Zit

Is (or was)n't it ruled by a Pharoh? Then make it may be egyptian.

If you create a separate skill, then you have to ensure that skill is never higher than both ride and bow.

Just as you said. Just limit the skill to bow or ride.

Skill/cultural characteristic is a question of taste. Both solutions work. I like the simplicity of the cultural trait but 1- it has to be reserved to some professions (a shaman or blacksmith with horse achery?), which has a taste of D&D's classes, and 2- it is not a concept of the basic rules, which I try to stay as close as possible. A skill gives more flexibility and allows for instance to give an advantage to a profession like mounted archer. But when running a game and for simplicity, I would consider that for a NPC nomad light warrior, bow rating = horse archery rating, which in practice is like having a cultural trait.

It is quite elegant and simple although a bit binary. But one of my goal is to have rules that are fully comptabile for as much settings as possible, using concepts from the core rules only whenever possible. Abilities are not in the rules -as far as I know. Any GM using abilities-rule is free to replace the skill with an ability, or to make it a power like the martial arts in the Celestial Empire or whatever. Could be proposed as option.

I think the rules as written are sufficient with only minor tweaks.

Right. Ride skill rules + difficult action (x1/2). All in the BGB.

use or MRQ's legendary abilities - prerequisites for Mounted Archery would be member of a certain culture, and/or mastery of ride and archery, removes the status of it being a difficult action

Mounted archery as a skill -not an ability- available for some cultures only.

And some details like prerequisites, limitations, bows, stirrups, Parthian shot, etc. This is the way is see the things now.

Simon, you read your emails too fast

Yes, I already wrote something (not 100% like your suggestion however), but it never had been play-tested and I was not sure it was the best rule. I have now some more ideas (from the forum as well as other sources) about how to better describe this skill and the conditions under which it has to be used.

Hi,

I've been haunting this forum for a couple of months and just discovered this thread.

I'm French and have been playing rpg since 1982 (if remember well), starting to play and to realy learn English with RQ2, which I'm still playing now with GianniVacca. I played a bit of D&D, CoC, Légendes and tasted a few others like T&T, Empire Galactique and a few more (even once a home-made "Squad Leader-Dungeon"=O). I wrote settings for Mesopotamia and for Asian Steppes. I'm currently working on the latest with Soltkass' help for possible publication.

I'm currently living in Germany, quite close to Bacharach , and am refereeing a blog-game in RQ2-Prax.

I'd also like to congratulate and thank all those who allow us to meet each others and share our passion.

After reflexion, the rules are actualy a mix of both (ride skill, p. 75):

- when ride or combat is bellow 50%, you have to make both ride and combat rolls in order to succeed, which is statistically the same as [bow x ride] (without math;), but with one extra roll)

- when ride and combat are 50%+, "use the lower of the two skill rating"

This however does not describes the specific training or experience you need for horse archery. If you ask a good archer who's also a good rider to shoot from horseback while galloping while he never did it before, he wil be in trouble. A Nomad used to hunt and fight on horseback may be a worst foot archer but will certainly better know how to shoot from horseback. This is what I'd like to simulate, and make a true difference between peoples with a horse archery tradition and others. It is therefore necessary to separate horse archery from the raw bow skill, hence my first idea of a martial art. Unlike Kushike Archery, it has to bring a true advantage. I think Simon's proposal of a separate skill which ignores penalties is actually the best.

Thanks everybody for your remarks and suggestions.

I agree with you in principle, Simon. Good sense is actually the best rule. That's the reason why I'm trying to make it as simple as possible (as Saint Exupéry said: the perfection is when there is nothing left to remove).

But a setting about nomads where riding an bow are a central cultural feature deserves a little more details than in the rules. Of course everybody is free to simply ignore all these specific rules, but they are here to flavour a steppe campaign.

Well, I thought also about a simple idea in principle: horse archery skill rating = bow x ride.

Ex: 60% bow and 60% ride makes 0.6 x 0.6 = 0,36 or 36% basic chance of horse archery. Then apply any relevant bonus/penalties directly on this skill in order to avoid recomputing during play. It increases together with bow and ride. Or is there anywhere a good rule for combined skills?

