Jump to content

ragr

Member
  • Posts

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ragr

  1. I agree with the comments on balance. One of the (many) reasons I switched from 3.5 to BRP was because I was fed up with the arbitrary attempts to ensure everybody was having a good time by giving every character a bit of something. Elves IMC will be a lot better than your standard Human in statistical terms but this will be offset by the roleplaying hindrances that come with playing a character with such a different world view; they are not universally loved or respected and the campaign will feature such issues as racial dislike, intolerance and jealousy. Yes, it's a very dark Greyhawk. BTW, kudos to dragonewt for the worst pun in a long time.
  2. My thoughts exactly; this rule would also apply to beings with high POW such as Dragons etc. I'm running a Greyhawk campaign so being hit by iron won't be an issue as a counterbalance. However, I've always run the Elves (or Olve to give them their proper name) as haughty in the extreme and they are universally disliked by pcs who, of course, have to swallow all that antagonism and endure the attitude when forced into co-operating with the pointy eared buggers. If pc runs an Elf they get all that bad feeling back at them whilst trying to convince everyone that "I'm a nice guy, really".
  3. Thanks for the replies, guys. It didn't stir up much response so I'm guessing that whichever option I go for won't result in "breaking" anything later on. I'm going with the first of the two options as it suits the campaign better. For now anyway.
  4. Hi all. I have a question regarding interpretation of the POW gain rules on pg 186 of the BGB. The rules for Humans are very clear but if I have an Elven character, starting POW score 2d6+6, how do I calculate the minimum and maximum POW. Is it 8+18 = 26, or count the +6 as an additional die meaning 3+18 = 21 which is the same as human. My initial thoughts are the former but a friend of mine remembers the RQ system having it as the latter (the BGB mentions counting +6 as one die but in the context of "other character creation systems"). This makes a considerable difference to the chances of gaining POW; an Elf with 10 POW under the first system has an 80% chance of an increase but only 55% under the second. I'm still thinking the first as Elves are highly magical beings but I'd like to hear what others think.
  5. Been looking forward to this one for a while. Hit the fast forward.
  6. That I'm not sure on because I'm using some basic rules, some CF, and some house for my game; but don't forget that you can use whichever method you like. I'm notoriously anti weapon groups, so for my campaign I allow characters to use any other weapon in the group as "difficult" or at the base for the weapon, whichever is higher. That individual weapon can then be developed seperately. Don't worry, though. Someone will be along shortly with another answer. Don't forget to join the Yahoo group, there's more great stuff there.
  7. You start your quarterstaff skill at 25% + the character's combat skill category bonus + any points you've added from character generation. The basic rules then say that you can use shortstaff at the same score because it is in the same weapon class. However, on page 258 under the heading Using Weapons Of The Same Class, you can use slightly more realistic options; look at the huge list of variants under "Sword" for a good reason why using these options may be better. BTW, welcome to BRP/CF. I've given up 30+ years of D&D to convert to this system and it has proved really invigorating for the campaign and the players.
  8. Cheers, pansophy. You know, I've read that paragraph before elsewhere and clearly didn't retain the information. Thanks
  9. Hi all Still getting into the system and one of my players has asked me a question about special successes. This was an issue I was aware of and I intend to trawl through the errata/typos thread but this route might be quicker. Question here; Under the attack/defence matrix it states a special hit does full damage plus rolled damage bonus plus appropriate special result. However when you read the description bit that explains in greater detail it’s only criticals that do maximum damage, under specials it says it does normal weapon damage plus the special effect. The example it gives is for an impaling weapon (a firearm) which would do 1d8 damage plus the impaling effect. It further goes on under the description of impaling on the following pages to give an example where a shortsword does 2d6+2 damage, not 7 damage plus 1d6+1. As these are the examples that someone has given some thought to typing out, and there are two examples that agree I think that special hits do not do full damage but just normal damage plus damage bonus plus effect, and that the matrix contains a typo where the result has been copied from the critical result. Have a look (pages 193 onward) and see what you think – it looks logical to me and stops impaling weapons from being the über-weapon of choice... Thanks guys, Ragr
  10. I have serious time constraints so scenarios are what I would find most useful. I confess I also have a weakness for new spells and sorcery.
  11. Totally agree with the above. I came really close to using Rolemaster to replace my 3e/Pathfinder campaign before deciding on BRP instead and the RM rules required constant re-reading and interpretation.
  12. Imagine being a beginner and picking up the Pathfinder rulesbook for the first time. Or 4e. And those systems cover only one genre. I think BRP and the BGB are very simple when you stick to the basic framework and add the options (or not) later. Pansophy's advice to a beginner is excellent, especially with regards to the spot rules which you can pick up as you go. And, as he said, the more you re-read the book the more it begins to stick. My personal view on the presentation is that the BGB is one of the best looking books on the shelves and stands out amongst all the other products that are garish, overcoloured and unsubtle. I'd be quite happy for a stranger to see the book on a table at my house but I'd hide Pathfinder/D&D before they arrived. But, that's purely personal taste.
