frogspawner

Well, yes it can be adapted - but not very easily. What I think you need is a system combining the EnGarde matrix with percentile-rolls and their special/critical/fumble effects. It's good fun but so complex it needs a computer program to sort it out. Here's my attempt: OnGarde! OnLine EnGarde Combat Script Anyone interested in running it - select your opponents by the pop-downs, then click both the "?" buttons (to generate random sequences, unless you want to specify your own...), then click "Start". It can be amusing to see the action described. To continue after round one, click the "?"s again to top-up the sequences, and "Start" again. To re-start, Refresh the screen.

100%? Just another number. I've never seen it as a limit. (It probably represents "mastery" of a skill - as per a "master craftsman" - although that is usually claimed at 90%...) PS: BRP0 has 'Skills Ratings Over 100%' only as an option. IMO, that's a mistake. Even in the sample creatures/characters they give over-100% skills (despite saying no optional rules have been used for them, and even mentioning the above-100% as an example for extrapolation). I suspect it's easier to cut-back to 100 rather than extrapolate. And, I also suspect, allowing over 100 is more common than not. Yes, by all means, a poll!

STATx5 also lets us side-step the old "roll low but high" opposed-roll problem, because it has 5 'Degrees of Success' built-in. GM:"Make your STRx5" Player:"Made it... STRx3 in fact" GM: "Ha! The Winds made STRx2! You are blown to your DOOM!"

But even wargames have rules for morale. RPGs, where the player is supposed to supply that sort of control, are often a bit lacking in that regard. That leaves the door open to powergame-style disregard for character.

No need to worry overmuch in this case, since Mummy stats are given in BRP: STR 6d6, CON 4d6+3, SIZ 2d6+6, INT 3d6, POW d6+12, DEX 2d6; Move 8, HP 15, AP 3; Fist x2 70%, Grapple 25%, Shortsword 45%, Ancient Language 90%, Listen 50%, Sense 45%, Spot 50%, Stealth 50%. (No APP - even though they're humanoid and sentient! Go figure.)

BRP is just the same and omits APP - but that's a mistake, IMHO. What about manticores, sphinx etc (that even have human faces)? I certainly wouldn't recommend you spend effort removing it from your algorithms.

A BRP Griffin seems much like in RQ3: STR 10d6, CON 3d6+12, SIZ 10d6, INT 6, POW 3d6+6, DEX 3d6+12, Move 8/12 flying, HP 29, 6AP, Bite 70%, Claw 70%, Dodge 30%, Fly 100% (better than 'average'?), Listen 50%, Sense 65%, Spot 75%. PS: Clearly BRP/RQ Griffins are 'a cut above' . Horses, Minotaurs and such might match better.

OK, about the same HP as the 1st-Ed AD&D model (18HD) I'd use. (But about half the new post-arms-race 3.x version: 18HD+99, I see!). I now readily agree that using the 3.x HPs directly is not a viable option! Best not to extrapolate too much from just one example. Some more examples would be useful here, I'd say.

Thanks, that's most helpful. And you had said it was online too - doh!

Sorry, there's no "Aboleth" in BRP to compare with! How about one/some of these: Alligator, Bear, Brontosaur, Dog, Gorilla, Hawk, Horse*, Lion, Shark, Snake, Giant Squid, Tiger, Wolf. Or: Centaur, Giant, Griffin, Minotaur, Mummy, Orc, Skeleton, Unicorn, Vampire, Zombie, Angel, Lesser Demon, Greater Demon, Elemental. I know the problem with the attack skills, at least. Previously I based them on HD (all AD&D had!) but that made big things unrealistically (and unsurvivably) good at combat. Currently I just rate them "by hand", according to my idea of the skill of that individual. For big things that's much better, and perhaps explains my willingness to let them have relatively large numbers of HPs (as it makes up for their generally lower 'to hit' chance). But a formulaic method would be useful (particular individuals can always be tweaked, er, individually). Perhaps something like DEXx5?

