frogspawner

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.

Really, commonsense should prevail in situations like this - no matter what the rules do or don't say.

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

No big deal.

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" ;-(

Balancing races is like balancing character creation...why?

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.

Elves are powerful in AD&D not because they have infravision or have slight stat bonuses but because they can be multi-class, which is a huge advantage. BRP Elves don't have this because in BRP anyone can be anything.

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!)

Ultimately though, the question comes down to not how to keep the wizards from being as good as the fighter in melee, but how to make the fighters 'special' so their options in combat don't degenerate to, "I attack, I defend, I attack, I defend..."

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...!)

Why? Magic Points = POW is simple and effective. Do not fix what is not broken. Lower the MP cost for casting spells below your maximum level, instead!

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...

This i _do_ like! Way better than the Lore (Specific Theology) in MRQ.

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).

Why POWx5? Either you roll Holiness or you do not roll at all for a Divine Spell.

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 think an appropriate Pilgrimage before being able to cast the spell (a minor HeroQuest in Glorantha) is a goodi idea. Having every priest with the same Holiness the same sounds not that good to me.

Though I can't speak for the writer, to me it is because the idea of the God giving you a specific spell is kind of silly.

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.

I think a good d20 magic to BRP conversion set (or sets) is crucial. These schema look like good broadbrush starters.

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...

Method 1: Skill based system

<plus loads of good stuff, snipped>

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...

You could just set a hard limit (say 75%) for skills outside your chosen profession. This would create a kind of "class" system to some degree but I guess its the easiest and simplest way of preventing PCs that are good at everything.

Of course you could go the cyberpunk way and just kill off any PC that's starting to get too powerful

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...

That's my initial thought anyway.

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%+.)

In my experience, yes. Limiting skill checks and skills were unnecessary in our game.

By the time my sorcerer had the required skills to claim the status of Magus he had a 90% chance to hit with his primary weapon... Our primary warrior had about 200% in his primary skills...

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"...

It is pleasant to find someone of like mind on this subject.

I hope there's plenty of us out there. Being reasonable folks, maybe we don't usually shout as loud as some others, that's all...

Right now it is unlikely that I will even get the new BRP book due to all the bells and whistles that are getting attached to it. The parts I like are, alas, already known or available.I'll likely stick to Stormbringer and CoC with imports from other systems and use Atlantis if I actually get to run a game, and spend my hobby hours working on my own setting. It is still an enjoyable hobby even if it is pulling away from my tastes in many ways.

Well, it is a collection of previous works, so you can't blame it for not bringing much that's new. But there are some things, and others are treated in a more flexible way. SB/CoC with imports? That's what it is! (And generally the bells and whistles are firmly optional). So I urge you to get it, either BRP0 and/or BRP1 - you may find nuggets of gold that'll unexpectedly delight you. I did!

(Oh, and while you're shopping, scoop a copy of the Order Of The Stick adventure game, too - it's a great laugh!)

Simple is not always better. If you have been following the 4th edition news that is coming out, that is made pretty plain. Can anyone here say, "Firecube"?

The core mechanics should be the simplest possible (within reason), so the complications come only from options you think are worth adding. ("Firecube"? What? Do you have dirt on 4e? Oh do please tell...!) >:->

Anyway, another group I know does not use opposed rolls in combat, but they do allow for a higher skilled combatant to effect his opponent. Simply put, you may subtract your skill over 100% from your opponents skill. <snip>

Sounds like an extended version of a good ol' RQ2 mechanic. Hurrah! The Parry part is essentially the "Deflection" ability I advocated earlier. Another 'special ability' that kicks-in at 100%+, so there's another precedent for gaining extra 'shticks' at 100. Fine RQ2 provenance too... :thumb:

I'm not afraid of subtraction... Because some of us are not comfortable with some of the ideas that are so prevalent right now does not mean we are stupid...as you seem to imply with your 'gasp subtraction' snip.

Relax, Badcat. I thought that was aimed at me - having once described subtraction (or was it addition?) as 'advanced mathematics', in the context of opposed rolls. And I don't mind.

The new BRP is beginning to feel like GURPS.

In what ways? I don't know GURPS. (Er, though come to mention it, I think I reviewed it once...)

Splitting and higher chance of success/special/critical allready lets the higher skilled opponent come out on op.

While subtractions might be easy, all math that is not intuitive bogs down combat.

See? Not everyone wants extra things. Yay, Options! The way to go...

From a quick look it's: HERO-style; Yes, modifiers; and Your Choice (various points options given). Not really my area, though.

The thing is, in a rpg you are looking for the feel of combat without necessarily getting every little nuance of combat style and function down pat and portrayed perfectly (at least for me). You don't need mechanics like opposed rolls and 'feats' to have a perfectly good, accurate feeling (as emulating your favorite movie or historical novel) and fun game.

Yes, this is why the core mechanic should be the simplest - and people can add options to suit their taste. So the deflection-type complications really ought not to be built-in to the fundamental combat rolls.

Interesting idea, but I'm sceptical of introducing the mathematics of opposed rolls into combat, when I think the parry rules work well as it is.

Same here. Sadly, I think the Attack/Parry matrix does have opposed roll type ideas built-in to it (although not the full-blown 'highest-roll-wins' garbage, at least not by default).

I've always played that on an opposed roll where both sides succeeded, they both, well. succeeded.

So, for instance if someone has a successful Search against a successful Hide, then both succeed: the person Hiding is hidden, but the searcher has found Something, maybe a footprint, maybe a broken branch.

I've always found that much more interesting than a win/lose outcome.

Exactly! You have hidden well, but the Creature has spotted something to make it suspicious, and is coming closer... and more hide/spot rolls (or other actions) are needed to resolve the matter. Opposed rolls smack of impatience ("I want a winner NOW!") and invite trivializing situations that may deserve more drama.