SDLeary

An optional rule in RQ3 stated that soft armor counted as half vs. maces. But plate is hard armor. Are we sure that maces were so effective vs. plate? Plate is designed to spread the impact, much much better than chainmail. I would say that maces are more effective vs. chainmail, not plate, if you wish to introduce this spot rule.

IIRC, plate actually became more common BECAUSE of maces. Then the ante was upped with war hammers and picks and estocs. What I can see happening with plate and maces is more of a knock back effect... more energy transfered to the plate rather than absorbed by the spongy mass of the body.

Also, if the head is hit inside a greathelm, I can see some issues from concussive effect rather than direct damage that might KO the occupant.

SDLeary

I see what your doing here, it's in a way similar to RQ as I remember it, but how then do you factor in a deflecting parry? It's true that when you block a blow you are basically absorbing the force of it, which will cause damage the shield or weapon. When you deflect a blow you are really re-directing the blows force away. You often don't hit the edge of the weapon at all, or at least not at an angle that it will bite.

I'm not sure the difference really matters; or to be more precise can be explained by the way parrying actually works in the game. Keep in mind that if you parry, the whole blow is knocked aside, deflected. The only time the parrying weapon is damaged is if the level of success is higher than that of the defender. When this occurs some damage is taken by the shield, absorbed. Now, this isn't ideal... the "absorbed" blows are still mostly deflected, adjusting the amount of damage done rather than absorbing them directly to the shield.

Now, what I have attempted to do with the Optional rule above is to accentuate the absorption type of parry (I will re-read later and see if it actually reads as I intended), and to better differentiate between weapons and shields. I might adjust the amount of damage taken by the shields, but I honestly think that a powerful blow (one that exceeds the HP of the shield) would do some damage to the item regardless of the blow being deflected or absorbed.

Now... someone earlier mentioned a metal buckler... something from the late medieval period or the renaissance (though there are a few earlier examples). Such an item I would use version of the rule for metal weapons.

This is why maces were so effective against plate armor, it was harder to deflect the force of the blow because it wasn't so concentrated at a cutting edge*. So my argument is that an effective (not just successful) parry with a shield or weapon is one that deflects the blow in a way that does no damage to it (or at least no relevant damage at the scale used in an RPG). When I said in my earlier post that it doesn't matter whether the player chose to say the blow was blocked or deflected depending how they wish to visualize it, I meant in the context of an RPG it doesn't matter. In real life it does.

Hmmm... ok. I misunderstood you then. It sounded like you were asking why the system didn't differentiate between the types of blows taken by differing parrying devices.

The system as written has all parries be deflection type. The only time damage is inflicted upon weapon or shield is when the level of success is higher, or when the amount of damage exceeds the HP of the parrying device in a single blow.

Your system doesn't take this into account, every blow regardless of whether it was a deflection or a block, is treated like a block and damages the shield in a way that could lead to it's destruction. This just isn't the case.

No... my method still maintains deflection parries, but only if the amount of damage is below the HP value of the parrying device in a single blow, or if the level of success of the parry is higher than that of the attack. What I have done is introduce damage to the parrying device if the blow is strong enough (exceeds devices HP in one blow). Also note that all damage talked about is TO THE DEVICE, not absorbed by the device with the remainder passed through to the defender.

The BRP makes only Special and Critical success, or Fumbles for that matter, damage the parrying shield or weapon, as well as gives rolled damage to the defender. I think this is more accurate. Does it reflect the actual percentage of deflections over blocks or how much damage that particular shield really absorbed? Probably not, but it does a better job than if you don't take deflecting into account at all.

WOW... OK.... looks like I misunderstood you totally then. It sounded like you were making the opposite argument; that it wasn't more accurate. I was just giving an option.

SDLeary

I'm not convinced that you are actually getting any more realism. Your example of the Hoplon is a good one, you are correct that it is not used for deflecting blows as much as it is for blocking them. However, a Hoplon is terrible in single combat; it's just too heavy and unwieldy to move quick enough to block blows. Sure, it will block more of the blows damage when it does intercept than a small shield or sword block, but will intercept fewer of them. So unless your system addresses this kind of thing, all your doing is factoring in a plus without factoring in its minuses.

