frogspawner

The question is, what is it that makes a character a "Thief" or "Magic-user" (or "Fighter" or "Cleric" or whatever)? And what stops all characters being a blend of all of them? Possession of a "key" skill for each class/profession, I'd say. And there should be something other than just "guilds" to stop/minimise proliferation and consequent multi-classing. Or is that a campaign decision? But I think there should be something else, like an "hours in the day" principle, preventing (or at least limiting) characters from developing too many disparate "key" skills. Thoughts?

Just be aware Barbarians in UA have no berserking ability (though plenty of other skills). As written, they also hate magic...

Yes, I think Opposed Rolls are bad, and add needless complexity to an otherwise simple system. Even the most experienced gamers end up arguing over and misinterpreting them (as I believe you have here - IMO the winner's Degree of Success may be reduced, but the loser doesn't get any success). And to introduce Opposed Rolls into combat when no previous version of BRP used them for that is a Mistake. But I treat the whole rule-set as a "toolkit", and just don't use 'em. So it's no problem...

Looking in Unearthed Arcana (thanks for the reference!), I see those Barbarians weren't berserkers... I'd just say berserking means to lose all parries and gain an extra attack instead.

Yes, "toolkit" is the word. I agree it's not great in terms of evolution - but it's in print! That's a very good selling point. For me the multiplicity of options and rules, even if they conflict, are all to the good - it lets me choose/interpret what's best. My players are highly unlikely to read such a weighty tome anyway. I suggest you start with the much simpler "BRP Quickstart" freebie, cut-and-paste in any extra rules you want from the main book (missing out "opposed rolls", obviously! bleurch!), and use that...

Fighters [Multiple Attacks] - I agree with your approach here and use something very similar myself. (It's modelled on Martial Arts but gives extra attacks rather than extra damage). I call it "Expertise (<weapon>)". Rangers [Favored Enemy] - Mmm, interesting - I may nick that one! Thieves - I let Pick Pockets (aka Sleight) give extra back-stabbing attacks. (But not as elegantly as Fighter's 'Expertise', just as a crude number - reminiscent of OD&D's damage multiple.) Wizards - For these I have a number of different magic-related skills, giving rise to special abilities, including some rather like yours.

I'd suggest you go back the original AD&D source and convert from there. BTW, what would that source be? I think the Barbarian was in an old White Dwarf, but I don't know of it in any official 1st-ed book.

It's ideal. Go for it - and enjoy!

Hmmm, 'frog gaming'... as per that other classic Bunnies & Burrows... one day, perhaps...

Sorry, but it really should be a Killer (as in, "Temple of the...") Frog. There's nothing more classic than Blackmoor.

You're welcome. Any chance of shoe-horning Killer Frogs into the list...?

Nice - thanks for that. But shouldn't it be in the "BRP Fallout" thread?

Yup. And Melnibonean. Yup again. Latest I heard, they just wanted a "By kind permission of Chaosium" statement - and got it in the next printing. But then a later editor didn't want to give a credit to a rival company, so took them out. But forgot to take out the credit statement! And may I suggest "Ocular Tyrant" instead of just plain Tyrant? (Assuming it is "That Thing With The Eyes" TM, Order of the Stick...)

Not at all - you're just like the majority of us for whom this is a non-issue. This thread is just attempting to provide an answer those few who think the traditional Resistance Table is lacking in some way - perhaps by being 'unscalable', i.e. not useful for contests between higher-than-typical stats (such as supers might have).

Indeed. And a GM could also get strict over the requirement to be "physically next to" the target area, even within the 10m range. "Sorry, your witch-sight can't reach into the Abbot's chamber 3m away, because you're outside the monastery's perimeter fence." ... assuming suitably mean GM interpretations. A pretty safe bet, I trust!

Nope, the max range is 100m tops, no matter how many pp spent. So that aspect's not too powerful at all.

Yeah, that's just the sort of system I'd like to resolve Hide/Sneak type situations, but with as few rolls as possible to eliminate the excessive chanciness. But I can see why most people would prefer single-roll contests for some things - fun though it might be to have a campaign where Competitive Basket Weaving supplants combat as the major conflict resolution system! (I see it as taking place in an asylum populated by failed & insane CoC characters, btw... maybe a monograph? ) So I wonder if my "Patent Scalable Resistance Table ", as seen over in the Resistance Table thread, might be pressed into service for this too? Using that, 100v99, 100v95, 95v94 all come out as 50%, 90v80 as 55%, and for more examples 75v25=85%, 75v60=60%, 80v20=90% and 200v50=95%. These seem intuitively 'about right' to me. And there's the added advantge that adopting this (in place of the standard table) doesn't proliferate the number of different mechanics in the system.

