SDLeary

That is listed as an expansion to the basic listed before. 6 PP is the cost. SDLeary

I don't know.. if you are playing with Hit Locations, this can be the difference between holding onto your weapon or not. Or, if over double has been reached in a location, the difference between going unconscious or not (trunk locations). Not to mention that it could prevent bleeding. SDLeary

Actually, going back to it, its a Soak ability. 3 PP gives you the ability to soak up one point of damage. Thus, to soak up three points of damage, you would need to expend 9 PP, and so on. Its written to imply that only the characters person PP should be used, but does not state that explicitly (the term used is their).

Yeah, I play with InDesign, but whats produced can sometimes be odd. What got me on this though was thinking that there might be something that should be on p32 that talks about Fate Points, and for some reason its not there (perhaps a link to a text box that is in the "paste up" area of the DTP program that was supposed to be inserted but wasn't). SDLeary

In response to a post in another thread, I went looking for the Fate Points option, and ran into an issue in indexing that might point to more items that were dropped out of the edit. Of course, it could simply be indexing issues, but not having a previous edit to compare too. Indexing: Fate Points (p373) Points to references on pgs 32 and 176. There is no mention of Fate Points on p32 that I could see. There is a large call-out box there talking about Fatigue and Sanity. Perhaps a paragraph in that call-out with an option that included Fate?? Ironically, right after the previous issue... Indexing: Fatigue Points (p373) References pgs 12 and 21, which both do have Fatigue references. But p32 with the call-out box listed above is NOT referenced. SDLeary

Looks like 5 PP to re-roll (but you cannot re-roll a re-roll); 5 PP to ignore a skill and use your Luck roll instead at a difficulty of Difficult (skills only, not resistance or characteristic rolls); Ignoring damage from a single attack at the cost of 3 PP /point. Thats from a quick skim... I'm still reading it, and there are some indexing issues, so the full explanation might take a bit. SDLeary

It would be way up the scale. A combined Strength and Size of 71-75 yields a DB of +10. The formula is ((STR + SIZ) / 5), round up, then subtract 5. SDLeary PS... what other system were you thinking of? <dense right now>

This is somewhat easy to resolve though. You just don't add the Skill Category bounus into the skill. Reference it after you roll your skill. If you make the skill roll, and the bonus is not a negative, go no further. If you miss the roll, see if the difference is covered by the bonus. That also means that when stats change, you only have to deal with the bonus entry, not fiddle with each skill. SDLeary Edit: Woops! Posted too soon!

It is different. A bit crunchier than HQ, but not by a great deal. It is FATE/FUDGE. SotC itself is Pulp, ala 20's 30's gangster stuff, radio serials, King Kong, etc. Best place for a sample: Evil Hat Productions Wiki: Spirit Of The Century Or if you prefer fantasy: Evil Hat Productions Wiki: Lord of the Rings Now back to our regularly scheduled debate. SDLeary

Yup... your right. My bad. It has been out longer. Yes. Like a lot of game companies, Chaosium believed that finished games around specific genres was a better approach. As to their not doing anything for the last 15 years or so... a lot of that has to do with lack resources. After the AH deal killed RQ (and some would argue that deal itself was the start), Chaosium had an amazing string of bad luck which has hampered them and forced them to concentrate on one line. Some things happened last year which seems to have given them something of a jump start, so lets hope the BRP core is the start of a renaissance for them. I'm glad to hear that they had the resources to do this sort of reality testing. Unfortunately for Chaosium, they were not as lucky over the years. It also didn't help that the one person they had that even had a basic grasp of the weapons things moved on to video games. I haven't looked at GURPS in years; I probably should ...currently doing the SotC thing. <Not directed at Joseph, but at the populace of this thread> Yes, but if they don't have knowledge about the subject, in this case ballistics and to a lesser degree armor physics, then what do you do? You (the fans) have to make the case to them that this is needed. No, Jason is not the man for this. He has done his job and come up with this excellent compilation. You (fans again) have to convince the guys at Chaosium. This is done by writing up a proposal and submitting it. Perhaps with a sampling of what you are offering. Jason has stated many times that proposals for supplements are being accepted. There are, of course, other options. Like playing GURPS... or HERO >:-> <ducking!> OK.. I understand what your talking about. But, what you are talking about is essentially starting from scratch. Jason has already written and complied things, we are in final proofing/editing. If you or anyone else really thinks this kind of detail needs to be in the Core, then you have to contact Charlie NOW and convince him. Because he will have to release and authorize another round of playtests with the proposed rules changes, integrate them into what Jason has produced, lay things out again, proof again... Thats what would need to happen. And it would probably cost Chaosium monies they don't have in the plan for the year. Which, based on their past luck, is bad. And there would still be people who don't like what's been produced because it doesn't fit their vision. Nah! Only me mum called me SD! But you can call me S :cool: WOOPS! I didn't quote enough before! See above! SDLeary

