RosenMcStern

This last formulation is very good IMO. Its only problem is that it is totally incompatible with Jason's ripostes

I think Rod's rule detail two-weapon combat better, while the riposte rules from Jason are a superior depiction of typical fencing techniques. Is there a way to allow using both rules with different fighting styles? Perhaps stating that you can only use ripostes when you have one weapon?

As noted in Basic Roleplaying, unless the weapon is a shield, parrying dagger, or some other weapon designed to be used in the offhand, the skill begins at half the characters normal skill level (Difficult). An offhand weapon may be trained and improved just as any other weapon skill.

Difficult cannot refer to a skill, but only to a roll. The correct system for handling this is explained on page 258 (Using Weapons of Different Classes): if you want to make a separate entry for a weapon skill that is similar but not exactly the same as one that you already have, then your base skill is the base chance and you start training it from that point - however, you can still use half of the higher one, until your lower skill exceeds half of the other skill. I fail to see the advantage of putting in a new mechanics when a similar, working one is already in the rules. Plus the fact that this makes skill points allocated at character creation worth 1.5, as 50% of them is permanently added to the offhand weapons skill: why?

Furthermore, your ruling excludes the option of not splitting the skill and keeping it unique as in the rules as written - why should having a separate skill be mandatory? You should add this.

For the rest, I feel that your rules are interesting but we are making things a bit too messy. Shouldn't all this be playtested a bit more? Ripostes are a good mechanics that should definitely be included in the errata, but if something as messy as one of the above suggestions is published in some monography, this will just add noise.

Honestly, I am rather in favour of allowing ripostes on a special success, rather than when you are 91+. I feel it is more in line with BRP if skill "levels" are not used, regardless of what was in SB, whatever edition.

Hmm, sounds good. Should be elaborated a bit more, but methinks it could work.

Skill 01-90, special parry -> riposte with other weapon (Difficult if weapon is offhand)

Skill 91+, normal parry -> riposte with same weapon at -30% (or more if it is not the first riposte)

Skill 91+, special parry -> choose one of the above

The primary reason I wouldn't use it is book-keeping. Game flow is also an issue.

I think he has a point here, Jason.

My suggestion would be to drop the DEX rank reduction and make the penalties for attack and parry cumulative, not separate. Maybe it is less realistic, but it is easier.

I would also suggest to apply the penalty only to attacks made with the parrying weapon, not to all attacks.

I tested it yesterday, and the rule is workable although it requires some extra attention. But I did not find it totally satisfactory: it allows a master to disable a lot of mooks in a short time, but it is another rules that discourages fighting with two weapons. My Storm Khan was using hammer and shield, and shield ripostes were barely useful, while my buddy's Wind Lord with a single axe was way more effective.

and parry if attacks and parry skill ratings are being handled separately), he or she can attempt to riposte attacks.

Could we add the option of allowing a riposte at any skill level on a special roll, as per Rod's version of the rules?

The riposte is resolved as a normal attack, and the original attacker can attempt to parry the riposte.

Important note: the "no parry with the same weapon on the same SR as the attack" is present in the SR system, so a one-weapon-user could still be unable to parry the riposte - he could dodge it. This should be clarified: is the riposte considered to happen in the same SR or DEX Rank?

[*]A Brawl attack (fist or kick, etc.) can be used to riposte.

It will happen rather often in Dragon Lines, if I understood Charles's intentions correctly.

[*]The weapon riposting must be the weapon the parry is made with. Your character cannot parry an attack with one weapon and riposte with another.

Why? I know this can become messy rules-wise, but this is a viable tactics IRL. Or so they say.

IIRC Jason stated that he liked the Defense skill from RQ2 but felt it was too overpowered. So he kept it as a superpower, and limited it a lot.

Honestly, I see this power as a must if you want to run Spiderman, but out of place in a Fantasy campaign where you should use Dodge instead.

What about a percentage according to power scale such as:

1% - normal power level

2% - heroic power level

3% - epic power level

4/5% - superhuman power level

Or something like that?

YUCK! You are mixing how a power works and how you balance character power levels at character creation. What would happen if you ported characters to other campaigns?

