Arch0n

Thank you very much for your responses, Jason. We are allowing Sorcerer's Armor to be invested in items, yes. We are using generic (whole body) armor protection with random armor (similar to Elric!). It sounds like to date I've been playing it correctly, as I've treated Sorcerer's Armor as a sort of "force field" that applies to the character, regardless of the source, and that doesn't stack higher than rank 4.

Thanks for the responses!

Hey folks, Two rules questions. 1) How do you handle attacks that "ignore armor" when applied against characters protected by Sorcerer's Armor and similar spells? Do you ignore all the spell protections as well, or do you ignore only the mundane? What if it was a fire attack against a character wearing plate mail with sorcerer's armor 4? What about an attack that bypasses armor (a headshot on a character with an unarmored head), but protected by a crown with sorcerer's armor 4 on it? 2) How do you handle stacking of spells? For instance, I have Sorcerer's Armor 4 on my longjohns, and then cast it again on my outer robes. Do I have 8 points of protection, or 4? If 4, why? Do the longjohns know that the robes have armor, and resent it? Do you allow spells and items to stack in general? If there's an official rule on these, I'd love to know it, or if there's good house rules handed down by the Old Masters of Runequest/Elric!, that'd be great too...

Harshax, the difference between "damage" and, say, "cow transmogrification" is that damage stacks linearly, while cow transmogrification is binary on/off. For instance, let's take a powerful monster with 50 hit points and POW 30. 6 wizards are gathered to oppose the monster, each with POW 20 and a magic missile doing 1D10 damage and cow trans. With "cow trans", each wizard could theoretically end the fight in one blow, but none of them is likely to do so, because of the 20:30 POW resistance roll. But six magic missiles are virtually certain to kill the monster in a round or two, even though each individual magic missile could do less than 10% of its hit points in damage. Likewise, a wizard firing magic missiles stacks with the efforts of an archer, fighter, etc., while a wizard doing cow transmogrification doesn't. When one type of effect stacks and another doesn't stack, the type that stacks needs to be kept more limited in power, especially since RPGs are mostly played in groups.

This is really top-notch.

This is an area of great confusion to me, as well. I've never been quite able to understand if the default in BRP is one attack, or ROF...

Thanks for the feedback!

Here's how we handle that issue... Recognizing Spells: A sorcerer automatically recognizes any spell cast that he has in his grimoire. If seeking to recognize a spell he does not know, the sorcerer must roll against his Language and Higher Mysteries skill. If he succeeds in one roll but not the other, he learns only the type and magnitude of the spell. If the spell is cast in a language he is unfamiliar with, the sorcerer can only learn approximately the type and magnitude of the spell, and must roll a critical on Higher Mysteries to do so. (Higher Mysteries is our version of "Knowledge: Occult". Magic is spoken in one of four 'languages of power').

Well, no feedback. I'm ditching the rules as written and substituting the following instead. Casting Sorcery Spells A sorcery spell is cast during your DEX rank in the combat round. Each sorcery spell takes one full combat round of concentration to cast. Successfully casting a spell requires an Easy Luck roll. To avoid the risk of a fumble, the caster may simply take a standard result without rolling if desired. A sorcery spell may be cast more quickly, if desired. This is known as fast-casting. A fast-cast spell takes a number of DEX ranks equal to its magnitude of concentration to cast. Successfully fast-casting a spell requires a Luck roll. A sorcery spell may also be cast as a reaction to another spell. This is known as counter-casting. Successfully counter-casting a sorcery spell requires a Difficult Luck roll. A counter-cast is as distracting as a parry or dodge, and prior parry, dodge, or counter-casts during the turn will reduce the chances by a cumulative 30% each, and a character may only make one reaction action in any given DEX rank. That puts Undo Sorcery and Refutation into play nicely and parallels the combat system.

