Jump to content

Barak Shathur

Regulars
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Barak Shathur

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Gamer since 1982. D&D, Drakar & Demoner, MERP/RM and now RQ/BGB
  • Current games
    RQ/BGB
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm highly simulationist, but even so, I wouldn't have someone roll for mundane everyday tasks. It's more that even during stressful situations, someone with a relatively higher skill would have a higher floor than a less skilled practicioner, barring fumble. It has three levels of success but only two for failure, complete failure and utter disaster, so in that sense it is kind of binary. What I'm looking for is a "partial failure" function. This is exactly what I'm talking about. My system would function just like this. With Research 60%, that would mean 60% chance of gettin
  2. It is sometimes remarked that the binary pass/fail dynamic of BRP skills can be problematic. In some circumstances a more graduted scale of success/failure might be desirable. One case may be when some skill needs to be passed in order to move an adventure forward. If the skill check fails, you're stuck and the GM needs to Deus ex Machina or fudge it. Or when you have a knowledge skill, e.g.when researching something in a library, or performing music or something like that. Having only pass/fail as options is a pretty blunt instrument for measuring these kinds of activities. For example, a che
  3. I don't know, it certainly hasn't happened that way in my games (and my players recently held off a mob of 40 orcs!). Again, NPC grunts have lower skill values so will special less often. And the PCs will special on their parries sometimes, more often than the NPCs. Totally agree, which is why I use the Fate Point rule from BGB. But the stance of the attacker is not that relevant to the discussion. Empirically, as gleaned from a semester or two of karate, a kick tends to move you, much more so than a punch. A punch could do it, but much more seldom. And especially with regard t
  4. It's exactly the other way round. Since most hits are going to be parried, this rule allows a few more in, reducing the endless ping pong. Since players tend to have higher skill and better armour, it favours them slightly. And no, I don't use random armour (anathema!) No. A really hard punch is not likely to knock someone over, while a half decent kick might. It's not speed, it's momentum that matters with this issue. A one handed weapon might hit really hard and break something, but then it stops. A great weapon hits and then keeps going, and has a much greater chance to mov
  5. Matter of taste I guess. I prefer fights ending sooner by someone actually getting hit. Even a big guy with a mace is going to have an extremely hard time knocking an 80 kg person (SIZ 13 I believe) over. There’s just not enough mass in the mace to create the momentum needed. A two handed weapon on the other hand is probably at least 3-4 times heavier and has more of the follow through to get the job done . How so? It will still bounce off the shield. I guess that could be useful if you have a big enough weapon, e.g. a great axe, to make a dent in the sh
  6. I’d be curious to see this. I use ”Basic Bestiary” for elves, dwarves, hobbits and orcs, and the BRP MERP ”Free peoples” for humans and ”Creatures” for the rest pretty much. Sorry, I might not have been clear enough. I do drop the MERP lists, but check what actual spells would have been available to a particular character and try to find equivalents in the BRP MERP Magic supplement.
  7. No, that’s not how it works. A normal parry reduces a special hit to a normal hit that however bypasses the shield, striking the defendant. Which is as it should be. It’s not easy to knock someone over with a one handed weapon. With a great weapon though it’s a different matter. Impaling weapons yes, maybe. Blunt and edged weapons not so much. What does this mean? Why would you attack someone’s shield?
  8. I just prefer the RQ system, where you roll damage and whatever exceeds the shield's AP passes on to the defender. Of course, this won't have much of an effect with BRP:s weapons and shields which have APs in the 15-25 range, but it works in RQ where AP lies more around 10-12 on average. But barring that, your system makes sense.
  9. In RQ3, you also have to roll DEX x 5 or fall down. With a typical shield having 12 AP, even most criticals would not get through (unless you're a huge monster or using a two handed weapon). A critical impale might, but criticals don't happen as often as specials. So I disagree. Turning specials into a regular hit means that many more blows will get through and have a chance of damaging the opponent, thus reducing the ping pong effect. And it just feels better when a special has some kind of impact rather than just bouncing off a shield like a regular blow. What is the riposte
  10. So I recently (about a year ago, I'm a returning roleplayer who played mostly MERP and WFRP back in the day) discovered RuneQuest 3 and I found it really striking somehow. It has almost just the right balance between simulationism and playability. There's so much to love. The relative impact of abilities on skills. The way Size is primarily related to weight, not height (which makes sense since mass would seem to have more impact on HP and DB than height). The breadth of skills, for example separating Fast talk from Oratory, or Search from Scan...what a cool and original concept! The combat sy
  11. This is taking a turn for the better, we're starting to discuss RQ3 now! It's my favourite version too. I'm starting a new thread.
  12. I have always felt uncomfortable with arrows doing impale damage. It makes more sense with a heavy weapon such as a spear or sword (or even a dagger) that would destroy more on its way through a body, but an arrow having such a narrow point doesn't seem to be in the same class IMO. It's a weakness of the system.
  13. You've got me confused with someone else. I never claimed any such thing, nor would I. Sorry, but you'll never convince me that e.g the pourpoint of Charled de Blois (or the gambesons depicted in the Maciejowski bible) would do much against a solid blow from a warhammer. If by gambeson you mean that really stiff layered material that the youtube crossbow guy used to test bolts and arrows on, maybe you have a point (no pun intended), But that's more like a linothorax and not what most people mean by padding. That stuff would not qualify as "flexible armour" as per RuneQuest or BRP.
  14. On your first point, I would have to disagree. It is a good solution for this level of abstraction. It doesn’t encumber the system with extra data points, like separate armour values for different types of weapons, or slow down play. And padding on its own isn’t all that effective against a heavy smashing weapon that concentrates force on a small point, like a mace or a warhammer. It’s under heavier, more rigid armour that spreads out the impact that it really comes into its own. Regarding plate, sure, not much would penetrate it head on but a point is more likely to find a weak spot or
  15. I stand corrected then. Having only played RQ3 apart from BGB in the english language BRP-family, that was my assumption. My bad. Still, I think the RQ3 rules for blunt and pointed weapons is a fairly simple and un-clunky solution to the topic at hand.
×
×
  • Create New...