frogspawner

Well maybe and maybe not. But what gives the best realistic feel of MA combat? For me, it's more the flying fists/feet that MA should be about. Having tried it for awhile now, the new BRP idea of MA doubling damage by any weapon (previously it was just natural weaponry, IIRC) seems a bit off to me. For Fist attacks, doubling damage addressed the problem of a d3 not being able to get through any sigificant armour. But having widened it to any weapon makes MA skill a bit too important (especially now most specials don't do double damage anymore). Martial Arts giving extra attacks, rather than extra damage - I like this better. Maybe the 5 SR delay could be less for natural weapons, giving them an advantage and restoring their link with MA. The problem of small damage not getting through armour remains, though. Maybe give the double-damage effect back to specials, in addition to the characterful weapon-type specific effects?

No! My chance for immortality - gone! And all for being equivocal... ;-(

I see what you mean - they are lots of fun! Thanks!

Yeah, that table was done for utility not flavour. I don't know WFRP - could you quote a few examples?

Having played around with this sort of thing for ages, I'm currently using a system like this: Critical: No PP cost, one effect doubled (caster's choice [if damage, it should just be maximized]) Special: No PP cost, normal effect Success: Normal PP cost, normal effect Failure: Normal PP cost, half effect [though I'm toying with full effect, double cost] Fumble: Roll on fumble table (and unless it says otherwise the spell fails and is lost from memory, at normal PP cost) Modifying the PP cost by another roll would slow down play. Unreliable/unpredictable effects can be dangerous to spell-casters anyway, even without causing damage directly, so that seems a bit severe to me (although I do take a similar approach with excessive PP cost due to fumbles).

Or even (modest cough), how about the Magic Fumbles table already in the Wiki?

Please do. It could be useful to quite a few people out there (I hope!). We should have conversions to BRP (from as many systems as possible!) in the Wiki. Would the Characters section be most suitable?

I'm not familiar with either of those. How do they work?

I'm using a system where there's only one skill for magic/psi (rather than one skill for each individual spell/ability) and if the roll fails then they have half effect (rather than none). Is that the sort of thing you mean?

Be proud, it's a useful monster. It's helped make the point that Swim can be so contentious that it should always be on the character sheet, to avoid such disputes in play. Right?

:focus: ...so, we now have proof that inherent ability to swim (or lack of it) could cause arguments! That's why Swim should be printed on the sheet, so everyone can see what their character can do (or can't)...

Not necessarily. Whether such things exist at all is a GM's campaign decision. The new BRP doesn't really mention them, aside from Magicians Familiars/Staffs and the dedicated power point reservoirs for magic items (with the implication they'd only be for powering the item function). I myself am coming to the conclusion that power-point 'battery' items should be very rare indeed (for balance) - making them even more special.

I think the discussion was more general than that. But even so, it would be a failure of imagination to think a character originating in such a setting could never find themselves in a situation where Swim might be relevant. (The space-farers might have to flush-out an alien from the station's water tanks or the GM might see it as relevant to Zero-G manouevering; the nomads might suffer flash-floods or raid a decadent imperialists bath-house...). And so it should be listed on the character sheet, if only to draw the players' attention to the fact they can't do it - so they've had fair warning.

Well, I'm going to bother with it simply because I want to stick close to the BRP RAW! I presume it's there because it's "traditional" to have some such constraints in these games. Yes, probably Vancian in origin. It is quite limiting, but I'm hoping it won't prove too severe. At least it's not spell-levels! And remember that spells can be cast almost as fast (1r/lvl) from your 'grimoire' (which needn't be a book, if you take the option from Sorcery, but could be a staff or whatever...). It's these sort of difficulties that give characters interesting choices, and make life interesting. Sorcery is more generous (INT rather than INT/2). Perhaps that's to make up for Sorcery spells being slower to cast.

Which is perfectly fine, except for Swim. That's the one skill that is so fundamental (and potentially life-saving) that players really should have to "contract out" of spending any skill points on at character creation, if they dare. Then they've only themselves to blame.

All are sensible solutions - though using all at once may be over-complex. 1 probably doesn't work so well in BRP as under RQ, unless using the SR option since DEX-ranks won't produce ties so often; 2 leaves you needing to define "sensible" (and what constitutes a rhino); 3 I prefer, since halving non-shield AP isn't too much work.

Ah, with it listed at 0% the player knows he can't swim. (And so can't say "oh that's silly, of course I can swim" - and try to wangle more skills than he cared to spend his points on).

How do you mean?

I'd only print a very limited list of skills on the character sheet, and let others be filled-in manually. The vital ones (though as stated this could vary by setting) would be: Weapons (space for several) Dodge Speak & R/W Own Language Swim First Aid Climb Ride Spot Listen Others are better left off, because attention should be drawn to these when choosing skills.

It has been argued that parries, even with shields, are not necessarily a full block but can be just deflection. Deflecting a charging rhino seems unlikely, though - so in that case, even if the damage were stopped, the shield-user could still suffer knockback...

I must admit I'm not a fan of the "all-or-nothing" approach to parries given in the new book, either (which is what gives rise to this problem). If you're going to houserule it, might I suggest you try something like this...? Parries only block damage up to the AP of the parrying weapon/shield (the rest gets through); and non-shields only have half the listed AP.

Alternatively, just remember that Magic spells are all POW v POW, but Sorcery spells are all PP v PP (except "Curse of Sorcery" and "Summon Demon"). Hmmm...

Well personally, I'm hoping it'll give players a tactical aim-for-the-legs (or whatever) option. (As well as let players customize their own armour, if they wish - but still have "interesting" armour if they don't).

I'm hoping to model just that sort of thing. (No, not in the catwalk sense!) I also saw a reference (C&S) saying there were different qualities of chainmail (perhaps layering), but I wasn't going to worry about that. Well, I'm not intending to use hit location rolls most of the time. But if someone aimed for a location, hit it, and that location has different armours (like mailed thigh but leathered knee/calf) then I'd roll for sub-location - but it would still be just one location roll.

I didn't find RQ3's approach as satisfying, because you could get any armour for any location. In RQ2 it was more restricted - notably, you couldn't get plate for the abdomen. Yes, hence the idea to work out some "standard" heterogeneous suits. And before doing that work, I thought I'd ask here! (Hmmm... I hadn't considered the front half only before, though...) Two ways, it seems. Under the Acid spot rule, armour becomes useless after d6 rounds; under Armour Destroyed, which includes by acid, AP is halved... :ohwell: To come up with weighted averages that produce reasonable-seeming suits (e.g. "chainmail" that consists mainly of a chainmail hauberk, plus minor extras), I think I'd have to take liberties with the hit locations table(s) - increasing chest to about 15%, say.