In a way the RAW BRP system does. The larger the shield, the more strength is needed to use it properly. If the characters strength is below the threshold, they can still use it, but at a disadvantage. They also have a dexterity threshold. In RQ3, iirc (no book handy), each point under these thresholds imposed a 5% penalty. In BRP, under either threshold and the attempt is Difficult.

This is a good observation, but not all shields would fall into the weapon like category. A Buckler (very small metal shield) would for sure but a large shield would not. The difference comes from both size and how the shield is held, if it is strapped to the forearm like a Hoplon, Roman Scutum (the big rectangle ones) or heavy medieval knights shield, it's more of a blocking shield used in formation like a wall or as added defense against arrows. These shields are heaver and are not optimized for single combat. If it's held in your fist in the middle so that it can be thrust about then it's more weapon like because it is intended more for single combat. These shields necessarily have to be smaller and lighter or you wouldn't be able to move them around for very long.

Actually, the use and design of shields depends on tactics. The Hoplites Aspis (Hoplon) was strapped on because the goal was to impose a regimentation that discouraged individual combat. Strapped on it does an excellent job in a disciplined shield wall. Thus it is more of a piece of armor than proper shield. Scutii, Celtic, Germanic,Viking, and even early Kite type shields used a hand hold behind a central boss, and were used to push opponents away and punch them when the opportunity arose. This also means that they are much easier to use in single combat because they are much more nimble devices.

[pedantic]Oh, also, bucklers are not necessarily metal. The Iberians used small wood and leather shields with a metal boss, about the size of the buckler, as apparently did Roman Gladiators! [/pedantic]

So like I said above a bigger heaver shield will stop more damage, but is too heavy to use effectively in single combat.

See above

So how do you write a system for this? You can't just count the shield or weapons strength, because that skews the advantage to heaver shields, and you can't say lighter shields or parrying with a weapon doesn't protect as much because they actually deflect more often than they block making the strength less relevant.

This has been brought up before, while things were still in playtest IIRC.

IMO, a metal weapon like a sword should have fewer HP, or more precisely AP (Armour Points) like in RQ. A successful parry at the same level of success should still deflect all the damage of the attack, but if the rolled damage exceeds the AP of the weapon in a single blow, then it has been damaged and the AP should be reduced by one point.

If the level of success is one higher, then the parry would only stop the amount of damage equivalent to the AP of the weapon; if AP exceeded, then reduced by one. If two levels of success higher, as above, but AP reduced by half the value that makes it through. A critical attack vs. a fumbled parry results in the weapon breaking.

You will note that I said metal weapons. Hafted weapons, while they can parry, are not designed to. They should always take one point of damage if they successfully parry an equal attack, half the excess on an attack one level higher, and break if they parry an attack two higher.

Shields absorb more, but once damaged tend to degrade faster.

On a normal success, if the HP of the shield are exceeded in a single blow, then the shield takes half the excess damage directly to its HP. If one level of success higher, the shields HP are reduced by the full excess amount of of the blow. Two levels higher, twice the excess of the blow.

This is just off the top, and does complicate things quite a bit for what could be little "realism" in return.

So the BRP just averages this all together and leaves it to the players to decide if the blow was deflected or blocked, because the end result is the same. If you parry effectively (a equal or better result than the hit) you and your parring device don't take damage. If that device was a large shield it blocked blow completely, if it was a small shield or weapon, you deflected, it doesn't matter. If your parry was inferior you and your parring device do take damage. Whether you took damage because you blocked with a small shield rather than deflected and was partially overcome, or that the blade took a chuck out of your massive Hoplon and smacked you in the face is up to you.

Dalmuti

Yes. In the eyes of many, a necessary level of abstraction to keep things moving. You CAN get bogged down by the realism.

And, just for reference, I do prefer the RQ III methods for figuring all this out.

SDLeary

Woo... ME Magic.... Hmmm...

An adaption of the Pendragon 4e would be interesting.

SDLeary

I have been more than a little slack in keeping up the transcription of my ME-BRP project. Christmas Holidays and New Year celebrations will do that I guess.

So I have just uploaded the latest preview for the Free Peoples chapter of ME-BRP. This one gives an insight into the Elves of Middle-earth focusing on the Noldor Elves.

Cheers,

Fergo113

An excellent addition! Thank much!!