Seriously, I think the power should be rated at 1% per level, period. The only difference tied to campaign level should be how many levels you can buy:

Normal - INT+POW

Heroic - double the above

Epic - triple the above

Superhuman - no limit

My doubts about the offhand skill starting at half the right hand skill are still unanswered. Note that I am not against using two skills, just against giving the character a percentile higher than basic without investing skill points at character creation. I do not see any reason why the rule for using weapons in a similar class should not be used instead (see p. 258).

And I see no added value in not including the option of keeping the skill unique and having the riposte attack being Difficult. I see no point in making things mandatory, it just increases the number of houserules people will use. Note that using this option you just have to train your DEX to 16 or your skill to 100% to make the second attack at full percentile - less detailed than having two skills but better for those who want less bookkeeping.

An arm cut off with a sword slash will not kill the character in few seconds. He will probably survive for minutes if not more.

This may not apply to crushing blows or bullets, though. The mere impact can kill, even when you are hit in a limba. But we are talking of .45 bullets or troll mauls here, and I doubt this will happen all the times.

You are letting vehicle weapons get "impales"?

Not vehicle, mecha. The real advantage of a mecha attacking a ship is that it can circle around it and find the weak spots in the armor - hence the impale.

The modern 120mm APFSDSDU used in the M1A2 has penetration capabilities comparable to the 406mm cannon-at least out to about 2km or so. Chances are the 120mm cannon used by mecha are probably ever better that the APFSDSDU,

Those are SMGs, not cannons. They cannot be as powerful and precise as M1A2 ordnance. Single-shot ballistic weapons are almost non-existent in the anime mecha genre. The dreaded "Autocannon/20" is a Battletech construct that I have no intention to put into BRP Mecha.

I can appreciate that. Simple is good. However, in this case I think it would make more sense for not improving it to be optional as I cant believe any player that utilizes this tactic as part of his or her character concept is going to prefer not being able to raise it. The ranger in our playtest just brought his offhand weapon skill up to 97%, I'm not telling him to lower it.

The point is that in the new BRP philosophy, optional is better.

The problem here is that, if the skills are separate, there is no reason why the offhand skill should start at half the righthand skill. Suppose you have 70% in Dagger and you fight with two sais. He uses a riposte and gets a check in his offhand attack, then raises it to 28% with his experience roll. Eventually he trains his main hand skill to 60%. Now, if he had not raised his LH skill separately, it would be 30%, but in fact it is now 28%. Or examine the case of a character which starts at 50% in katana, trains it to 70% and then starts using Musashi's two-sword technique. Which is his starting skill in the offhand, 25% or 35%? And if it is 35%, why did he get these 10 free skill points over another samurai that started play at 50% but was fighting with two swords from the beginning?

Worse, if you are using skill category modifiers, and your skill is not very high, the halved skill could be in fact lower than default+modifier.

If you want them to be separate skills, then the player should invest points in both at character creation, not treat the offhand as a default until some arbitrary point in his career when he gets an experience check in this. However, I have played such a character in RuneQuest 3 and can tell you one thinng: fighting with two weapons is really fun, but keeping track of several separate skills adds nothing to the fun.

A better solution would be to create a procedure to make a character ambidexterous and use only one skill, so that a character willing to use a two-weapon technique can do so at full effectiveness if he takes the time to achieve ambidexterity. But this procedure already exists, (although I do not find it really satisfactory) as a character with DEX 16 or skill over 100% already has his full skill in the offhand weapon.

This would nullify the chance of a riposte on the same DEX rank that he or she attacked in, as the "free" attack must be made with a weapon other than that which parried.

Okay, let me clarify this: the defender has two weapons and makes a riposte on the same DEX rank or Strike rank of the original attack. The attacker can only parry the riposte if he has two weapons, as he cannot parry with the same weapon on the same DEX/Strike rank. Or he can dodge it.

Plus, the combat round is 12 seconds long, DEX ranks are just used to add structure to what would otherwise be chaos. I appreciate your house rule and would use it if I ever changed the combat round to 1 to 3 seconds in length.