Funny, when playing GURPS way back when, I don't remember them having it right. In fact, way back when, Hero seemed to have a better grasp. >:-> And, I'll bet that most of the "got it" on the part of GURPS didn't start with the RPG crew, but with fans who wrote things up with additional/optional rules and submitted them for consideration. That game has been around as an active setting-less system for much longer. With SIZ, I agree... they should just say Mass and get it over with. Perhaps re-introducing body types. But I don't see it as a deal breaker for a game. As far as handling what GURPS can, then perhaps something should be written up and submitted? Thats what is being done with Vehicle rules, IIRC. Perhaps if something is written up it can be released with a Genre supplement? SDLeary

I think you would have to find a way for Chaosium to retain a Physicist/Engineer then. None of the people there currently have science training that I'm aware of. That means that for a lot of this they are eyeballing the stuff to levels that make it reasonable in a Story, not RW. Note that they have not done a SciFi (where the eyeballing would work less) since Ringworld. SDLeary

OOOH I hates you.... you dirty hobbits. One of the best supplements for multiple games ever. I regret getting rid of mine years ago. SDLeary

Ahh.. you cut too soon. Note the sentence about BRP being in final print. Until we see the final product, referencing older games upon which the core rules are based on is valid Agreed. And Jason know knows about it. Pick up, yes. Pick up, aim, hold on target? Not necessarily. That is where the STR/DEX requirements come in, and skill. When the weapon is in use. As for burst fire, that should lower chance to hit IMHO. True... but your not talking about everything. You are talking about a part of the combat system that most people (based upon responses on this list and in my history of play) don't consider to be off to the degree that you and a few others do. Are the authors and publishers to make the somewhat extensive changes you describe in a settingless core rulebook to satisfy what appears to be a vocal minority, or should that be left to those who design specific settings for the game. Personally, I think the latter. As for purchasing and houseruling from that other company, you could certainly do that too. Yea Verily! SDLeary

Simply by country and weapon name. So you need to know you are looking for an HK-MP5 SMG for example. Each weapon lists its caliber, magazine capacity, base range, and malfunction. You then reference the Damage Tables to find the damage of the round. After the tables is a small section that talks about different ammo types and their effects. Other than that, all the weapons of a particular caliber are pretty much the same. SDLeary

Jason, Equipment: Advanced Missile Weapons Table (p256) Stun weapons in general. There is no description of how these weapons work. I'm assuming these work based on the "Stunning or Subduing" Spot Rule, but there is nothing to direct you here. Or is it the "Knockout Attack" Spot Rule? --- Spot Rules: Stunning or Subduing (p232) Bullet point two references "blunt weapon special effect described on page 232 of Chapter Five: Combat". Obviously the rule referenced is not on p232. ;-) The only rule I can find that references blunt weapons in the Combat chapter is the Crushing rule for Special Successes. Also, bullet point three references another Spot Rule... Knockout Attack. Perhaps the two should be combined to avoid the cross referencing? Thanks! SDLeary

Maxims also often defeated the early tanks. The 7.92 and 12.7 were going for the sure kill. If you look at the early designs of the AT rifles, they were often like oversized sniper guns. They often aimed at the driver position and got the kill that way. Personally, I'm of the opinion that handguns and shotguns should NOT impale, but its not a deal breaker by any means. I also think that Criticals bypassing armor should not apply when talking about armored vehicles. See above. Not so much so... With Hit Locations, a hit in the trunk will knock you unconscious and start you bleeding at 1 pt per round. Thats at double or more than location value. Less than double it depends on where in the trunk you get hit. Lets see some options then mister!! SDLeary PS... Anyhow I'm off this subject... until the next time it comes up ;-)

Referencing these games is valid. They were the two combat heavy versions of BRP, and the vast majority of the rules are based on Stormbringer, with references and options from other BRP versions. Also, BRP is not in final print yet. Hence all the debate, which the author, Jason, is monitoring and participating in. Now with that in mind. He did correct me on the penalty. See above. They still need to be able to hold a good chunk of the weight off the ground and on target (if on a bipod) or in both hands if in other firing positions. So, yes, some strength is required. (if on a tripod or pintle I agree with you) As for this and the other stuff, if thats the way you see it, then house rule it. SDLeary