SDLeary

As noted, the rules already do this, but it creates its own problems, such as precluding perfectly real world-world two weapon techniques.

That's the issue; two-weapon should be doable, but on a defensive level it should be somewhat inferior to weapon and shield; currently its either inferior across the board, no matter how you're trained (which isn't right) or its no worse than a shield defensively unless missile weapons come into play). (which also isn't right).

I don't see the issue. You have two skills. One for right hand, one for left hand. Two handed technique possible. Just as you have two skills for sword and shield, spear and shield, axe and shield, and so on.

Now, there is nothing precluding you from creating a new skill that is a two weapon technique... but this sounds a bit odd. Does your skill automatically halve when you loose one of the two weapons? When you loose your shield with "Sword and Shield Technique"? In fact these sound like skills (Skills or Aspects or Abilities) that you might have in SotC or HQ. BRP has always been much finer grained.

SDLeary

EDIT: SIGH... Never mind. Thats what I get when I reply before the coffee has taken effect.

The original BRP rules state that shields do not take damage when parrying. This is wrong: a wooden shield will take damage from an axe blow, while a sword will probably not (though if it does it will probably break). Still, shields should not be inferior to weapons in melee, but rather superior. This point is probably one of the few flaws in the current incarnation of the rules.

Hence the above suggestion. Its not that they don't take damage, but take it in a different way or under different circumstances. As for Axes, perhaps a special effect, ala Pendragon...

On a Special result, half the damage rolled is automatically transfered to a Parrying, shield, if one is being used, or one quarter the damage if a weapon is being parried with.

SDLeary

One thing which I noticed is that there is a difference in the way are listed. Weapons are listed as having Hit Points. Shields as Armor Points/Hit Points. This tells me that at one point there was probably a difference in the way these two devices took damage.

Also, looking at the Attack and Parry Matrix in Stormbringer 5e (p113), it appears as if ONLY weapons took damage from differences in Level Of Success. Shields only took damage if their HP were exceeded in a single blow.

This makes Shields much more useful. I'm wondering if the way the HP and AP/HP things are listed in BRP means that this is the original intent of how Shields were supposed to work. In any event, this is how I'm going to interpret/use the rules.

SDLeary

I think they would have done so already if they could or intended to. Superworld is up there for example. As Lawrence said above, it is probably licensing.

That being said, there are fan efforts. This site is a good start:

Larry Niven's Ringworld

...and if your looking for something harder or to add harder elements to your vision of the Ringworld, I'd encourage you to check out the Cthulhu Rising monograph, and the associate web site:

[ CTHULHU RISING: CALL OF CTHULHU ROLEPLAYING IN THE 23RD CENTURY ]

SDLeary

Or rather a new version of one of the older ones.

I've uploaded a Fillable Form version of my 1.1e sheet. It is fillable only at the moment. No calculations are made. Thats next on the list.

Happy Turkey Day to everyone here in the US!!

SDLeary

Sorry about that.

Its in Arial font for the main text and Celtic font for the headings. I could do a version in serif if people want it, but its a BIG file and I have to get Trifletraxor to load it up for me. So its not an easy process to load a second version in another font.

Alternatively I might be able to send you a serif font version via FilePlanet if you can private message me an appropriate email to send it to you.

:confused:

Fergo113

No no no... not needed. More a suggestion for the final product or future product, no need to upload another version.

For some reason, serif fonts don't fatigue the reader as much as sans.

SDLeary

Looks excellent!!

I have one request though... in the name of readability.

Please change the body text to a serif font!!! Please please please!!!

SDLeary

:thumb:

Okay, BRP adopts an all-or-nothing mechanism that makes the parrying weapons APs irrelevant when actively defending. Is it an improvement over Chaosium RQ (and early MRQ) where weapon APs were used as armor in parrying? YES, it is. Having GMed legions of warriors who invoked Humakt's blessing on their tempered iron hoplite shield to obtain the 36-point ultimate parrying weapon (roughly equivalent to an Iowa-class battleship plating if you check the armor values on page 271), I think an all-or-nothing mechanism that models a parry as a deflection of the blow is more playable, if not utterly realistic.