"Clairvoyance + Clairaudience up to 10m or up to 100m for familiar areas; or limited Psychometry (like the Psychic ability), up to 1 day into the past per level; or Identify properties of magical objects, 10% chance per level." Yes, you may well think this is too powerful - especially since the Psychometry psychic ability has a Big, Fat "you might want to ban this as too powerful" disclaimer on it, and this spell does even more! To limit it's power, I'd make the following interpretations: 1) "Familiar" means very carefully studied areas (closely examined to the exclusion of any other activity for several days, or lived in for a month or more); 2) A hazy image of the caster appears at the place being viewed (warning/scaring anybody there); 3) Visions into the past don't last an additional day per level, they're only projected back 1 additional day per level (i.e. they still only show 10 rounds, so the chance to see something significant is minimal). 4) Any psychometry the GM thinks isn't "psychically significant" just shows a blank haze (but this is also the effect if anyone involved is/was wearing cheap protective charms to ward off the 'evil eye'...) That should do for starters...

I like that approach. I'd use re-rolls if the Degree of Success is a draw. (But perhaps just for the higher-skilled character?) The problem with a single roll v. roll is it's too chancy - higher-skilled characters cannot rely on their superiority as much as they should. This approach helps by spreading the contest over multiple rolls, giving higher skills better opportunity to prove their worth, as combat.

OK, how about this "Scalable Resistance Table" ? To make it, I worked out the multipliers which gave the standard results for a number in the normal range (12, in this case), and then found the numbers that'd give the same chances, assuming scalabilty. (Yes, it needed a calculator, or rather a spreadsheet, but now it's done you don't need one). To use it, read down from the Active stat to the first number which equals or exceeds the Passive stat, then use that line's percentage chance: [B]% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 35 40 50 %[/B] 100% 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 7 8 100% 95% 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 8 9 10 13 95% 90% 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 10 12 13 17 90% 85% 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 13 15 17 21 85% 80% 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 15 18 20 25 80% 75% 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 18 20 23 29 75% 70% 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 20 23 27 33 70% 65% 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 23 26 30 38 65% 60% 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 18 19 20 21 25 29 33 42 60% 55% 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 28 32 37 46 55% 50% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 35 40 50 50% 45% 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 33 38 43 54 45% 40% 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 35 41 47 58 40% 35% 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 38 44 50 63 35% 30% 1 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 29 31 32 33 40 47 53 67 30% 25% 1 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 13 14 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 43 50 57 71 25% 20% 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 27 29 30 32 33 35 36 38 45 53 60 75 20% 15% 2 3 5 6 8 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 21 22 24 25 27 29 30 32 33 35 36 38 40 48 55 63 79 15% 10% 2 3 5 7 8 10 12 13 15 17 18 20 22 23 25 27 28 30 32 33 35 37 38 40 42 50 58 67 83 10% 5% 2 4 5 7 9 11 12 14 16 18 19 21 23 25 26 28 30 32 33 35 37 39 40 42 44 53 61 70 88 5% 0% 2+ 4+ 6+ 7+ 9 11 13 15 17 18 20 22 24 26 28 29 31 33 35 37 39 40 42 44 46 55 64 73 92 0% Since it's scalable, you don't need to extend it to 300, 400 or whatever - just divide the opposed stats by a factor that makes both fit on the table. Would anyone find this useful for their Super-Sized Resistance Rolls? PS: This version was based on 12 (so 12 is identical to the standard Resistance Table), but another base number could be chosen if you prefer. There seem to be some oddities at the low end (caused by rounding?) but I'm sure these could be tweaked for the final version. And all numbers on the bottom line should be that or more, but not all the +'s wouldn't fit!

OK, it's a fair cop. But I still reckon the system shouldn't have built-in advantages to PCs over NPCs. (Giving those is the GMs job! )

I think you're skating on thin ice with that idea. Will there never come a time when PC acts against PC? Will one unexpectedly fail, in the absence of an advantage they'd become accustomed to?

Sorry, but I don't think either of these is exactly correct. Trying to hide/sneak away from a ravening monster is "defensive", right? Yes, that's more like it. But isn't trying spot/hear someone who's hiding/sneaking away with your treasure "defensive" too? By default they are the same - unless you spend development points or play the skill category bonuses option. But even then the principle remains true, that Hide/Sneak is on average less likely to succeed than Spot/Listen, given equal training etc.

That's marvelous! And I've got just the campaign area for it... Hmmm - any chance of a reciprocal arrangement? Us customers here on the right side of the Pond being able to buy other Chaosium stuff from you (i.e. without the prohibitive trans-atlantic shipping costs) ?

...and to keep it simple, dispense with Specials/Fumbles, define a "Threat Range" for Criticals (natural 96+?), where a good re-roll gives 2x damage etc.... Of course, there is another change we'd have to make - the game's name would go from "BRP" to "D20-with-D100's" or some such (DwD?). PS: Ah! I have it: "D20-on-D100", or "D-on-D"...