQ4 damage bonus, and the result is not really satisfactory. All considered, I prefer the dice.

I'm in the process of adapting BRP 0 Sorcery as a system of Divine magic for Priests in a fantasy setting i'm writing up, and basically all I've done is replace the POW 16+ requirement with an Allegiance requirement (To gain spells a characters must have Allegeiance (Specific Deity) 50+ and be allied to that Allegiance) and renamed the spells to remove the word Sorcery / Sorcerer.

This sounds definitely the way to go. Allegiance was a great addition to the BRP rules, and is the variable that should be used for theist magic. I am working on a similar project (one that will become rather popular, I think), but do not want to reveal the details until I get hold of BRP1 later this month.

I have started a mailing list about d100 and derivatives in Italian at

d100italia : D100 Italia

We will talk about BRP, MRQ, HeroQuest and Glorantha. I have already invited Gianni Vacca via email, if there are other Italian members on this forum please join, we will be happy to have you on board.

I can get the whole idea of the mage weakening... but I guess my reticence to use that as written is simply I would prefer not to make casters entirely 'stuff' based... needing magic items to bolster them and be effective. This is, I suppose, a reaction to long play of d&d where characters tended to look like christmas trees at high levels and breaking any since of realism.

I agree absolutely. A newbie with a MP matrix used to be more effective with attack spells than an experienced caster relying solely on his soul. <unpopular-comment>One of the improvements of MRQ over old-school BRP is that the contest to overcome the target resistance is skill-based, not characteristic based.</unpopular-comment> Let us see how this evolves in the various variants of the new BRP.

Loreena McKennit. In fact I discovered celtic music by listening to it while gaming, many years ago.

I should also clarify that I wasn't intending to start any MRQ vs. BRP sort of discussion...

Especially because there is no need to start them, they happen spontaneously.

As expected, I got a copy of the license terms on the first business day after I asked. I hope Triff has received one too. Point #23 is particularly interesting, and it alone made it worth reading all the legalese.

Even though BRP is not OGL, I think we will see several independent publications in the future. Now, for which day in May exactly is Deluxe Edition 1 scheduled ? :thumb:

MRQ is my favourite but has one HUGE problem; Mongoose's right hand never knows what their left hand is up to.

You pinpointed the problem.

The fixes are here. It is mostly spell corrections, which means that the Big Complainers of the MRQ community find it usable, after all.

You forgot to mention that MRQ sorcery allows you to cast un-Manipulated sorcery spells for ZERO power points. So, after every battle the sorceror can completely heal everybody's wounds, for free! Now that's POWER! >:->

On the contrary, I remembered. I mentioned "cantrips at zero PP", and that is one of the improvements in the magic system. Treat wounds is one of the spells that need reworking, because repeated castings have a cumulative effect. Together with Shapechange, Fly and others. But this is the first time we have a Malkioni Magic system that does not make you feel "Sheesh, we should rework it from scratch!"

Nice! Oh dear, NOT "The Way it was Meant to Be", I'd say! Still, maybe it can be fixed (simply "minimum 1pp", perhaps?).

This has been discussed for a long time on the appropriate forum. The fix is already on the MRQ Wiki: if you fail the roll, you pay 1 MP (or PP if you prefer). However, if you took the time to actually test it in play, you would notice that the zero magic point rule is definitely the best improvement, and the system is worth trying even without the fix.

How is that the "equivalent" of RQ Divine Magic?

My bad. I was referring to the automatic casting roll only. In any case, it was rather confusing on the part of Chaosium to name it Sorcery, since traditionally RQ Sorcery it skill-based magic while the other magic systems are auto-casting or characteristic-based. But the name was taken from Stormbringer, yes.

As the "Safelstran man" here, I have played with ALL the versions and can give you a nice account of the four variations (I'll not count RQ4 in although it has its merits). To avoid confusion, I'll refer to Sorcery as Malkioni Magic, as BRP's Sorcery is the equivalent of Divine Magic in RQ.

Original RQ3: a sorcerer in RQ3 was in fact the weakest of magicians, and required 100+ stored Power Points to be viable. His role was just that of the supporting character who used to cast long-lasting spells to enhance the party's characteristics, as it took him two melee rounds to cast a spell that could disable an opponent, whereas a simple Befuddle acted in two strike ranks. Skill only affected how many times you had to retry before your spell worked, and an Adept without a decent array of Intellect Spirits was even weaker than a beginner due to the flawed Free INT rule (yes, RuneQuest had flaws, too )

RQ3 with errata (or Games Workshop): the revised Multispell rules finally made Malkioni Magic superior in combat to other magic systems. A powerful wizard was able to take down a squad of men with a single spell, and this was more fun to play.