But what about Simon's leather shield blocking a greatsword (or worse a halberd)? The situation described is realistic. Therefore I hereby propose the following

Spot Rule

When the attacker achieves a higher level of success against a defender who is parrying (blocking) with a shield, the damage does not affect the target but the shield. If the damage is greater than the shield AP/HP, the shield breaks and the excess damage affects the target. If the attacker achieves two levels of success more than the defender (critical vs. success) the shield APs are halved, rounding down.

I would like to suggest the following change to the above spot rule...

Spot Rule

When the attacker achieves a higher level of success against a defender who is parrying (blocking) with a shield, the damage does not affect the target but the shield. If the damage is greater than the shield AP/HP, the shield is reduced by the amount in excess. If the attacker achieves two levels of success more than the defender, the shield breaks and the excess damage affects the defender.

This would somewhat soften the stark "parry or not" and allow something of a whittling effect, similar to what was in RQ 3. And the breakage of the shield is a much more dramatic effect than simple halving of AP/HP when a critical is achieved.

SDLeary

Happy Halloween!

Happy New Year!

And for this bestest of holidays, some intense geekery!

The Call of Cthubuntu

SDLeary

The problem is it takes a long time for a shaman to get a big enough fetch to contain most spirits, so unless the campaign permits a really large amount of downtime (which I gather from a post in another thread yours did) it can be problematic actually bringing the spirits to bear on whatever problem you're addressing.

This assumes of course that you need a fetch, or that the spirits need to be bound to it. Why not bound to charms and fetishes? Tattoos? The RQ concept of the fetch or helper spirit as container for all things spiritual need not be the only one (and I've always seen it as a particularly Gloranthan thing). Binding could also simply create a link to the spirit, having them appear from the aether when "summoned to do bidding".

That brings up another point. Did anyone else ever find the concept of an INT spirit or a Spell sprit, or any of the other non-ghosty type spirits a bit mechanical?

SDLeary

That sounds like hot d-fourplay to me.

OK... someone ready the firing squad!

SDLeary

No no no... ya all have it wrong!!!

A failure is still a failure! And a fumble... well...

You tie that to Sanity. And the magician looses SAN equal to the PP in the spell! >:->

There has to be a reason for all those, um, esoteric magicians hiding in their towers and the periodic "witch" hunts conducted by the peasants!

SDLeary

still draining 1d100 POW should kill anything it wounds.

Yes, but Stormbringer didn't have to drain, it could choose. This would explain why some foes survived.

SDLeary

I recently took some of the recommendations about SB5th Edition and bought the game and have been reading it, alongside reading Michael Moorcocks Elric stories.

Who wrote this game? 880% for Elric weilding Stormbringer. 17D10 damage. You ahve got to be kidding me.

Having read 4 of the stories now, Id give him no more then a 80% with the weapon and people survive hits from Stormbringer on a regular basis (granted, not all human, but given their stats the sword should kill everything on a single hit).

The stats are so ridiculous that the background material in the books is barely noticed as I keep glancing at these outrageous and inaccurate stats.

Were all editions of the game like this? Does anyone play it at this level? DO you houserule the stats and abilities?

Rant over.

This is something that changed with Elric/SB 5e. Before this, he was in the 100% range. Also, Stormbringer was 2d8 + 3d6 + 1d6 in Elrics hands. In addition it could drain 1d100 POW. Every 10 points of POW drained increased its own skill by 2% or Elric's STR or CON.

I'm not sure why the change was made, but a guess would be to enable the "cinematic" sequences. But today it does seem odd rather than introducing a mook rule.

SDLeary

Speaking of Pendragon,

I understand that there is a Glorantha Pendragon adaptation floating around that is NOT Dave Dunham's PendragonPass. It supposedly shoehorns Glorantha into the game to the point were Pendragon 4e's Magic system is used...

Anyone heard about this?

SDLeary

I posted a homebrew one, but it didn't end up with the rest of the character sheets in the download section. Its in "//Downloads/Systems & Settings/Runequest". Its "Runequest CS rev2"

SDLeary

What about losing passions?

Without some sort of off screen time mechanic, like Pendragon Winter Phases, I'm not really sure how to handle this. Time and distance, not having to interact with object of said passion. This would be a GM/Player interaction type thing, of course.

Perhaps if the SAN loss actually causes Temporary Insanity, one of the effects would be to lower the Passion. Kind of a hardening against the person/thing that they perceive harmed them.