Interesting. Look at that.:

with "ability", you mean a kind of "you can it or you can't at all", like a cultural trait in -my case #1 above- instead of a skill with rating? Or a kind of martial art/power as in The Celestial Empire?

If you are going into a lot of detail on this, be sure and only allow short bows from horseback. Longbows don't work out so well for obvious reasons.

Right. However, Japanese bows are quite long but asymmetrical. Are these bows as hard and efficient as longbows?

What about throwing javelins while mounted? Much of that was done in the ancient world without stirrups. Perhaps rather than disallowing "parthian shots" a penalty, either 20% or perhaps a skill ceiling for mounted archery/javelin without stirrups. I think I would favor the ceiling myself.

Right, Parthians did not have stirrups. May be make it "difficult" without stirrups.

Rate of fire is lower vs foot archery as well, which is why mounted archers avoided foot archer units, less range an lower rate of fire

Mmmh, but composite bows are given the longest range in the rules. Witnesses pointed out the very long range these bows were able to shoot at, although at these times the long bow hadn’t been invented (and may be not while galloping?).

Composite bows had indeed different settings and I’ve read that a setting for shooting on foot allowed a longer range.

What are the characteristics of the composite bow in the rules for? A foot archer with a long range setting? A bow on horseback? The maximum range with special arrows and wrist guide?

Another point about ranges: the BGB states somewhere that the easy range is DEX/3. However, up to 30m is very easy for a middle-skilled archer, according to a -modern- archer I asked. Well, we’re far away from the DEX/3. We should have at least DEXx2, don’t we?

I never really understand the interest of the Kuschile archery as it was. In old RQ, the only limitation to mounted combat is the riding skill. A good rider is therefore rarely limited by it (any mounted barbarian starts with 80%) and if, he just have to increase his riding skill and does not need any extra skill. And Kuschile archery involves an extra die roll.

According to what I've read on a forum about horse archers, a horse still have to be trained, or at least used to the sight and sounds of the bow and arrows, to the riding position and so forth… For a combat trained cavalry horse, this may be considered as a part of its training if mounted archery is commonly used.

Scythes (and Huns?) were horse archers without stirrups. We may be just forbid them to shoot backward.

I’d like to use the existing mechanisms as much as possible instead of introducing more penalties or extra rules.

It looks like:

- Horse archery makes sense at gallop only

- Still not sure if I make it a cultural feature or a martial skill starting at 01% -or more for horse nomads. As martial art, it could be learn in some cultures, otherwise only through experience. Shall be anyway limited to good riders, which is a kind of restrictive application of the ride skill p.75. Let’s keep the 50% threshold in order to simplify.

- Apply the shooting when moving and the mounted combat rules anyway

Case 1, cultural trait: I’m a Turk, I know bow and riding at >50%, I can use my bow on horseback while galloping.

I’m a French Knight despising the bow, I can’t (and I anyway don’t want to) use a bow on horseback, and I never will. I don’t even have a bow, Montjoie Saint Denis! Welsh bowmen are unfair but fortunately do not ride. They can’t use mounted archery either.

Case 2, martial art: I’m a Turk, I know bow and riding at >50% and horse archery at 20%. I can use my bow while galloping and succeed if I roll the 1d100 under both my bow and horse archery.

I am a standard adventurer, I’m pursued by Trolls on huge Spiders and want to use my bow on my horse while fleeing. I fortunately know bow and riding at >50% but I never did it before and have only 01% chance to succeed. If I miraculously make it, I will have a chance to increase it through an experience roll only. One of my fellows is a good rider but knows bow at<50% only, and another one is a good archer but a bad rider (<50%): they can’t try to shoot while gallopingat at all.

Does any of these cases make sense?

I’m looking for a detailed rule for horse archery.

It seems to me that horse archery is more than just putting a foot archer on a horse. It requires at least a specific training of both the horse and the archer. I believe, but I’m far away from being a specialist in the question, that without this specific training, it is not possible to use a bow and gallop at all. Therefore, simply applying the rules like firing while moving or mounted combat (which looks like more made for melee combat) seems not realy satisfying.

