frogspawner

To clarify, a 15fp Magic Missile (i.e. expanded twice) would do 3 dice of damage, but a 15fp Fireball (not expanded) would do 1 die? Also, I'd suggest that school-skills should all contribute individually to the Spell Buffer, so you don't have to worry about the odd %'s, only when any skill crosses a 10% barrier.

* The name ("RuneQuest"- mmm, like it...) ** The rules (bleuch - they're trash!) *** Or BRP - so much better than MRQ!

Isn't the new BRP rule that normal parries block all damage too?

From what you say, both real battles and stylised duels would be best portrayed by normal rolls (non-opposed), with a special ability for more highly skilled combatants (such as the over 100% reduce-the-opponent's-skill effect). Opposed rolls just add game-mechanic confusion, not realism.

But the new rule is that everyone has a "true adamant weapon-of-the-gods", and can normally parry anything (unless, ad hoc, the GM says they can't) ? If so, your weapons may not break - but it's the rule that's broken.

... or MRQ.

If rules produce situations that offend against common sense, like this, then they need changing. Au contraire. Rules matter.

It's the good old 'max rollable +1 per die' formula.

I played in a ong-running RQ2 campaign years ago, where we got up to the 100-150% range. The system held up just fine, we had fun, and didn't even know 100 was any sort of barrier... These days, I run a BRP-like homebrew where plenty of characters (in one group) have 100%+ skills (weapons mainly), and it also works fine at those levels (it's the characters with under 100% I worry about...).

Um, not quite so cool today. "403 Forbidden Error" ;-(

Personally, I'm not hung up about balance. But it's not necessarily about slapping down the powergamer. Maybe it's just to avoid a fledgeling roleplayer being disappointed, to find their interesting character choice is inneffectual compared to their friends'. Viewed that way, balanced character creation (which must include races) is actually an aid to good roleplaying.

But isn't a Jack-of-all-Trades the Master of None? At least, the truth of this should be the GM's campaign decision, not something forced upon them by the rules. And over in the Non-Caster Incentives thread, I think we're close to solving that problem, for BRP at least. (The Other System, be blowed!)

Oh, I agree entirely. I'm not trying to limit wizards' normal combat abilities - but letting them get the fighters' new fun Combat Powers (that we're about to invent) as well as all their magic would spoil the whole idea. Mages would still be more fun (have more options) than Warriors. But how do you prevent them, if fighters earn their Fun Combat Powers by reaching high levels of weapon skill (and what else could the criteria be?) which the wizard-types could also do fairly easily if they chose? How, How...? Martial Arts. I actually read the BRP rules for it today. Not being interested in all that inscrutable leaping-about, I hadn't bothered before. (I'm more a Knights-and-Dragons man - well, it is St.George's Day, Huzzah!). But once again the new BRP has given us gold! Renamed as something innocuous like "Weapon Specialism (weapon type)" or some such, to avoid the oriental overtones that don't suit every campaign, they are a thing Warriors can have, but sorcerors/priests don't. So special abilities tied to them, at 50%, 100%, or whatever, can give the fun back to the fighters - and just the fighters. Yes!

Player inertia. It probably applies to campaigns other than mine, too. They like to think they're playing "D&D" (and the spells make it seem the same) - but it hasn't been, for years... Plus, now we will hopefully have a new influx of ex-D&D-ers, disenchanted by 4e. Using spells they're familiar with should make their transition so much easier. And the spells need hardly any translating for this system (and perhaps peterb's too). Define a few straightforward principles (e.g.: "AC" becomes 10-x APs; "+X to hit" becomes +X0% attack; any more?) and it could be done on-the-fly. (The difficult part is resisting the temptation to change them for the better...!)

I know - I was fixing the d20 system! In the hope of converting my pre-existing campaign (and players) I was trying to do it in easy stages. Maybe time for another step... Yes, BRP's Allegiance is a delight - and I've already adopted it, as you see. Since it's releatively undefined how to increase it, GM's are free to do so. (And I have, in an attempt to constrain priests into behaving as the god sees fit, by tying it to cult skills/traits). Mages should be the experts at spell-casting. The roll makes priests less reliable - definitely 2nd-class spell-users. And having it a stat-roll, not a skill, shows it's not them doing the casting - it comes from the god. I guess neither method suits all settings, nor all tastes. Personally, I'm accustomed to the d20 "all-spells-available" thing, but I also like the RQ "quest-for-it" way - and use that for Paladins (aka RuneLords?), along with instant & infallible spell-casting, Rune-Magic style, BTW. Ditto. And thanks! I'm not entirely happy with mine, due to many compromises with d20. With peterb posting his work on this subject, it's a golden opportunity to get them sorted... I prefer the simplicity of MP Cost = Spell Level best, and 1 MP per expansion. Why do Mages only have more complex formulae? How do you decide what the default effect for d20 spell is? Have you found these moderate the damage of d20-style spells acceptably? Do you use just a normal POWvPOW for saving throws? The skill-per-school is good, too - but do you use any other magic related skills for mages? (Oh, and thanks for posting, btw - this is most interesting!)

