Zit

There used to be a French RPG called Légendes, with settings in ancient Egypt, 1001 nights (pretty well made) and ancients celts. Could be adapted to d100 (it used a roll-under d20 system comparable to the d100) but you have 1- to find them and 2- to read French. Quite a challenge.

http://www.legrog.org/jeux/legendes#L%C3%A9gendes+Celtiques

There is a BRP mecha? Are these in the downloads section?

I think you got your idea for christmas

Have a look at BRP Mecha, may be ?

 Or perhaps one regarding the Mongolians

 

A supplement about Inner Asian nomads (Mongols and others) is currently beeing proofread.

Just use the hit location option. It works also with rolling one dice to know which part is hit.

"Idea rolls" are made for this and can help : even if not solving everything, they prevent arbitrary GM decisions. Help a smart character having the right idea by allowing him to make an INT roll: if he makes it, you give him a clue. Forbid a low INT character to have or apply complex ideas unless he makes his idea roll, idealy before he expresses it in front of the other players: even if well role-played, a player naturally loves to express his brilliant ideas, even if not fitting his character.

May be the main difference between horses and wolves is simply their skill level. A horse can do a lot of damage when biting, but does not do it as often and naturally as a wolf and in any way are not as good as wolves in biting.

I made an excel file -see in the download section- to easily allocate skill points. It is called "Wonder Tables" because of the French "table" = "chart" and "table", but I guess I should have called it "Wonder Charts". It has noting to do with any magic item from the plains of Prax

I think that basically, if you want to port GURPS into d100, you have to change and adapt GURPS rules to the d100, and not the contrary. It is anyway practically almost impossible to keep everything from a system when you port it to another one: you have to make choices and to discard some rules. Especially very simulationist systems cannot be ported without accepting less granularity. This is neither bad nor good, just different.

I don't know GURP, but you may reduce the number of levels, "melting" them together like "Good or "neutral" = success, "Bad" and "Very Bad" = fumble and keeping "Exellent" = critical, "Very Good" = special and "Poor" = failure

If the results are quantified, you may either take the average (e.g. from Excellent and Very Good), or decide according to the requirements of the play, or the quality of the role playing.

Just a suggestion.

In a few words, consider the "skill rating" only as a reference number used to calculate your chance of success, a kind of measure of you proficiency, not as a true percentage.

But as other said, just try it, we swear you it works !

I’m not sure, and I’d like to be sure, since I made a home rule for the three-arrow-trick for Wind on the Steppes and it has to be consistent with the BGB.

Indeed on page 206 “missile weapons”, it is said that “the attack-per-round column relays how frequently attacks can be made with a missile weapon (…) for increased rate of fire (a higher attacks-per-round) (…) use the volley fire spot rule”. It is 1 for the bow, hence only one single shot per round.

The RF is clearly said to be ”a part of the optional Strike rank system” (p. 257), so not to be considered with the DEX rank system.

The problem is for the volley fire: it is said that this rule is used to fire more than the attack-per-round and at the same time that it is limited by the attack-per-round: this is totally inconsistent.

So my first interpretation was that:

- Any weapon can only be used once per round at normal skill rating

- Weapons with an attack-per-round greater than 1 can be used for volley fire, within the limitation of their attack-per-round (and as a difficult action). This means, no volley for bows.

My home rule was then that the Three-Arrow-Trick allows volley fire –i.e. give 3 attacks-per-round-, which the rule would normally forbid (I thought at least). But since the volley fire rule is flawed, what shall I do? What did the authors actualy mean ? That’s my problem. But I may not have understood it.

For the SR system, I only stated that subsequent arrows are shot at SR+2, as you suggested.

Shergar Sunhoof has a DEX of 24 (He's a centaur with training!) and so has a DEX SR of 1 or a DEX Rank of 24. He fires arrows from his composite bow as follows:

Strike Ranks: SR 1, 4, 7, 10, allowing him to fire 4 shots per round, assuming he has an arrow cocked at the start, or at 4, 7, 10 if he has to fetch the first arrow.

Using the Three Arrow Trick, he prepares 3 arrows with his first fetch, so he shoots as follows:

Strike Ranks: SR 1 he gets the arrows, he shoots at SR 4, 6, 8 as he has 2 faster arrows to use.

