SDLeary

Your Disthpicable! SDLeary

Trif, You might want to see if you can snag the final cover and update the front page blurb! SDLeary

I would certainly not have any issue with that. Nice and simple... and nicked! I think the issue for me at least, more than anything else, was that the proposed rule would only allow the counterattack with the weapon that had done the parrying, which is not the way most fighting OTHER than fencing of one type or another is done. SDLeary

OK, I see that my posts have been somewhat muddled (sorry, strange work things going on and I'm tired). I propose the Clarifications read: Clarifications The weapon riposting must be the characters primary weapon or a Brawl attack. When penalties for multiple parries or ripostes reduce a chance to 0%, no further actions of that type may be attempted in that combat round. Multiple parries and ripostes accumulate penalties separately. Keep attack/riposte penalties separate from parry penalties - they don't stack together. Each riposte attempt costs 1 DEX rank. If the character has not gone already in the round, his or her DEX rank is reduced by the number of riposte attempts. At 0 DEX ranks, no further actions can be attempted in that combat round. A riposte can be parried and riposted in turn, and that riposte can be parried and riposted. Keep track of penalties and DEX rank costs. SDLeary

Honestly, I can see a bandit leader who can "use a sword" and have a 91% or better chance to hit with it. That still doesn't mean he knows how to fence, just basic attack and parry. SDLeary

I think that normally they should only be made with the primary weapon, again because the off hand item, wether shield or secondary weapon, is holding the opponent open. Because this doesn't really happen with each series of strokes, I would say that it should only be allowed on a special or better, or perhaps at an initial -30% (extra action penalty?). A penalty like this would still make it possible, but only really useful to the more skilled. Now being able to riposte with your primary weapon, if you parried with it, should be an advanced technique or martial art. I can train with a rapier or arming sword, and get really really good at hitting things and damaging them, but it certainly does not mean that I know how to fence (a martial art). This is the kind of difference that you see between a farmer who might know how to use a spear well, and a warrior who has had extensive training in its use. Agreed, just need a bit more work. SDLeary

The basic outline for riposts does seem sound, with the penalties for multiple attacks to limit the scope, but... A problem that I see with this is that most weapon and shield tactics were based on responding with the primary weapon. Parry... holding attacking weapon aside, striking with primary. Much of what you see in individual combats, wether from main or off hand, are responses to what the other combatant just did. This is why combatants do disengage and circle periodically to re asses attack strategy and look for new avenues of attack (taking us to a new combat round). The only other way I see to handle this is to limit ripostes to a single attempt, regardless of skill, on a special or better parry, moving all advanced techniques from eastern and western fencing into Martial Arts type skills. SDLeary

Perhaps as advanced fighting styles via a "Martial Arts" type skill? Off weapon ripostes being one of the advantages of rolling under both skills on a parry? SDLeary

For anyone in the SF Bay Area, Endgame, will be holding their one day Mini-Con on October 3, 2009. If you are interested in running something, email the proprietors; to play, watch their site. SDLeary

Options are always good as long as they fit. The biggest issue that I personally have with this mechanism is how to fit them into the system. The only way that I can see would be to replace the issuance of skill points with a certain number of picks at character generation, or to use them as another powers system to give extra flavor. Something that might be of more utility for new players could be a series of pre-gen characters as examples of what can be done with the system. A Gadgeteer for example that uses skills and superpowers, a "Paladin" using skills and sorcery, etc. For what its worth, I like many of the Hinderances... very good options for SAN issues or for situations when you have to come up with an effect of characteristic loss after illness or poisoning, etc. SDLeary

I'm not aware of any cybernetic rules for BRP, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I would suggest though that you look at adapting the Powers options, perhaps also using the Sanity rules for dehumanization effects. SDLeary

I think they are going to be posting them in the Supplements & Monographs section, on a per title basis. I'm not aware of anyone compiling these into a single document yet. There is some discussion ongoing. SDLeary

That works. SDLeary

Honestly, I think this should vary depending on the setting. In a supers campaign, 5% per level makes sense. If someone is using the superpowers in a fantasy campaign or a low power supers game (Green Arrow, Batman, et al.)as magic, etc., then it can be a little high. SDLeary

Damn.... this is vera vera nicea. :thumb::shocked: Question though.... How do I become independently wealty like you so that I can pump this much quality out of my computer?! SDLeary

SIZ for me has always been Mass, and I think ultimately for Chaosium too. Witness their ease of changing the characteristic for Ringworld, with the stipulation that actual weight would vary from world to world. I think they have always referenced it as weight because all their "worlds" were at 1G. I have always found the attempt at relation to height to be a bad idea. Too much variation, even among humans, to be meaningful. SDLeary

That would be them. Thanks much! SDLeary

Does anyone know if the old SODA archives ever got archived? Specifically, I'm looking for an old BRP/RQ UNIX program that generated loads of random NPCs SDLeary

Characteristics can be improved, see p. 186 in the rulebook. You might want to consider a "bounus" if the character has a high SIZ stat. No need to make a skill for Spot, its there already under Perception. Sense Motive can easily be inserted... I would suggest under Mental, but would fit under Perception too.

Huh, never got this feeling with AiG. Always seemed a way to redo things to bring them more back into line with RQII, and to add updates for modern games. SDLeary

In addition to the sizable list above, I'd like to add a local mini-Con. Good Omens gaming group is sponsering their Good Omens mini-Con on 18 July, 2009 at: Endgame 921 Washington Street Oakland CA, 94607 USA This is as much charity food drive as it is gaming con, so anyone interested is encouraged to attend. As you can see, the game docket is filled, and there is no BRP listed, but fun should still be had all around. I also suggest that anyone in the SF Bay Area that is interested keep an eye on the Endgame site. They hold mini-Cons roughly quarterly. SDLeary

<scratches head>It looks like you have things figured out with regards to SIZ as on the revised table. They are 4 figure values, but if accurate then whey create something else to make it "look better"? </scratches head> SDLeary

You could certainly try it this way. With the all or nothing parry in BRP though, if your players characters are well skilled, and fighting a skilled opponent<s>, then you might find the combat long and drawn out. My suggestion would be to use the Heroic level options from the book (example: CON + SIZ for HP), and lower the penalty for additional defensive maneuvers if you think its too high. Perhaps down to -15 or -20 %. This will give the PCs better odds against multiple opponents without prolonging the combats too much, hopefully. SDLeary

Apparently I didn't... or it got swallowed... or something. I'll see if I can find the original text and post it here and the wiki. SDLeary

You could develop a formula where the damage was based on STR and SIZ, ala Pendragon. Some people might find that not granular enough though if you keep it as multiples of d6. I put an alternate/optional rule into the wiki a while ago. The gist was that weapons parry based on the rules from RQIII; that is that the remove damage from the roll rather than block it wholesale. I rationalize this as weapons not covering any appreciable part of the body and a forceful blow still landing, but significantly reduced. Shields would still block as BRP RAW. I suppose you could also distinguish as weapon parries actually being dodges, because you are generally moving your body out of the way as you move the weapon into place. Perhaps saying weapon parries are dodges modified by a weapon bonus? SDLeary