Everything's better for a re-write, anyway!

Nah, that's just a generic style of email address, not a proper one. But I just looked at the site and it seems they know about the problem now...

Harsh! And I don't want to go too far towards a class system, either. Hard limits for non-profession skills feels like a step too far (but I guess that's the same as the 'type' restrictions I was considering). Maybe if combat powers were dependent on a range of skills, not just one...?

Thanks again. I use a system with just one main Magic skill for actual spells, not individual spell-skills, but there are also other magic-related skills to spend practice/training time on (Ceremony, Sensitivity, Enchanting, Loremastery, Alchemy, etc). So hopefully it won't be a problem. But I'm still worried that it might be: Would lots of combat-related Powers be too tempting for sorceror-type characters? I wonder whether to invoke the "hours in the day" principle: there are only so many hours in the day to practice your magic/combat/sneaky/holy skills, to keep them up to scratch. Characters who want them top-notch should concentrate their "off hours practice" on one type, or they'd lose out...

Thanks for that. There is simple and there is simplistic. The difference may be fine and a matter of taste, but I think I'm with you on this one. "Firecube" - nice!

Nope - all are "Average".

OK, you've shown yours, so I'll show mine... Method 3: "Magic"-skill based system Mages have the skill of Magic, starting at roughly INT% Max Spell Level castable = Magic skill / 10 (drop fractions) Magic Points = (INT-2)/2 x Max Spell Level castable One spell per point of INT can be memorized. Spells costs 1 MP per spell level Spells can be intensified by expending more MP than the default (which is the spell level), up to the caster's Max Spell Level castable. The effects of a spell are as the D20 descriptions, but "level of caster" equals the number of MP expended. When casting a spell, make a Magic skill-roll: Success = normal success; Fail = Half Effect (damage/duration/overcoming-POW); Special = No MP loss; Critical = No MP loss and Double one effect; Fumble = roll on an amusing table... Learning a spell is a month-long task that has a chance of success equal to: (30 / (Spell Level+1)) x (Magic Skill - 10xSpell Level) Oh and, since it's difficult, Magic skill only increases 1% each time. Sorry! And... Method 4: "Holiness"-skill based system Priests have Holiness (aka Allegiance<religion>), starting at roughly POW% Max Spell Level invokable = Holiness skill / 10 (drop fractions) Magic Points = (POW-6)/2 x Max Spell Level invokable Spells (aka Miracles) do not require learning/memorizing/pre-booking - all the religion's spells are available Spells cost 1 MP per spell level Spells cannot be intensified by the invoker The effects of a spell are as the D20 descriptions, but "level of caster" equals the invoker's Max Spell Level castable. But beneficial miracles only have half-effect on non-worshippers When casting a spell, make a POWx5 roll: Success = normal success; Fail = no effect (no MP loss); and there are no special/criticals/fumbles. An Increase roll for Holiness may be attempted when the priest attempts increase rolls for FIVE cult skills and/or cult personality traits at once Oh and, since it's also difficult, Holiness skill only increases 1% each time, too. Sorry again!

Yeah, I know. (Personally, I was hoping Attack/Parry/Dodge effects would each be separate, not matrixed at all.) FWIW, Jason said he'd be 'clarifying' the combat chapter for Ed.1, so it may be simplified a bit. But hey! Everything's optional, even if it ain't got a little white square by it...

And a good thought it is, too! At least, I hope so, 'cos I was thinking on similar lines. Reaching, say, 100%+ in a relevant combat skill would allow a character to go on a sort of HeroQuest (must find a new name for them... PowerQuest?) involving sacrifice of (permanent) POW (and maybe a mini-adventure if the GM fancies); thereafter, the Power gained would still cost Power Points to activate. (BTW, BRP doesn't have 'Hero Points'. What it calls 'Fate Points' are in fact just power points spent on various meta-game effects - like spells everyone would have. I however would rather restrict their use, as I said before, to characters with skills at a more heroic level, like 100%+.)

Thanks. I may drop my 'INT ticks' limit then. So long as there are enough skills for each character-role to usefully develop, it may not be the problem I feared after all... What stopped your sorceror developing his weapon skill as fast as the primary warrior? I ask because some folks here might, like me, consider allowing combat-related Powers to warrior-types, perhaps tied to particular weapon-skill percentages (e.g. 100%, 150%, etc). But if such Powers were available, wouldn't the spell-specialists be able to get them just as easily (if they actually had that reason to try)? Which would defeat the object of "making Fighters more Fun"...