DEX Ranks: DEX Rank 24 he gets the arrows, 19 for the first shot, then at 15 and 11 for the next two shots, as he only has 3 arrows.

For a more reasonable example, Arry the Archer has 13 DEX, so has a DEX SR of 3.

Strike Ranks: SR 3, 7, 10, allowing him to fire 3 shots per round, assuming he has an arrow cocked at the start, or at 7, 10 if he has to fetch the first arrow.

I'd say SR 1 if he has the arrow cocked, SR 3+1 = 4 if he has to take it. Then add 3+1 for every extra arrow (3 to prepare and SR 1 to shoot) => 1/5/9 or 4/8

With the 3-arrow-trick, then add only +2 to prepare the next arrow=> 1/4/7/10 or 4/7/10. I would do some further adjustments, but in principle it is this.

In BRP, if you are using Strike Ranks then treat reloading as costing 2 SRs, if you are using DEX Ranks then the next shot should be at -4 Dex Ranks, not -5 DEX Ranks.

My understanding of the BRP rules was, that there was only one attack per round for a bow. In the volley fire optional rule p.235, it is said that the amount of shots allowed in a volley fire is the "attack-per-round entry" and is made indeed at DEX-5/-10 etc. For bows, it is anyway 1, which forbids any volley fire at all. With this rule, only weapons with an attack-per-round above 1 can be used for volley fire.

This would also mean that the "attack-per-round" is only useable for volley fire and that any missile weapon fires/shoots only once in a round when not used for volley. I'm a bit confused, or is it the rule ? Can everybody help ?

By the way, volley fire has been widely used by Turko-Mongols as well.

Dividing skill by participant makes sense only if you shoot at the melee without aiming at a specific target : you have equal chance to randomly hit anybody in the melee, which is different than trying to hit a particular target engaged with others in a melee.

So 20% penalty (we can argue about the amount, and prefer for isntance a difficult action = x1/2) to hit one single target because it is more difficult and hit a random target if you miss because there are peaople around your target makes as much sense. Just as in Theeedeesix' post #2

Why rolling the damage ? This increases the nr of rolls. There is no need for 2 random rolls to simulate the uncertainty of combat. I would suggest to have a fixed damage for a weapon (2x average), add a fixed damage bonus (idem)- substract armour and roll vs. resillience.

e.g. Bog the big troll, maul 18 (2D8), damage bonus 14 (2D6), total 32.

Uzuor the thane, broad sword 11 (1d8+1), damage bonus 5 (1d4), total 16.

You may like to adapt the numbers, but this is the idea.

My opinion is that BRP allows to use different levels of simulation within the same game: it is often possible to use precise rules if required, or to solve some situations with a mere opposite rolls. The rules can therefore been used to help the narration with the requested degree of complexity for a given scene: there is no conflict between simulation and narration if you keep this freedom. Not to say that there logic make it easy to make easy spot rules to solve any situation while keeping suspense.

Anyway, in any rpg, the GM is free to skip die rolls if he feels it brings nothing to the story.

And how do they pronounce it in Kralorela ? I think this is the point: there should be as many ways to pronounce "Genertela" throughtout Glorantha as there are cultures. Think about all the was to pronounce or call Jesus. Or Zeus Pater / Jupiter.

In the steppe nomads setting I'm working on -hopefully to be published next year- I solved this question for a special ability of the nomads to fire several arrows at high speed by using a kind of "martial Art" skill. So get a "fast reload" musketeer martial art skill, and if the "fire arm" roll is under the "fast reload" roll as well, you can (re)load faster. No extra die roll.

on the other hand, it is quite a detail and has no true influence on the mechanics. Do as you feel it.

I may join for one day.

Good job, could be extended if you find the time (a supplement to TCE ?). And if we manage to publish the Steppe Nomads next year, eheh, we get a huge area for historical gaming.

This is more or less what I'm doing for low-scale mass combat, let's say <100 of each side. Each party has a cohesion between 10 and 20. Most of the time, the ennemy party has a higher one: no danger, no fun. I make a cohesion vs. cohesion roll like for spirit combat, each party loosing points, with the exception that for each big ennemy killed (leader, monster, ...), or for each 2 to 5 smaller ennemies (like average Broos or warriors), the party loses one extra cohesion point. Could be 2 or more for an ennemy champion (his men flee the battle at once). When a party reaches 0, it disagregates, the massacre can start. This way, the players realy feel like having a true influence on the battle -or I hope so.

