frogspawner

The standard one. Because then it's not me who kills someone's character, it's the rules.

But he was so enthusiastic about it, I'll forgive him. The Adv/Dis point is so trivial (and isn't there one in the Supers section, anyway?), it makes me wonder if he's doing the opposite of 'damning with faint praise'. (Who is this guy, though? Is he famous/influential, or just opinionated...)

I don't use Step 6. But I do use personality stuff, via variant Personality Traits rules for PCs. That way they have to earn advantages by actually behaving in-line with their chosen personality, rather than being given loads of freebie extra skills just for saying they will...

Thanks, I had forgotten that. But page 317 lists stuff like "Aid someone weaker than yourself", "Behave dishonourably", "Behave honourably" etc. It's not exactly definitive, and stated as only a 'suggestion' (and that within an 'OPTION'). Of course, if you're not using Personality Traits you'd have to do something like that. But I feel sets of Traits tie it down better (you don't need an exhaustive list of actions and what each religion thinks of them). It's flexible, and perhaps even less open to abuse than the list-method because trait-rolls are always subject to GM approval, before the event.

Can't say I'm keen on that one. (The Critical/Special chances are a bit too fundamental to fiddle with, for my taste. Would you really want to introduce different crit/spec calculations, and separate Skill Results Tables?). But something similar perhaps - maybe double Shields' Base % ? Myself, I'm happy with halving the listed weapon HPs (and using independent Attacks/Parries instead of the Attack/Defence Matrix - but, even if you're still using it, this could also help).

You're welcome. BRP doesn't define the mechanism to increase Allegiance, so how do you 'align yourself'? By using/increasing the right traits seems to fit nicely. Yes, a simple 1 ability per 10%*, and a maximum of 1PP-level in each per 10% too. Though I've slowed the Allegiance gain down by giving only +1/+d6-2 % per increase - but it's a matter of taste. (* Actually 1 ability per 10% in all favoured traits - but that may be an overly-fine distinction that's unnecessary in practice).

I could suggest several - but none of them are good reasons...

This is my system for it: - PCs have Traits which they can roll like skills to gain a x2 bonus on another skill they are about to use (in suitable situations, natch). - Religious devotees (e.g. Jedi/Sith) gain more powerful abilities the higher their Allegiance percentage. - Characters increase Allegiance when they get ticks (skill checks) for all of five Traits specified as "favoured" by the religion. Obviously, religions which favour Traits such as "Hate(Everything)", which could be applicable in most combat situations, are likely to allow faster progress than those favouring "Love(Democracy)" and the like (bleuch!).

You have a valid point. And I think it's just one of quite a few problems with using the Attack/Defence Matrix. So personally I don't use it. I prefer the old-fashioned RuneQuest style, where a parrying weapon/shield only blocks damage equal to it's HP - the rest gets through (and also damages the parrying weapon). Which makes the generally higher HP of shields significant.

Give the OP a break! I believe "balance" is a bad thing and de-skills adventuring - but I don't think that's what he's after. There are good reasons why a GM would want a quick "Monster Rating": how much treasure it should have; knowing how ambitious PCs would be to take it on; and knowing whether to buy the Monograph or not! RQ2 had "Treasure Factor", calculated as 1 point for each of the following: 1. Each 5 HPs or part thereof; 2. Each 25% attack or part thereof; 3. Each extra die of damage; 4. Each AP over the whole body; 5. Each combat spell; 6. Each special power; 7. Each 5 POT of poison; 8. Each extra attack. I have my own variation, but that's the original. I'm sure you could tweak it to suit your own tastes. (Alternatively, I always liked the old MonsterMark system from the early days of White Dwarf...)

I thinks that's a good idea. I use pretty much the same thing: Dodge requires a small move back (5ft), or if unwilling/unable falling prone or similar. It helps make combat more fluid, realistically. But to stand their ground and make it Difficult is a good option to give - a nicely tricky decision for the player.

I avoid this problem by allowing both a Parry and a Dodge attempt against any given attack.

Or he just uses the sword with his Axe skill as Difficult, which comes out about the same (90/2 = 45%), under the "Using weapons of similar classes" rule, if the GM allows.

Given how recently BRP was published, I doubt you'll get much reliable evidence of how the various systems play - plenty of opinions though! My guess is that very-low-POW characters would be far too vulnerable. Unless you want your rune-warriors (and warrioresses, mmm...) to be doing casting rolls, maybe BRP Sorcery would be better - using their bodies as their "grimoire". It also requires a minimum of 16 POW, preventing the low POW problem. Though maybe that could be relaxed a bit - say 12 POW for 1-pt spells, 14 for 2pt, etc. Really powerful runes/spells, like ones allowing multiple attacks per round (for your mooks) might require permament POW sacrifice and a special "Rune Quest" to get the ability... That'd leave BRP Magic, or something similar, as the magic system for the proper Magicians to use. (Mmmm, I must get those tatooed warrior-women into my campaign too...)