I had some ideas regarding 1/ how to simulate this training and 2/ which effect it may have, but any help is welcome:

1. Considering that horse archery is a specific skill, we can either describe it as a cultural trait, e.g. the Mongol riding art includes riding without the hands in order to use a bow, an urga or a lasso OR create a new skill “mounted archery”, as a stand-alone skill or a martial art related to riding and bow. Of course, a properly trained horse is anyway required

2. What would bring “mounted archery”? The restrictive rule could be that it allows shooting while riding after the “shooting while moving" rule: failing in this skill (or not having this trait) prevents from shooting while riding at all. The “liberal” rule would be to allow anybody to use a bow on horseback as per the rules but to cancel or reduce the penalties for those who know mounted archery

I’m tending to the martial art + restrictive rule, but I’m not completely sure. Does anybody have an idea on the question?

May be you can find some great ideas in this OGL setting:

http://www.ebook3000.com/Book-of-Erotic-Fantasy_16405.html

I still haven't downloaded it, but it looks promising.

If you want to keep the skill category bonus system, instead of using it as a bonus for skill rolls, use it as a bonus for the skill improvement roll. It avoids computing bonus during the play but is statistically the same as 2). Or am I wrong ?

Just an idea: you may think about something I did sometime for mass combat, based on psychic combat (!!) and opposed characteristic roll:

1- Every side has its „hp“ (Let’s say “credibility“, or coherence), based on whatever is relevant (characteristic, situation, social position, reputation, membership of a community…), in the range of 3-18. For example, APP for an attorney APP +/- bonus depending on his knowledge of the case, if he’s in the same bridge club than the judge, if he’s a half-troll among humans or half-elves…

2- One or several characters in each side have a chance to use a social skill to decrease the opposing side’s credibility, let’s say 1d3, or any other effect the skill may have on the conflict. If you want to, you may allow “offensive” rolls which decrease opponent the credibility or defensive ones which increases yours: this depends on the complexity level you want to play, but I would suggest to limit any increase which will slow down the process

4- Add bonus for role playing

5- Every side makes an opposed credibility roll like in psychic combat, decreasing the opponent’s credibility of 1d3 in case of success. Start again at point 2 for a new round until one reaches 0.

Or

5bis- end the conflict as soon as one has a higher success level than the opponent. Otherwise starts again at point 2.

Or

5ter- even faster: make an opposed credibility roll

This is just a basic idea. Since social conflicts are the best chance for role playing, I think there should be a way to push players to role-play and to only roll dices (point 4).

a) your ability to "handle" melee correctly, which is learned in street fights rather than dojos: this is the Brawling skill

your ability to apply secret techniques that rely also on concentration and knowledge of anatomy, which are learned in formal training rather than street fights: this is the MA skill

is useless if not coupled with a)

These are the rules. They work fine. You may add extra effects to MA to represent the various styles, but the basic concept is ok. I really cannot understand this "Martial Arts vs. Brawling" argument, as long as BRP is concerned. They are different skills, it is like discussing "Driving vs. Repair (Car)".

You're right. Not much to add.

Well, just a bit.

I think the description of the brawling skill in the rules makes confuse : if brawling is a kind of natural, almost instinctive way to use your body to hit, improving mostly with experience (a), the rules say "use this skill for unarmed combat: punches, kicks, head butts, etc." Well, this is actually what many unarmed martial arts do and may lead to the conclcusion that, in the rules, brawling = MA. Hence a long debate about the need or not of a MA skill.

But what you just wrote is clarifying the concept, which is well working for brawling.

For those who consider that anyway brawling and martial arts are just a different approaches of unarmed combat, without MA bringing more efficiency, they can just forget the MA skill which becomes in this case superfluous.

But let's go back to the subject of this thread: MA with grapple.

If we want to use MA with grapple, reducing it to double damage is not adapted anymore, since grapple is not (only) about doing damage. This was the first question. Then, what to do with MA as grappling? We need some home rules: some propose to add an action (MA can increase speed - this is a simple option, usable for any fighting skill) or to increase the effectiveness of a grappling effect (like an automatic success or some boni ?) or to add some exotic effects according to the art, etc. There are some ideas in this thread, and some more in TCE or Dragon Lines.

Note that this can also debated for weapons (and especially for archery), where 1) doubling the damage may not be very relevant and 2) weapon skills requires anyway a training learning specific techniques, inclusive optimizing the damage, and are as such martial arts. But I don't want to start a new debate!