After six sessions, we're having some entanglements with sorcery. Specifically, with Undo Sorcery and Refutation. How does the timing of those spells work? For instance: 1. With INT 18, on Turn 1, I cast Flames of the Sun. It takes effect at Powers Phase INT rank 18, on Turn 2. 2. My opponent, with INT 17, starts casting Undo Sorcery on my Flames of the Sun. So when do I cast Refutation? How long does it take to cast? a) Do I cast it immediately? If so, can I do anything else that turn? What if I've already started a spell? Do I cast it at INT 18 on Turn 3? If so, is it instant, or would it then refute in Turn 4? Can one "hold" sorcery? Delay from INT into DEX? Any advice on how best to blend INT, DEX, power, combat together?

Well, we're playing using ELRIC! rules (for the most part). In ELRIC! an attack that exceeds a weapon's hit points breaks a weapon, but not a shield, and critical attacks that are parried damage a weapon, but not a shield. An average sword has about 19HP. An average character in my game does 1D8+1D4+5 in an attack (DB plus magic bonus). Parrying a critical hit would cause the weapon to take (2D8+1D4+5). It's well within a standard deviation that this would shatter the parrying weapon. Against a strong opponent with an enhanced two-handed sword (2D8+1D6+4), even a normal hit could break your weapon, and a critical hit (4D8+1D6+4) will almost certainly shatter it. The result is that two-weapon fighters do well when up against lots of foes, or against fast, light enemies, but if you're up against someone who hits hard, you need a shield or a high dodge. We also play that heavy armor reduces your dodge score by as much as 20%, which further emphasizes the need for a parry if you're going to "tank".

We treat ability to use the shield as inherent in purchase of a one-handed weapon skill. It's assumed that you pick up training in the one with the other. A one-liner in the ELRIC! rules on training made me think of this, but it works really well.

Ah, makes sense. I once wrote a tabletop miniature wargame (Modern Spearhead - Official Website) and it was 2 years of work that definitely wasn't worth it from a financial point of view!

Out of curiosity, where is the information on how one submits a monograph and what rights the author retains, royalties, etc.?

Al, I love your rules mods.

I work for a game company so when word of an RPG campaign gets out, everybody wants in. I haven't run a game with a group of less than 6 in years. Groups of 13-15 have been not uncommon for me. My current group is 7, and I have people bitter they didn't get invited. :-\

Woah. You have Houserules at 110%! I can only envy you. I've just come up with a nifty house-rule for attack/parry. I'm ruling that one-handed weapon skills include either fighting with a shield, or fighting with a second weapon. The shield or the secondary weapon skill is never purchased separately. This puts a "sword and shield" "two handed sword" and "dual sword" fighter all on the same footing in terms of skill points required to learn to be able to effectively attack and defend. Separate attack/parry skill favors sword and shield, while separate sword and shield skill favors anything except shield... EDIT: On further reflection, not going to implement my weapon master notion. You guys have persuaded me it's wrong. Thanks!

Well, you are attacking an argument I didn't make. I didn't say a Sai wielded by a master would be more of a "megasaurus" than a Katana wielded by a master. What I did say is that a master wouldn't get MORE benefit by being a master for using the No-Dachi than he would for using Sai. The current rules say you get an extra +2d8 damage for mastering No-Dachi, an extra +1d6 for mastering the Sai. That wolud suggest Miyamato Musashi should have used a No-Dachi. He actually fought with a Bokken. In BRP terms, he'd have done, what +1D4 with his little bokken, instead of being ability to beat the heck out of folks! I know there is an argument for the "Broad Sword" schools being martial arts, but most of what we know about those is from manuals from the early Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. I'm not aware of any historical evidence that medieval knights fought with anything that could be called a "martial art". Unless, again, we're just calling any method of fighting a martial art, in which case it becomes really hard to distinguish a martial art with a 110% sword skill, etc. That's not an argument we're really going to come to terms with as its raging in historical circles right now, and also goes to one's definition of what a martial art is, and what's meant by the word in BRP. From a purely game perspective, I don't think increasing skill should increase damage in proportion to how heavy the weapon is. It should increase damage in proportion to how high the skill is.

Frogspawner, the fact that you house-rule the heck out of everything makes me feel better about myself! :-) Do you use attack/parry as separate skills, or as one skill?

