frogspawner

Maybe parring with the shield should have bigger chance for critical and special succes ? For example 10% for critical and 30% for special succes ?

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).

Thanks for sharing. This could work for me too although I was thinking of using the Allegiance value as my core Force Skill value. So the more you align yourself, with a side, the better you become.

I suppose I can tie abilities in as you have done.

How have you allocated them? Eg at 30% you get say 3 abilities 4 at 40%.?

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...)

Whenever someone makes a Dodge attempt, they have to move one MOV space.

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.

He has 90% in Axe, so he uses his fighting experience with it as a complementary skill, which raises his combat ability to 25+(90/5)=43%.

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...)

As a result, comparing RQ shield AP values with BRP shield AP/HP values isn't actually comparing like with like. Of course, you can *play* BRP using the old RQ Parrying rules, but it's not the RAW...

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.

That's why I ignored the fumble chart for the most part.

But Fumbles (and criticals) are fun! They're one reason you might want to use a D20 - and say 1 Fumbles, 20 Criticals...

That any the fact that while "Joe Adventurer" is feeling clever about getting a "free" check in his Left Handed 1H Spear, the dark troll is using his club and probably is bashing his skull in.

It'd just be "Spear" in default BRP, I think, and that'd include parry, and throwing it, too.

General combat experience should reflect on all weapon skills much more than they do in BRP, but that's a different issue I suppose.

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.

?

I'm prepping a conversion from homegrown/RQIII to BRP. I'm thinking about Raw Damage (pre armor absorption) vs. CON for Stun.

That means that a Crush special from a giant is definitely going to knock you out, but a Crush Special from a thrown rock is much less likely.

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...

I do not know much about normal people, but all the roleplaying gamers I know indeed have those funny-shaped dice.

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.

Actually, I am not sure what dice you roll is a very important aspect of a system, once you get past rolling only one die at all times.

Good luck,

Ray,

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?

I think the target has to receive at least 1 point of damage from it in order to be affected...

Off the top of my head, I think that all of the extra effects from special successes assume that at least 1 point of damage is done.

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!

Chaosium are, to my knowledge, in possession of at least three ...

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

"A target suffering a crushing special success" may be stunned, the BRP rule says.

Should this apply if the target successfully parries, or if the parrying weapon gets shattered outright, or if the parrying weapon doesn't shatter but still breaks due to HP loss, or only if residual damage gets through armour, or even if no damage gets through at all (perhaps due to concussion effect) ?

The odd wording seems to imply the latter, but I'd welcome other opinions.

I had no idea this game existed until I saw a review on Game Geeks.

Not you fault. ... surprise younger gamers who were never aware that such a game had existed.

Exactly. More evidence the answer to the OP is (lack of) Marketing.

The question now is: What to do about it?

Personally I favour a bare-bones introductory adventure*, on a single A4 sheet (or possibly A3, and perhaps double-sided), so we can each print a hundred-or-two** and put 'em through people's doors like fast-food flyers.

(* Or a series of 'em, for different genres)

(** What? Don't you have access to a work copier? >:->)

I think part of the reason for my D6 dislike is that a six sider is just so mundane and common!

I've been working on/off on my homebrew system for a few years and put down a specific design goal to only use standard dice (ie d6's) for ease of use, though I have kept in the back of my mind that a d10 isn't that odd.

But it'd be great to come up with a simple way of generating 1-100 by rolling d6's...

...'cos it'd help BRP marketing a lot if potential new players didn't have to get 'weird' dice first.

perhaps the thing to do would make it [Defence] = to 1/2 of a PC best defensive combat skill?

It'd still be a pain to recalculate attack-chances (and hence special/critical/fumble chances too) all the time, especially if it's being split in possibly different ways each round.

I prefer to use a version of Defence that is rolled as a normal skill, rather like Dodge, but in addition to parrying.