  13. I wonder whether BRP has created a new niche for itself as the "rebound" game for experienced players who are fed up with the power creep of other products. That's why I'm here and, it seems, a few others too. If it can keep its older audience, this, added to the "new oldies" like myself, should be enough to see it hold a market share it thoroughly deserves; everyone loves a plucky survivor.
  14. Thanks, rust. I missed the part about 3 pp per level for using the spell that way despite reading it 3 times:o. The "another place" as solid ground is certainly used in other game systems and seems reasonable.
  15. According to the letter of the rules it would be possible to cast the Teleport spell (pg 100 BRP) on an opponent sending them 1km up into the sky and causing a fatal fall. On a SIZ 12 opponent this would require 4 pps. Casting a 2d6 Blast spell would probably not be fatal but would cost 6 pps. This is clearly not in the spirit of the rules unless I've missed something. Any suggestions, revelations and guru-like pronouncements gratefully received. Ragr
  16. Yes, becomes a little ham-fisted. Sorry.
  17. I'm considering using the Fate Points option for exactly that thing. What is it with "streaky" dice?
  18. Hi Alex I'm in a similar position to you as I'm in the middle of converting my Greyhawk campaign (25+ years) from 3e to BRP. It's early days and so far we're at the stage of re-jigging three characters of 8th-9th level so we've yet to run a session. However, I have started to run my son through The Citadel By The Sea adventure (an old D&D classic start-up) using a new character at "normal" power level with a couple of sidekicks and I can certainly testify that the advice given above is accurate. The number of Orcs, as poorly armed and armoured as I made them, presented a huge challenge for a party of 3 and those few that had missile weapons were the most challenging of all. If I were to run the adventure again and didn't want a situation where the pc's had to flee and regroup I would probably halve the number of foes. That said, the adventure so far has been a thrill a minute as there are no "sure things" like there would have been with d20, which has reassured me that my decision to abandon the old system was a good one for my gritty style of game. Keep us posted on how things proceed for you, Alex, as I could do with all the help I can get when it comes to running the "higher level" characters.
  19. There are some solo RQ adventures at DriveThruRPG in the er.......RQ section. One's called A Trip To The Priory and there are two follow ups, Shadows Over Aralem and Down Among The Dead. There's also Firerock Pass by the same company (Auxo Ltd). Can't speak as to quality, just happened to notice them yesterday while browsing.
  20. AD&D was always great fun, not overpowered and fairly rules light, albeit a little confusing at times: roll high is good for this, roll low is good for that. Eh? Still, as a campaign framework it was great. I'm going to run COC next year so reading what you said above is great; setting and detail not weight of rules. I'm actually quite happy that BRP isn't as popular as some other games, especially the most well known. The fact that it's popular within a select audience practically guarantees that you're not inundated with supplements that run to 128 pages but deliver only 15 of interest and that those supplements that are released are labours of love not cash. And there's always that comparison with music; that band you love that you've seen 10 times at clubs and then they become global and you just can't get as interested now the secret's out.
  21. I agree totally. And, I wish 4e every success because it serves as a portal into the hobby and I wish Pathfinder the same because it's a very well written game. But, if and when the players/Gms grow tired of those very strengths, BRP needs to be here to offer an alternative (and those other great systems out there). It would be interesting to find out if it's Gms or players who get most disillusioned with highly regulated systems (or if it's just purely personal taste). In my case it was me, the GM, and my players probably would have happily continued with Pathfinder.
  22. Just stumbled across this thread and wanted to add my two pennies. I've just changed a very long running Greyhawk campaign from 3.5/Pathfinder to BRP; something which, in retrospect, I should have done when 2e ran out of steam. I had become thoroughly fed up with the overwritten, over balanced and over quantified nature of 3.5 and wanted a return to older days when a rule wasn't devised for every eventuality and you just got on with the game when there was something not covered by a "golden rule". The real beauty of BRP is that its flaws are easily covered over in gameplay because the mechanics lend themselves to adaptation without requiring me to sit down and write a 50 page house rule document; in essence everybody accepts that things went this way this time but next time they may not. In time I suspect that people will migrate from 4e and its ilk when they become tired of rules, regulation and balance and just want to experience a looser more intuitive game based on "my character jumps on the table and kicks the bulky barbarian's drink from his hand. What should I roll?" as opposed to "I leap on the table using my Salmon Leap feat, swinging a foot utilising Boot Sweep feat combined with Unarmed Disarm ability and then Backflip Into Striking Pose granting my party members an additional +1 on whatever for the rest of the melee". Eventually everbody tires of such pointless b***ocks. Keep it here, keep it simple and they will come. Those with any sense anyway.
  23. That's a very strong possibility given the curse of time. Great suggestion, Thalaba.
×
×
  • Create New...