Oops! Your right. I totally missed the italics there. Perhaps the (1/2 chance) could be placed there as a reminder. Sorry! SDLeary

Yes and no. I think this hinges on your definition of Vintage Tank. In this case, this description conjures up images of a British Mk III, German A7V, early French Renaults, etc. The .50 BMG round was designed as an anti tank round against these threats. And, 19 points seems low for steel plate. Iron plate, yes, but not steel. Perhaps the higher APs simply need to be adjusted up. I think this might have to do with language differences more than anything else. As for axes going through... it would have to be a crit with a maximum roll on a 1d6 DB... possible but not likely (the hit not the effect)... I got nuthin. While there are instances of people living (heroic CON roll?)... most people who get hit by a .50 in the trunk or head do die "immediately", or shortly after due to blood loss. Most of those who live get hit in the limbs. Also note, that the minimum on that weapon is 9... so a minimum roll is "survivable". Again, thats probably one of those abstraction issues. I'm all for more accuracy, IF it doesn't bog down an already (potentially) long combat sequence. I still haven't seen one which does this though. SDLeary

In RQ III is was a minimum to use the weapon without penalty. Each point of the characteristic below the minimum listed reduced the chance to use that weapon by 5% cumulative. In Stormbringer if you didn't meet the minimums, your chance with the weapon was halved. In BRP, no penalties are suggested, but the GM is urged to not ban the use of a weapon outright. So its in the GMs court. So in none of those situations are you REQUIRED to meet the minimums. The ratings, IIRC, were based on proper use of that weapon. In the case of the Barrett Light 50 (now the M107), the proper/designed use is NOT from the hip, or standing from the shoulder. Its using a bipod, tripod, pintle, or other bracing/mount. So I can see a minimum STR 5. SDLeary

It has separate tables which handle "Guns" and ammunition. The gun tables give the stats for the weapons, sans damage. Damage is given for the ammunition. Damages are slightly different to what is in Cthulhu, but seem to follow the model of earlier versions of the game, and Cthulhu Now. SDLeary

I would suggest a copy of either Cthulhu Now (if you can find one) or Delta Green (ie Setting/Scenario books). The weapon stats are not perfect, but a bit better than what is in the core book here. Still very deadly though. SDLeary

Not really applying them twice. There is only the one value. When a shield is damaged, that one value drops. Actually, its having their integrity only effected at this time (during Specials and Criticals) that makes them more durable than in RQ or Stormbringer. In these two games, their integrity was reduced when their defensive values were exceeded, not simply during Specials or Criticals. Understood. The issue here is that the higher defensive value of the shields IS taken from Stormbringer AND they are harder to damage than they were in either RQ or Stormbringer, not simply that they are higher than the shield values in RQ. No no.. this is understood. Thanks Jason! SDLeary

In RQ for example, AP values on the shields is much lower, 8 points lower in the case of a hoplite shield (18 in RQ vs 26 in the table on p261). In RQ, Javelins did 1D10 damage (I believe they based this on a Pilum), in BRP its 1D6+1/2DB. Even using the higher damage rating from RQ, the hoplite shield in BRP cannot be penetrated, even on a critical. Even a BRP Buckler or Half Shield will stop a BRP javelin, most of the time on a crit. In RQ and Stormbringer, a shield is damaged if its AP are exceeded. In RQ, the shield is reduced by one AP, in Stormbringer by the difference (thus 28 points done to a 26 point shield do 2 points of damage to the shield). In BRP, its listed as requiring a special, and then only inflicting one or two points of damage to the shield, depending on the parry success level.* By increasing the AP/HP value of the shields, and by increasing the threshold required to damage the shield, the fighter with the shield has become much more a tank than they were before. Fine in a Stormbringer (Epic?) level game or higher, but a bit high for a normal or heroic level game. I know all this can be changed based on genre and house rules. It just seems like these changes will prolong combat a bit more for those who choose only to use the core, or in pick-up games. Thanks! SDLeary * Another change just noted... The "Attack and Parry Matrix" on p 193 shows shields taking damage (up to 4 points) depending on the level of success of the attacker. This is another change over the old "core" rules. Intentional?? SDLeary