Kloster

Good! Very good! May I borrow?

There are several points in your post, my lord. Of course, whatever system you use, items ( like your example) can and should have a name, that can or can not give hints on the capability of the item, and that can or can not be easily known. In fact, in your 2nd example, I would answer: 'Write Sword of Jaelik'!! The way to determine what it does changes from GM to GM, as several threads on this forum have already shown. But I don't think artificial to hear a player having his player say:'I cast Bludgeon'. I'm not a CoC fan, so can not answer for that game, but for me, and for RQ specifically, it is not a problem and avoid having to ask what is the effect.

A separate list or table compiling races that can be used as PC can also be useful.

I have Questworld, but I didn't remember of this one. I will have to check. Thanks.

I'm clearly in favor of the 'Rules Realist' model, in part because I prefer having player and character using the same way of explaining things. This are 2 perfect examples that work. Ditto. Of course. And different region or countries can have different words with same or different values. Medieval France had over 20 different livres (pounds) units, each area using it's own (in most case with the same name, causing much confusion).

Alchemy?

Even if I'm strongly in the other side, I like very much your description. Congratulations.

This is exactly what I have thought ... and done with my own characters.

It has.

The only BRP rule I remember enabling to parry arrows is the 'Arrow Cutting' in RQIII's Land of Ninja. It i stored some 200 klicks away so I can't check it, but I know it exists. The turtle formation you spoke of is passive screening, not a parry. For the stunt part, I don't play games that include them, so no comments from me on that part.

I don't remember for BRP itself, but for all the BRP games I have played (except perhaps Superworld), you can not parry or block missile, only projectile weapons (i.e. thrown weapons). What shield can do is to stay passively in the way of an incoming missile. In that case, either you use localized damage, and depending on it's size, the shield covers(and thus protects) a number of contiguous locations, or you don't and the rule described by el_octogono can (or does, I don't remember) apply.

Very true. This is why it is a matter of personal feelings and also depends on the difference between the 2 skills: the higher the skill, the more the shield protects versus the sword: If shield parry is 30% and sword parry is 50%, the average protection is 16x0.3=4.8 points for the shield and 12x0.5=6 points for the sword: 1.2 point in favor of the sword. if shield parry is 75% and sword parry is 95%, the average protection is 16x0.75=12 points for the shield and 12x0.95=11.4 for the sword: 0.6 point in favor of the shield, even with 20% less in skill.

RQG large shield (the one my character is using) has 16 HP versus 12 for the Broadsword (in fact, for most of the swords: even the greatsword has 12 HP. Only the rapier has 8 and the rhompaia 10). You're right, in RQIII, the difference was even more favoring the shield, especially for the smallest swords (iirc).

This is the last I have been able to download, so I think it is the most current one.

Why? It worked well during 40 years. Current rule is another paradigm, but because it is the choice of the designers, not because the previous rule was bad or didn't work. Even with the new rule, I continue to use a shield because: 1 - It has more HP than my sword. 2 - If it breaks, I can still attack and parry. If I parry with my sword and it breaks, I can not attack, nor parry anymore. 3 - The cover it provide against missiles and projectiles, the bane of RQ characters. Right. In addition to SDLeary's answer, shields, at least large ones, have more HP/AP than most weapons and are more durable and provide a better protection.

Completely agree here. And the example you cited is probably the less problematic for me: Most, if not all the other armors (i.e. not plate + helm) are 1D something -1, which means the 0 is as likely to occur as any other number. Completely random lethality. 2 or 3 dices and a bell curve would, as you say, solve a good part of the problem.

Agreed. Yep, the random armor linked to the Major Wounds rule is the main reason of my dislike of the rules: Lethality is way too much random for my tastes.

My BRP book is 200km away, so I have not checked. I was speaking of what I thought of your proposition, doing another one myself, not of an existing rule I didn't knew it existed. Sorry for the confusion caused.

Depending on the context, it can be a good idea, but being near death can also cause a loss of CON.

True, but there are also Spells and Powers that are changing the CHARs, and that cause the same problems. Except in Superpowered games, Char training is quite slow, and they tend to be quite static, eliminating a great part of the problem.

One answer: Out think your adversaries, have better tactics. Else, combat is boring, even at other values.

What we did (with RQIII) was to write skill values with Category Modifiers excluded. This had 2 effects: - EXP rolls are easier to calculate, becausewhen skill level is below 100, you just have to roll above written value. - When a Char changes (usually POW), you just have to change one or 2 values, i.e. the categories affected by the modifier.

I would say no. For me, they are not 'bound' stricto sensu, but a gift of a god to a loyal thane, not a spirit you have bound forcibly. I would say yes, they should have at least one, being initiates. No, they don't need to be released. A bound spirit that knows a spell can cast it without being released, but he can have a problem to perceive the target of the spell.

Yes, one, and you don't need to be a shaman.

Same understanding for me.