Unfortunately, it is more an amendment to a forgotten detail than a house rule. If you use Strike Ranks, it is already so in the rules as written, they most likely forgot to add this for DEX ranks. Furthermore, this rule does not represent the fact that you are hitting at second 8.5 in a 12-second rank, but the fact that you hit with the non-parrying weapon while your attacker's weapon is engaged by your other weapon.

We have tested this situation in real combat, and a two-weapon user can easily block his one-weapon-user opponent's weapon for just the time it takes to sneak in an unparriable attack.

Finally, you can rule that the parry is downgraded to a normal success if you want to make a riposte, so that the riposte becomes less common - you cannot use it against a special attack, and in some cases one can prefer to just damage his opponent's weapon instead.

I prefer the simple rule that attacking with a weapon in the off hand is Difficult, and keeping the separate skills as optional. So if you get a special parry with your weapon or shield, you have a free riposte with your shield or main gauche, but your attack is at half percentile.

Note that if you use the house rule I proposed one year ago, that a weapon cannot be used to parry and attack on the same DEX rank (it is already so with Strike Ranks), then your opponent cannot parry the riposte with the weapon he used to attack - deadly but realistic.

Despite the fact that BRP does not have ads/disads, I think that rules for ambidexterous characters should be introduced to complement this spot rule.

You may have noticed that I already posted the stats for some of the "Shogun Warriors" (name used only in the US) one year ago. No stats for copyrighted materials will be there, of course, but you will be able to build your own versions. Some of the examples in the chapters I have already written are taken from Shogun Warriors anime.

As for giant monsters, the ones that mechas fight are usually mechanical in nature, more cyborgs than Kaiju. The few exceptions are easy to stat for a clever GM. But I could include some stats for cyborg dinos and haniwa genjins.

AP/HE ROUNDS...

Better avoid these. They have limited impact on mecha combat and make things more complex.

I would suspect this depends on how realtic the setting the GM is running-Mechaseries cover a lot of ground.

Exactly. In some kind of campaigns you have unlimited (or humongous) amounts of missiles. In others you have realistic ammo supplies: 100 rounds per SMG and 4-10 missiles per launcher.

3D6 400mm gun AND SCALING

Hmm, 3D6 might just work for the vehicle stats, too. Especially if we consider that the penetration for those naval guns dropped off over range, and that MEcha tend to fight much close than battleships did.

The major limiting factore is the AP, SIZ and HP ratings of ships in the core rules. With a battleship having around 36 AP and 480 HP, big gun damages can't be too high or too low without making batteships too vulnerable or too tough.

The battleship in the core book would have 4 APs and 48 HPs on mecha scale (not exactly so, as it would have locations/sections with, say, 16 HPs). A 400mm gun doing 3d6 would disable a section with an average of 3 shots. Attacked by, say, Zakus, it would be hit by SMGs doing 1d8 (need a good roll to pass armor) or missiles doing 2d6. Enough to do some damage and disable some systems. Note that a spaceship would possibly have similar statistics. Char Aznable managed to destroy three spaceships in a battle with a Zaku, which is hardly believable given the average damage above, but Char has at least 90% skill, and SMGs can impale, so it can be done.

All in all, the stats for guns and ships are not too "wrong". Of course energy weapons would blast through those armors in seconds. And spaceships have mostly energy weapons and missiles doing 3d6/4d6 at least.

I usually read HeroQuest in bed. I must have fallen asleep while I was reading that paragraph

I haven't seen the new edition, but I gather that hasn't changed much.

It has. The 100 words method is no longer there. You can still generate your PC "as you go" instead.

Thank you, Jason and Steve! Does anyone have the issue with the X-Men?

So, say Borag the Barbarian has a Combat 68% and a Defense 42%. His weapon value, no matter what he was fighting with would be 1d8+db.

As an example for how magic items might work, say Borag had The Mighty Cleaver of Doom or Some-Such. It adds +2 to the damage roll and inspires a supernatural fear in his enemies, making them fight at a -20% to their Combat roll.

This is exactly how HeroQuest works. Nothing matters but your character's ability to cope with the situation. Equipment is an ability of its own.

If you wish to adopt this approach, I think you should stop grinding BRP in order to make it more HeroQuest, and go for the real thing. It's as simple as typing HeroQuest – Glorantha | Your Gateway to Adventure in your browser.