SDLeary

Has anyone converted the Passions system to BRP? I'm interested in using it for an upcoming fantasy game, but as written in Pendragon it doesn't quite work.

I've been toying with this idea, and here is what I've come up with so far...

[WARNING... this is not on paper, so I'm pulling this out of... well you get the idea.]

Passions are a percentage (of course).

Passions can be used to augment skills (as can Traits if you use them) at the rate of 1/10th percentage provided the player can convince the GM that the passion is valid in the situation.

The player may choose to roll the passion to become Inspired. A success yields a +40%, a critical +60% for the chosen skill. If the character fails in the task that they were Inspired for, then they suffer shock... 1d3 SAN loss.

If they fail their inspiration roll, then they become Disheartened... 1d6 SAN loss.

If they fumble their roll, they are Maddened... 1d10 SAN loss.

Because of the nature of the shocks, I would also adjust the Short and Long Temporary tables, but haven't done anything there yet.

SDLeary

I'm sorry for busting on ya here , but that clip is not what I would consider a full-out match. It's more of a controlled sparring session with each guy trying to improve the skills they already have . Personally, I think these's clips are a better example of two opponents sparring at full contact speed without trying to main one another.

No, not a full out match, but people of differing schools/styles who appear to have not sparred much if at all before, and thus don't know the others capabilities. Still no chance of serious injury or death, and I have to imagine that if their weapons were real that their dance between strikes would have been longer. Similar to the third video you listed... the Kendo vs Escrima.

The first I've seen before, again a sparring match with people apparently of the same art/school, equipped the same, probably sparred before and have a decent understanding of the others capabilities.

The second... well that looks like me and my friends back in High School when we were playing with Shinai. ;-)

I'm not saying that 6 seconds in unreasonable for a combat round, but I can see why it might be as much as 12 seconds as well. Especially if the combatants are not familiar, with all the dancing and ranging taps to weapons and shields between actual strikes, and with the real stakes of serious injury or death ensuing.

SDLeary

Overall, six seconds in probably more realistic, but one thing keeps me in check on this.

Everything shown in the vids is either brawls, or martial artists in sparring situations. Presumably with opponents knowing each other and knowing something of the capability of their opponents, and with little chance of serious injury or death ensuing. Would people who didn't know the other, or who didn't have a clue as to the style of their opponent really react in such a manner?

To me, this video looks a bit more realistic. Still not necessarily a full 12 seconds, but certainly with much longer pauses between strikes (looking for an opening?)

Now, as to Jasons army/cop friend, an importation and modification of the shooting rules from Ringworld, which stated that you could shoot on each impluse after your initial dex rank.

SDLeary

Optional Rule Follows...

Firearms (Optional)

Most modern firearms are capable of fire at much higher rates than muscle powered missile weapons or early single shot firearms. In order to simulate this you might want to use the following.

Mulit-Barrel,Semi-Auto, and Automatic firearms in burst operation are initially shot at the characters DEX rank (or Strike Rank), and my be fired on each subsequent DEX rank (or strike rank) as long as all shots are at the same target and the weapon still has ammunition. If the target changes, they must wait till their next normal action (DEX rank or Strike Rank). Each shot or burst after the first incurs a penalty of -15% (cumulative) to the chance to hit. If at any point the weapon runs out of ammunition and needs to be reloaded, the target is changed, or the end of the Combat Round is reached, the sequence is broken and the character resumes the normal combat sequence.

Bolt Action and Lever Action firearms with internal magazines may shoot at the characters DEX rank (or Strike Rank), then again on the characters DEX rank -10 (or DEX SR + 3 + DEX SR if using Strike Ranks) as long as all shots are at the same target and the weapon still has ammunition. Each shot after the first incurs a penalty of -20% (cumulative) to the chance to hit. If at any point the weapon runs out of ammunition and needs to be reloaded, the target is changed, or the end of the Combat Round is reached, the sequence is broken and the character resumes the normal combat sequence.

Single Shot and Muzzle Loading firearms always shoot at their listed Attk value as the reload sequence is long enough and visual enough to disrupt any reasonable chance of being able to recover without having to reacquire the target.

For those who wish to lay down suppressive fire or simply shoot without aiming, please consult the Volley Fire spot rule.