I add some very basic "random encounters", since you don't always chose whom you're going to fight in a melee. It is quite simple.

magicians seems to be able to pull out new powers and stunts as the plot demands

This something which is missing in the BRP. A magic system with more flexibility would be nice, in addition to those already existing.

THe missle weapons table on page 248, and on list the Self bow's range at 80, not 60. Where did you see 60? Is there a different value on another table?

Mistake:( Don't ask why. No idea. May be I shall clean my spectacles. Or a rest of tiredness

THe missile weapon table on page 252 lists the range of a long bow at 90 not 100. Where did you get 100?

RQ1. It is so much impregnated in my mind, you know, after 30 years...

But in principle, it does not change what I wrote. By experience, 80m seems to be a bit long. But it is a rather short experience.

Uh, I think we still got a bit of confusion here. "Stiffeiners" would increase the power and draw weight of the bow, and thus increase the STR required to use the bow. Longbows get a STR reduction because they are easier to pull back than short bows, including composite short bows, at a given draw weight. THat is, it's eaiser to draw back on a 60 pound longbow than a 60 pound composite bow because the longer bowstave acts as a lever. THe archer is dfoing more work, but it it easier.

Now a reflex composite bow might get a similar effect due to the 'dogleg" bow staves.

It was only a false tarnslation from me: I was indeed speaking about these "dogled bow staves", rigid reflex extremities which ar not bend and they have a leverage effect while keeping a big angle between bow and string: both combined have a comparable effect as the long bow.

An archer can shoot twice this distance at half skill, 3 times it at 4 times skill, and four times it at 1/8th skill. So a self bow with a 80 meter range can be fired at up to 80 meters at full skill, 81-160 meters at half skill, 161-240 meters at one--quarter skill, and 241-320 meters at one-eighth skill. So by the rules the bow can hit targets out to 320 meters. If you are very lucky, or have some nice magic to back up you.

Were did you find this ? I’ve only seen the DEX/3 rule p. 206 for short range, which is absolutely not tailored for bows, and the skill penalty for medium range (twice the effective range at 1/2 skill) and the long range (4 times effective range at 1/4 skill)

Now that I understood your rule, I find it quite interesting. We only have to adjust the values.

That's pretty close to what I got. Going with the BRP rules, and rating bow rangess by STR/draw weight/damage I get:

STR 9 bow: 40/80/160 (half skill)/240 (quarter skill)/360 (eighth skill)

STR 13 bow: 60/120/240/360/480

A bowyer in Germany proposes among others play tool self bows for 3+ year old children, 7-12lbs (STR 01 ?) or self bows for bigger children or beginners 12-40lbs (STR 5 ?). So a 40-60lbs bow would be in the STR 09 range.

I made a self bow with this guy (of rattan), about 25 lbs (STR 05), the extreme maximum range was about 80m. With a better wood, we could reach may be 100m? With twice as much draw, let’s say 200m, 240m maximum. I would therefore stay by the BRP’s 60m effective range for a STR 09.

Let’s compare your suggestion and the BRP:

Self bow

Your rule: range 80m, STR 9, 1d6+1

BRP Rule: range 60m, STR9, 1d6+1

Composite bow

Yours: range 120m, STR12 (=13-1), 1d8+1

BRP’s: range 120m, STR13, 1d8+1+1/2db (which is often 1d2 at STR13) = more damage than in your rule

Long Bow:

Yours: range 120m, STR11 (=13-2), 1d8+1

BRP’s: range 100m, STR11, 1d8+1

Self and long bows are getting better with your rule, while the composite loses its range and damage advantage and is made less efficient than the long bow. Of course, it can be used on horseback. I would still increase the STR bonus for composite at least to the level of the long bow: composite bows had curved stiffeners (”siyah”) which brought the same advantage as the “inclined plane thing we did at school” . I will therefore introduce the composite with stiffeners (STR -2, from the 3rd century in central Asia) and without stiffeners (STR -1 for the Scythian or Egyptian composite bows).

This is quite a nice system, with only one single stat block for all the bows allowing to design one’s own bow.