Any volunteer to write a rule extension ?

After reflexion, "martial art" is simpy another way to say "fighting skill". As such, grapple is a martial art, and the rules state that this skill is used for example for judo - a "martial art" if any- or for any other grappling technics. And Brawl is the skill to hit with punches, kicks, head... this is all what Karate, Wushu, kick boxing or Savate are about. Therefore, in a "realistic" setting, WE DON'T NEED THE "MARTIAL ART SKILL" at all. Just use Brawl and Grapple and change the name. Over.

Unless...

Unless you want to play with an imaginary or fantasized conception of martial arts like in Wuxia or Bruce Lee films. Then you have to make your own rules according to what YOU expect from it, like special effects, special powers, special skills or combination. A generic rule about martial arts is therefore not feasible: martial arts belong to a genre.

You're right, the rules are indicative and cannot cover all the situations. I find the martial art skill in BRPS is very limited and unfinished and even sometimes irrelevant : the authours wanted probably to stay as general as possible for a generic system.

Doubling damage is ok for skills like melee weapons or brawl (kick, punch…), but quite irrelevant for grapple, where the goal is mostly to neutralize a foe. Martial art could be used for increasing speed, fighting in the dark, dodging, ignoring some circumstances or allowing some special effects or deeds, like the Japanese blind archery. It is not always about doing more damage. You could simply state that the grapple effects (p. 61) succeed automatically, or increase their effectiveness, or allow to combine two of them. Or invent some new effects: have a look at the China-settings like The Celestial Empire or Dragon Lines.

The Trollpack from Chaosium's RQ2 and 3 of course, which contains lots af spiders and other gigantic arthropods.

or may be there: http://gelweo.free.fr/zeta/index.html for her Mecha setting

Try this, if you can read french : http://gelweo.free.fr/jdr/adj/mechabasic.pdf

I haven't read it. From Gaelle, who was an active member of the www.basicrps.com community. She developped a fantasy setting for Basic and some rules for Mechas. She's also an illustrator (you can see her artwork on her web site).

Zit.

Hi,

For my Mesopotamian settings, I did the following for the prostitutes, the goddess Innana (love, but not the castrated love of our judeo-christian culture) and the god Shulpa’e (youth vigor):

Skill erotism: how to arouse and satisfy sexual desire: body and voice language, make-up, sexual practices…and how to guess the hidden desires. Allows psychological domination (e.g. INT vs. APP to resist any request)

Spell Innana’s grace: charm all present creatures, wanting to help. If APP vs. INT (or only APPx5% for non-intelligent animals) is a success, the creatures fall in love (animals of opposite sex want to mate)

Spell Priapism. As in the tittle.

Hi Ebi-Il

Well, I tried to tanslate into rules the understanding of the World of very ancient Mesopotamian (at least as I understood it). Everything is granted (or caused) by the gods and "magic" is not a kind of manipulation of natural forces like in classical fantasy magic. All surnatural deed are obtained through proper rituals and sacrifices, taking the piety into account. No "battle magic", no "divine magic" with POW sacrifices: sacrifices are very real, like food, animal or money, just as the gods are very real, living in temples as statues. All the rituals are written on tabletts: mesopotamian "magic" is a science, as they understood it, requiring years of studies and of course to know how to read Sumerian. Almost all the "magicians" are actually priests and scientists, which may sound weird in the XXIst century (AD!).

Divine help is gained in temples, every God helping in his domain at a level depending on the piety and the amount of sacrifices.

A big part of "magic" is the exorcism, which is not seen as a magical power but instead as a science of chasing demons away from the victim, again with rituals and sacrifices: almost all the troubles and diseases are caused by demons sent by the gods, who also teached the humans how to chase them. Any exorcist may deal with any demon, like a doctor can try to cure any disease. Exorcists may call demons for their proper use, but not without danger.

Sumerian magicians are like demons summoners. This recalls the older times of Sumer when all the demons and rituals hadn't been recorded on the tablets : the science of exorcism was at the begining and much more limited than later.

There are also a special chapters for necromancy and divination.

Note that I wrote this setting for Sumer and Akkad in the 3rd millenium, not for Babylon or later empires, even if many things stayed relatively constant in time.