Sandy's Malkioni Magic: this was intentionally aimed at Glorantha, and worked decently. You have to introduce a new score for characters, Presence, and this requires additional bookkeeping, but your power is now connected to adherence to some principles ("vows"), which is more Malkioni, and skill at casting, not Free INT. I used it for Henotheists and Stygians as secondary cult magic instead of Spirit Magic and it worked fine, as players were forced to roleplay their cult vows to get more magic. Sorcerous Humakti with permanent Damage Boosting on their swords are .... scary :shocked:

Warning: do not read further. You might not like what you read.

You were warned. Especially the One who Breeds Amphibians.

Mongoose Sorcery: it is by far the best incarnation of RuneQuest Malkioni Magic, if you accept the fact that a half dozen spells are totally botched and need total rewriting. A wizard reacts faster than a theist magician, and once he reaches a good skill with magic he can cast devastating spells at a cost of one or two Power Points, plus cantrips for zero Power Points. This is the first BRP magic system that allows you to have a powerful magician that does not rely on external Power Point sources. This is The Way it was Meant to Be.

(waits for the people with the tar and feathers)

Really? I've only seen the MRQ SRD, but that differs significantly from good old RQ2/3.

Oh, there are many similarities. The RQ Companion is almost thorough copi... - erm, I mean, paraphrased from the RQ3 Gamemaster Book. It appears someone did not realize they could have made a RuneQuest Ships out of it.

In any case, I am pleased with the situation as is. I have seen the RQ Slayers PDF and the thought of the trademark being owedy by WotC makes me shiver (RuneQuest D20?).

So, both versions of Runequest are very similar, system-wise; but they are considered different from a legal standpoint because Mongoose made some changes to the rules? That's how I'm understanding this.

Simon said it all, but I'll add two more details.

a) Both? There have been five editions of RQ so far (one unpublished).

They are not [legally] different because Mongoose made some changes. They are because Issaries (the Trademark owner) wanted something different, yet recognizable as RQ. It was intentional. Whereas the similarities between BRP and previous editions of RQ, which are much deeper, are intentional too.

Cobblers, as usual, Rosie.

Pardon me, but I have GMed enough RQ/BRP/CoC/whatever to have a clear idea about what skill most fighting-enabled characters tend to have. Excluding Soltakss' campaigns perhaps.

PS: I bet you can't resist having the last word...

Being a BRP forum, I think trolling is allowed here. Maybe it is just a matter of calling it "uzing" instead.

As for resisting or not, the point is that when you come out with statements like "Opposed rolls create confusion and not realism", or someone writes "The Opposed Roll Taint" - can't remember if it was you - it reminds me of religion rather than a creative and intelligent way of having fun, and so I feel that you deserve a polite, but firm, reply.

I am not a great fan of the "vox populi" principle, but please note that most people who write for, or simply play, BRP or MRQ or HQ or whatever tend to use or prefer a somewhat-opposed roll system. Of course I am the first to be suspicious of opposed rolls when using a matrix [it was ME who ran a poll to know what exactly people thought about it on The Other Forum, remember?]. Of course nobody forces you to give up your opinion. If you do not like opposed rolls, just play RuneQuest 2 or 3. They are still great games, and there are still copies available on eBay.

I would rather say "in the 1-20" range. We want to give an idea of the order of magniturde, not the dice rolled to generate a character. The concept of weapon+personal-armor is poorly explained. We should split it in two:

- Defines damage done by a hand attack as the sum of weapon damage and personal damage bonus (or malus) [note that this applies to D&D too]

- Describes the effect of armor as decreasing the actual damage done and not influencing the chance to do damage

From what you say, both real battles and stylised duels would be best portrayed by normal rolls (non-opposed), with a special ability for more highly skilled combatants (such as the over 100% reduce-the-opponent's-skill effect).

Sigh! This is really turning into a religious dispute.

Most battles take place between opponents in the 80%-90% skill range. Using non-opposed rolls, two combatants with 95% skill take some ten melee rounds to resolve a combat - no, to hit once, since you are not guaranteed to win a fight after the first hit. The "over 100%" rule only applies to limited cases, as most characters never exceed 100%. In a real situation the difference in skill between two opponents always matters, be it a tackle in a soccer match or a duel to the death, while with yor suggestion skill difference only matters when

skill goes above 100%.

Opposed rolls just add game-mechanic confusion, not realism.

No, it doesn't. It is in systems like HeroQuest where all rolls are opposed versus a "Standard difficulty" that things can get messy. In BRP a roll is opposed only if someone is actively tryng to counter what you are attempting to do. Like landing a blow upon one of his most beloved organs