Every kind of bow would be then written this way:

Name, STR bonus … and that’s it

Self Bow, none

Long Bow, -2

Composite bow, -1

Composite bow with stiffeners, -2

Compound bow, x1/2 (or -5 may be more consistent)

For a single bow, since the STR class is equivalent to the damage class, I would simply write

Name, damage class, required STR

Ex:

Horse composite bow with stiffeners, 1d8+1 (we know this corresponds to a STR 13 bow), STR11

Foot composite bow with stiffeners, 1d10+1, STR15

Children composite bow with stiffeners, 1d6+1, STR 7 or 1d4+1, STR 3

Children self bow, 1d4+1, STR 5

All this is of course valid for human-sized bows: a self bow would be a long bow for a hobbit, btu it shall not have the advantages of teh long bow just because it is used by a Hobbit !

You can get the same "pull" for a short bow as with a long by making the bow thicker, recurving the tips, reflexing the bow (basically building it so it can bend over backwards) building it out of several materials, and/or backing it with horn (i.e. making it a composite bow). THe advantage of the long bow isn't in greater pull, but in that greater leverage you mentioned. It makes it easier to draw back the bow. A 100 pound longbow is easier to drawback than a 100 pound composite bow-becuase the increase in draw comes on more gradually.

But a composite bow (at least in its central aisan form) has a better efficiency than a long bow, and you will pull less than 100 lbs to get the same power: I never tried one, but all the comments I've read point out how easier and more comfortable it is to use a composite bow compared to the other designs.

Anyway, there is the theory (a self bow could be as strong as a composite), and the reality, where composite and long bows have always been seen as deadlier as self bows. There are many reasons for this, including technical, which limit the maximum achievable power from a single design. So I’m not sure I would allow a self bow to make 1d10+1 damage, even if it is in theory possible: you won’t probably find the right wood, the thickness of the bow may be too big for a human hand, the shock in the arm to brutal… Anyway, the maximum doable with a composite shall be greater than the maximum doable with a self bow.

I don't think we need a great deal of variance, but I think we could use one STR/Damage/Range table. I think the basic bows are something like self STR 9, Long STR 11, and Composite STR 13, So it looks simple eoungh to do the progression. Something like 4 points of STR per "Step" in the damage.

STR 5: 1D4+1

STR 9: 1D6+1

STR 13: 1D8+1

STR: 17: 1D10+1

Longbows seem to drop the STR requirements by 2, but might up the DEX requirements (I'll check).

What I did before for another RPG, and which I think would port over is allowing a user to build a bow for a given draw weight (damage), and then getting a default STR, but allowing them to tweak that number a bit with skill. For example, a long bow could reduce the STR required by 2, a recurved bow by 1, compound bow by up to half,and so forth.

Do you mean: a self bow usable for a STR 9-12 makes 1D6+1 damage (or a self bow requires a STR 9-12 for 1d6+1), while a long bow made for STR 7-10 does as much damage (or a long bow requires a STR 7-10 for 1D6+1 damage) ? So if you have a STR 08 and want to make 1d6+1 damage, you need to build a long or composite bow ?

If this is the case, we could instead keep the same fix basic damage as it is in the rules, one for each kind of bow, as per all the weapons in brp, replace your STR adjustment with 1/2db and keep the STR categories unchanged: we stick more to the rules for a comparable effect. Ex: a self bow made for a STR 9-12 archer and used by its owner range makes 1d6+1. A long bow made for the STR 5-8 makes 1d8+1 (long bow)-1d2 (low STR), which is almost the same as 1d6+1. So, I need less STR for the same damage. And for the same STR range, the long bow makes more damage (1d8+1 vs. 1d6+1). It is just like what you suggested, only calculated the other way but keeping some consistency with the weapon rules. It implies however other ranges of STR as the ones you suggested. Whatever the version, we don’t need the minimal STR requirement anymore, or am I wrong? One can build a long bow for a low STR.

So the only modification to the rules would be to replace the minimum STR with the STR range it has been made for (in my example, long bow, 1d8+1, STR 05-08). The standard rules mechanics will make the adjustment by themselves (1d8+1-1d2). Correct ?

I think the SIZ shall be considered as well, since the power of a bow is defined by its strength per inch: a strong Dwarf cannot fully pull the string of a bow made for a human simply because he’s too small. Now, what if the archer has the wrong SIZ and the wrong STR?

To be continued…