I don't think there's anything fictional about the fact that traditional martial arts weapons tend to be weapons of finesse, where high skill is required to use them successfully, while medieval weapons such as two-handed swords and maces were used in a fighting style that is rather more blunt and straightforward. Historically speaking, the martial arts skill as it appears in BRP should likely NOT be applied to Western medieval fighting at all. And I'd argue that the big, brutish weapons of the West were in part because of the lack of martial arts, and vice versa. It was a dialectic. If Eastern sword-masters did somehow reach western Europe, western Europeans wouldn't suddenly start doing kendo with claymores, they'd start using sabers more, because the sabers would work with martial arts techniques (fluid fighting, form, etc.). Assuming one a-historically (i.e. cinematically) wants to bring martial arts into a Western medieval setting, it seems perverse to then turn around and reward the biggest, brutish weapons. If your interpreation of martial arts is that its just "using the attacking weapon to its best extent" then your view makes sense, but it's hard to see why that would be a separate skill from "weapon skill". Martial arts to me seems to suggest a very specific, advanced type of fighting where skill matters more than the underlying weight of the weapon.

On a related note (while we're talking about combat), I'm finding myself very "irked" by the martial arts skill, for the following reasons: 1) It's yet another number to keep track of during combat. 2) It feels like it plays oddly with specials/criticals. ("I got a critical on my sword, and a special on my martial arts. What damage do I do?") 3) Worst of all, it rewards the most fast, agile weapons, like sai or fists, with a minimum boost (1d3 extra damage) while rewarding the biggest, slowest weapons (great sword) with a maximum boost (+2d8 damage, yay!). This seems contrary to its purpose. Granted I could just say "only small, elegant weapons can be used with martial arts skill" but this is a band-aid for the underlying problem, which is that a highly skilled user should be able to do proportionally more damage with a swift weapon... What if instead, martial arts added a fixed amount of damage to attacks, with the amount added based on skill? At 20 it adds 1d2, at 30 1d3, at 100 1d10. Given a katana user (1d10 damage) it would roughly be equivalent to the current system. Those who use smaller, faster weapons would see a relative boost, those who use bigger weapons a relative penalty, and it would be easier in play than the current system because damage would only change based on crit/special.

Interesting take. That would certainly give combat a different feel. I don't dislike the parry / dodge roll, though. I just want some way for high-skill types to batter through it / cut down heaps of foes / whatever... :-|

Well, I like the Elric!/BRP system overall, and the core thrust of the magic system (POW, magic points, sacrifice, etc.) worked beautifully with the setting I'd envisioned. I can absolutely see the beauty in allowing a 50% skill to stand against a 100% skill, etc. But I need some rules so that the players can heroically wade through lesser foes, too. Maybe what I should do is simply have some variant of a "mook" rule...

Ah, it's good to see I'm on the same page with you guys! The problem I'm trying to address is very practical: It simply frustrated my players to no end when their 100% skill character attacked a 50% skill thug, but missed half the time because of the parry/dodge. We have a large group (7 players) so when its your turn you want to be able to do something AWESOME, and being parried/dodged by Joe Goblin is not awesome. So I'm trying to create a situation where a successful defense still could result in damage, and good guys doing high damage, will often still be enough to kill Joe Goblin. But I need to do this without causing the good guys to get butchered, so I can't stack the system too much in favor of offense. At present, my solution is going to be something like one of the systems above, plus a variant of BRP Martial Arts that will add to the damage done by highly-skilled characters... Or perhaps tying damage in to skill. An alternative would be some sort of rule that high skill lowers your chances to dodge/parry, I suppose?

What do you think of the following house rule concepts. I'm using Elric's "20% of skill is a critical" approach. Let's disregard Impales (01) as very rare. A "critical" attack does double damage. A "successful" attack does damage. A "critical" dodge reduces damage to zero. A "successful" dodge reduces damage by half A "critical" parry parries double AP. A "successful" parry parries normal AP (AP=average damage of a weapon -1, so 4 for a D8+1 sword). While de facto a critical dodge avoids a critical attack, and a successful dodge de facto reduces a critical to normal, they aren't opposed rolls that slide the success up or down, but instead just have a very distinct effect...