Sorry, you've lost me. I don't have the 3.x MM, so I don't know the size category they give a T.Rex. If it's "Huge", does that mean you'd give it HP equal to CONx4 ? Either way, since I don't know the typical CON either, what would that make it's HP?

Yeah but just as a dirty hero, I'll bet. And something about the wording in BRP0 just gave me an inkling that the Resistance Table was deprecated, ever so slightly (in favour of the underlying formula).

Thanks, gents. I'm interested to hear that, because I've just come around to a mechanism which lets players choose a couple of traits (as skills) and gives them minor one-off bonus if they act accordingly and make a 'skill'-roll. Hopefully it helps them play their chosen personality role, but avoids being controlling. I don't suppose we can learn anything about roleplaying from 4E, though... except, they may tell us, that the "R" in RPG really means those "defender, controller,... etc" roles!

Actually, it's pretty close. And where it differs, I like your version better. Higher SIZ, hence more HPs, and more reasonable AP IMHO. Care to publish any more creatures, for comparision purposes?

And a 'slow and dirty' conversion is all I usually run! But I don't quite understand the conversion you used - how many HP would an 18 HD T.Rex have had in yours?

So what would a game properly designed for roleplaying be like, then?

Excellent point! (And I can't recall what made me think this method broke at high values now, either). Of course, you have to define what happens on a draw (which would be quite common) - but a bit of dramatic clinging to the rock-face (before the re-roll blows him off) is all to the good...

Yes, you're probably right. I prefer to keep the D&D HP values, but that's non-standard and may be too much. Does your algorithm match creatures already published in BRP well? For example (dragons are too variable)... T.Rex: STR 10D6+32 (av.67); CON 4D6+21 (av.35); SIZ 6D6+32 (av.53); HP 44; AP 10; Bite 50% 2d6+db; Claw 35% d4+db/2; Kick 45% D6+db. My way would give 'em 80-90hp (from MM, not sure how many HD they have in 3.x). How about yours?

That's good, then! I think HP is very important for the 'character' of a monster, and should be kept close to the D&D HPs where reasonable. Knowing HP and CON, SIZ would then be defined. Obviously it doesn't work for all D&D creatures: some have more HP/HD than they should from Size alone. So I'd apply some sort of 'cap', according to size category (the extra HD/HP giving extra Dodge capability, say). Or are you taking the view that D&D HPs need to change, being generally too high for BRP?

I'm not very familiar with the 3.x monster stats. (Still struggling to find a good way to convert the old MM ones!) Does your method distinguish AC factors that are due to DEX-type bonuses? They should add to parry and/or dodge skills somehow. Once you know their CON, how about using their HPs to calculate SIZ?

I got mine in 16 days from ordering, and that was over the Easter holidays. Pretty fast, I thought.

Yeah, the "balls to it" option is probably best. :cool: Just trying to find alternatives, for anyone who's bothered by the R-table breaking at the high end. If you like - one mechanism is neater! Personally, though, I think the two-roll "Attack v Parry" mechanic gives better player involvement, more feeling of being there. (But I now see STATxX v STATxX breaks for high stats too. So (Active/2xPassive)% is better - but that's just one roll. Hmm...)

There's not much to learn from 4E specifically, but a few more things from D&D in general. Feats/tricks/feints, call them what you will, is one. The Hide/Sneak mechanism is another. In D&D, I believe you can't "fail" to Hide - if you roll badly you just don't hide as well as you might have. It's then up to the (potential) Spotter to roll better. In BRP/RQ, having a defined skill percentage implies outright failure if you roll over it - but that's unrealistic. (Some people object to low Hide/Sneak skills but, using them this way, that's not a problem). From D&D we can learn to regard the whole range of possible results as a continuum of success.

I haven't tried it in-game, but the formula ( Active / 2xPassive ) % seems nice. Moving Silently should always succeed if there's no-one to hear it, even if you roll a "fail", so it's never truly uncontested. (Hmm - further details of this may belong on the 4E thread...)

No, don't! Six make it look like he's flapping - trying hard, but not flying... BRP's four arms is better.