Yeah, I know. And of course, that's exactly what I do. I wonder what the OP (original Poster) does? Maybe it's 'a change too far', but I still prefer to call my game BRP (that's Basic RolePlaying).

I'd say, about half the AP of shields represents their deflection of blows, rather than sheer stopping-power. I know what you mean, though - there does seem to be a bit of "AP inflation" going on. E.g. Hoplite shields: BRP 26, RQ3 18, RQ2 16 (Large). Presumably the figure of 26 comes from Stormbringer? It's a bit high for my taste, too - so I've reduced all shields to 3/4 of the AP listed.

But Fumbles (and criticals) are fun! They're one reason you might want to use a D20 - and say 1 Fumbles, 20 Criticals... It'd just be "Spear" in default BRP, I think, and that'd include parry, and throwing it, too. Well you're free in BRP to define Spear, frex, as a similar class to (say) Polearm, Javelin (and anything else?) and thus give a half-chance in those weapons as well.

You didn't miss anything - it's not there. I dug through those obscure corners of the rules too, before brewing-up my own Encumbrance/Burden/Fatigue system. Which boiled down to the following (hopefully not too different from the RAW, if you can get past my preference for good old imperial Pounds rather than "ENC things"): Encumbrance Capacity: SIZ x (STR + 10) / 20 (x14 lbs). Over half Encumbers: Movement, Initiative & Dex-based skills are x1/2. Armour Burden (Light/Moderate/Heavy) can affect physical (generally DEX-based) skills, movement rate and magic spell-casting. Light: no skill penalty, -1 Move, +10% Magic fumble. Moderate: Skills x1/2, -2 Move, +20% Magic fumble. Heavy: Skills x 1/10, -3 Move, +30% Magic fumble. Listen/Spot skills are Very Difficult (x1/10) in Full/Great Helm; Lock-picking, Shooting Bows and Playing Instruments are impossible in Gauntlets. Anyone not trained to the burden of armour is automatically Encumbered. Fatigue Exertion (e.g. combat) for a turn requires a CONx5 roll to avoid Fatigue (Movement, Initiative & all skills x1/2) or if already fatigued Exhaustion (x1/10). Recovery from fatigue requires rest for 1 hour; exhaustion 8 hours.

Which are the right missile ranges to use? Missile Ranges (Weapons, p257): Medium Range (2xNormal) = 1/2 chance; Long Range (4xNormal) = 1/4 chance. Point-blank (DEX ft or less) = x2. OR Extended Range (Spot Rule, p.223): Double range x1/2; Triple range x1/4; Quadruple range x1/8. Over double range = half damage, no chance for small thrown weapons. ?

Doh! And here was me trying to stick close to the RAW, but that sounds so good...

OK, having thought, I find I like the cunning 'stun-through-armour' effect too much to use the official interpretation of requiring damage to be done. But using that in addition to the other effects (extra damage, weapon-shattering) would make Crush specials too powerful - so they have to go (mostly). So, for me, it'll be: Crush specials do 1 damage to Parrying Item (or Armour, if not parried) and also require the CONx5 v Stun, whether any damage gets through or not...

Of course, but I'm thinking d6's would be better to introduce non-gamers to RPG/BRP. Sadly, if you show the BRP book to D20-players accustomed to slick and glossy D&D product then I fear they would not be impressed.

Thanks for that. I was just hoping a good (enough) simple emulation of d100 with d6's could help bring non-gaming newbies in to BRP (thence F&S, perhaps). I'd even consider rolling 2d6 and just reading them as if they were the 2d10 normally used for d100! Ok, it'd only give numbers 11-66, but for an introductory-type A4 adventure (as mentioned in another thread), and perhaps taking 11 as a critical and 66 as fumble, it might do the trick... But is it a worthwhile exercise? Or do "normal people" all have funny-shaped dice these days?

Good call! Hmm. Thanks - yes, you kindly gave a similar clarification to a question I had about Bleeding specials a while ago. Trouble is, it doesn't seem to work so well in this case - aren't Crushing weapons supposed to be good at affecting their target despite armour? A Stun-effect which works regardless of armour would be quite a clever mechanism for that. Of course, if it did work that way, on top of all their other effects Crush specials would be very nasty!

That'd be great. Free to print and distribute, right? I hope they're not intending to make people pay for 'em...