Surely by the same token Brawl, Craft skils, Dodge and the various weapon skills can cover anything STR and DEX do - pretty much leaving you with CON and POW. Thinking about it, there'd be nothing wrong with that. Attributes are the fortitude of your body and the fortitude of your mind with everything else represented by skills. Would that be too stripped down, or is it something to consider?

Having played RuneQuest, the first thing I noticed with the Mongoose ruleset is that the Athletics roll that replaces STR tests and the like is bugged. A female character needed to lift a dead enemy to recover her stuff, and the only thing we had to simulate this was the Athletics roll. I found the result very unsatisfactory: the agile ranger had an excessive chance to lift the bulky warrior's corpse. The lack of realism in this case more than offsets the gain in simplicity.

Also see the example in HeroQuest 2 about the difference in the Run Fast ability between the cowboy and his horse. The skill simply does not tell you how fast you run, just how likely you are to use the ability to overcome a challenge. You still need a measure of how fast you and the horse can run in order to know if a task is possible at all (credibility chek in HeroQuest terms).

Never say impressive, Newt!

A new supplement is in the schedule: Merrie England, the Age of Eleanor. Author Simon Phipp (soltakss), it is about 12th and 13th century England, a more classic medieval setting than Stupor Mundi, it includes more in-depth rules for Christian magic, Judaism, Demonology, Alchemy and the like. It is for RuneQuest but as usual you can play it with BRP with little effort.

And before someone asks: yes, you can play Robin Hood!

If you wanted to drop APP/CHA then POW could stand in painlessly

Except that POW would become an Uberstat in a game which relies on social interactions. But this could not be the scope of the OP.

A balanced system has as many mental characteristics as it has physical ones. D&D is a balanced system: 3 physical and 3 mental. BRP is not so balanced: 4 physical and 3 mental, and one of the mental ones is almost useless. GURPS is awfully unbalanced, with 3 physical and 1 mental.

Jason mentioned earlier on rpg.net that one thing he would happily add to the resource scores a character has is Stability points for social interactions, losing Stability representing a "social" wound to reputation. It is not difficult to imagine what the base characteristic for these Stability points would be. So I think APP/CHA should remain as a characteristic. I would rather re-describe it as "The ability your character has to exert his or her influence in a social context."

For the rest, the rules you suggest are workable, but I do not see any benefit them. You will see more players who dislike having all small weapons doing 1d4 than players who think it is an improvement. Dropping SIZ could be an idea, it takes away some calculations, but it also forces you to use STR to evaluate a lot of details for which you used SIZ before (can I lift the dead brontosaur? can I knock Big Baddie into the river?).

Here is the schedule for the next products that will be released by Alephtar Games. I think most readers here will be interested in knowing about this.

1) BRP Rome Scenario pack (by Conall Kavanagh, Pete Nash, Ken Spencer) – Sep 2009

1bis) Merrie England: the Age of Eleanor (for Mongoose RuneQuest, by Simon Phipp) - Sep 2009

2) Dragon Lines (for BRP, by Charles Greene) – Fall 2009

3) Stupor Mundi: Crusaders of the Amber Coast (for Mongoose RuneQuest, by Paolo Guccione) – Fall 2009

4) BRP Mecha (by Paolo Guccione) – 2010

Products 2) and 3) could be delayed by some months. I am not sure about if and when we will publish a full, long-spanning campaign for Rome, but it is among our plans.

I also have a couple of BRP and MRQ submissions pending, and if we reach an agreement with the authors I will fit them into this schedule. If something in the above list is delayed, they could see the light in 2009.

As you can see, we are trying to support both BRP and RuneQuest. I would love to publish something for HeroQuest 2, too, but I have no materials at hand. So if anyone has a manuscript ready, just honk.

Finally, HQ is a conflict resolution system as opposed to a task resolution system.

Which is a very trendy way of saying "All rolls in HeroQuest are opposed rolls, while most rolls in BRP are unopposed rolls".

I am working on a hybrid system which based on HQ will include the RQ stats and attributes, HP and combat mechanics. I'll also inclue the Pendragon Traits and Passions from PenDragonPass

This could be the ultimate roleplaying game.