Barak Shathur

This being the BRP forum, and since there are separate forums for RQ and Stormbringer, I'm basing my response on the BRP system. If you're including other systems it changes the nature of the discussion quite a bit. Yes, in RQIII (and RQG), broadswords can both slash and impale, while warhammers can crush and impale. See above. I'm curious whether the OP is basing his game on BRP or all the various systems mentioned. Indeed, and the weapon tables were balanced slightly differently as a result (mainly talking about RQIII here). I think there's a typo here but yes, these represent lighter slashing weapons. Note that I said 'most', not 'all'. If you compare the best 1H slashing vs impaling weapons in BGB my point stands. I generally agree here, and I guess I accept the simplification that leaves mounted lances as far and above the most effective weapon for mounted charges. I'd say the leverage of a lance pointed directly at a surface is far greater than that of a swung sword, axe or mace, but yes, realistically they too ought to benefit from the extra momentum imparted by the mount. But then you'd have to add some sub-rule for these weapons (maybe increase rider's DB, or add mount's DB but stepped down one level, or...). More overhead in other words. Having also worn mail over padding (both heavy and light, flexible and stiff) and fought with blunt weapons (SCA rattan swords) I'd say mail over padding certainly helps, but not near as much as cuir bouillie over padding, not to mention plate. The weight of mail, especially as it swings like a heavy curtain at various distances from the body, can catch some of the impact of a blow, and the padding then reduces it even more. Mail that hangs directly over the padding, such as over the shoulders, does squat for a direct hit in that spot. The reason mail was prevalent was that most hand weapons in the historical eras we are discussing were edged or pointed weapons, the reason which being that they are most effective against lightly armoured foes, which most partakers in battles (a lot of peasant levies) up to the renaissance tended to be. And mail excels against these weapons, since they rely more on slashing and piercing than crushing. Maces, warhammers and axes are indeed heavier (in particular more top heavy). They are shorter and slower than swords and spears, making them easier to evade for a lightly armoured fighter. But where a sword might have trouble taking down a mailed opponent, a good hit from a flanged mace would probably break something on the inside. So again, your statement here proves my point. Yes. I've watched it before, though I can't remember if it was the longer or shorter version, and I hashed it out on the Mythras forum a year or two ago. To begin with, most of the fights where the spear wielder was matched against a single broadsword fighter, the spear won - as he should, here the spear gets the full advantage of it's greater reach. However, broadswords (arming swords really) were never intended to be used without a shield. And the sword and shield combination beats the spearman handily most of the time in this video. This is the situation most representative of historical reality. Also, the weapons look impossibly light, and the spearman's stabs are just touches (he doesn't want to injure his sparring partner, obviously!) which wouldn't be near enough to stop a real opponent. He would have to commit much more to each stab, preventing him from stabbing with such frequency and putting him more off balance and less able to retreat so quickly. And if they were wearing armour...forget about it. You could never retreat as quickly as your opponent advances without losing your balance eventually. You keep making my point!

Not sure what tables you're looking at here. Since this is the BRP forum, I'm talking about BRP (latest version specifically, but I believe in this respect it's identical to BGB). None of the 1H impaling weapons do more than 1d6+1 damage, (with the exception of Lance, but only when used on horseback), while almost all of the 1H slashing weapons do 1d8+1, 1d8+2 or 1d10+1 damage. When human limbs have 4 or 5 hp, this is a considerable difference. Of course, this only applies if you use hit locations. And weapon HP is around 15 to 20 for almost all weapons in BRP, they aren't going to break that easily. Current BRP doesn't have SR or Rhompilias, and Pike does 1d10+2. Maybe you're looking at RQG? As it should be. I'll take your word for it. Not that familiar with RQ2. I respectfully disagree 100%. A nice gambeson isn't going to do much against a mace unless you have something stiff on top to spread the impact. The combination however is very effective. Yep. Spears dominated battle fields since they in addition to being cheap and having good armour penetration had reach, which is crucial in mass combat, and as you say not just during the Bronze Age. In a duel however they are quite limited. Against someone of equal competence armed with e.g. a sword and shield, you basically have one shot before he's ducked inside your spear point, putting you on your backfoot completely. Well, the two game systems I mentioned represent two different genres. So yes, it's a matter of game system in this case. I think you're contradicting yourself a little here.

Oh. And what were they?

I find the weapon specials really well balanced, and they are one of the things I really love about BRP. If you check the melee weapon tables, impaling weapons tend to do less basic damage than slashing ones (usually 1d6+1 vs 1d8+1/2). So a slashing weapon does more damage on a regular hit, while impaling weapons do better on specials. Both are thus interesting choices. This dynamic disappears in e.g. RQG, where both do double damage on specials but slashers have the same higher base damage, making the latter the no brainer choice par excellence, and I think the same will happen in BRP if you downgrade impales. Also remember that impaling weapons get stuck. A PC in my campaign died because he couldn't dislodge his spear from the orc boss in time. But it's your choice of course, it's all a matter of taste. Crushing weapons also tend to do slightly less basic damage than slashing ones in BRP, and thus only make sense to use if you have 1d6 damage bonus or more (after which DB increases almost exponentially). I don't love this as much, but at least it gives a certain meaning to crushing weapons - they become brutal weapons for big brutes. My favourite version is RQIII, where according to the errata crushing weapons halve the AP of flexible armour (like mail) on each hit, not just specials. Realism and simplicity in one! I think impaling specials are one of RQ's great contributions to simulationism, making spears really attractive in contrast to D&D's sword fetishism. Which version was this? In RQIII, slash and crush specials simply created a higher likelihood of knockdown, nothing else.

Oh I would definitely give extra benefits for specials and criticals. I would probably follow BRP here with lower MP costs as an effect.

If I was to go with your idea, I might use POW x 5 for Channeling and INT x 5 for Essence as the casting skill. That way a level 1 NPC hedge wizard would actually be able to cast that level 1 Boil Water spell… I’m warming up to this actually (no pun intended). (to clarify, I wouldn’t have them use the lowest of the two in this case)

I don't want a skill that isn't really a skill, as Spell list skill would be if it's only used to figure out what level spells you can cast. I think it's going to have be one skill for both casting and max spell level calculation. But learning a new spell list would have to be something rather involved, like studying for a month with a master or something.

That would seem to differ too much from the BRP magic system. I prefer straight up damage. Thinking about this further, if casters start out with 75% magic skill, and thus are a couple of experience rolls away from potentially being able to cast a 3d6 fireball… that would seem rather overpowered. Maybe the equivalent for an E critical should be 2d6 (if one uses hit locations like I do). Or else it needs to just do general HP damage. The latter could work for fireball but not really for the top tier bolt spells. Hmmm…

It was created by Fergo113 and used to be available in the downloads section here. Apparently it’s been taken down. It is an adaptation to BRP of MERP and Decipher’s LOTR, as I understand it. The magic system and character background stuff are the best parts IMO (except that Elves are ridiculously overpowered, hobbits strangely undexterous, and dwarves too small (as in most BRP games)). The creatures tend to be overpowered in terms of stats but quite good with regard to skills and special abilities. He must have played with really powerful PCs, or else his groups got totalled a lot (as did mine when I didn’t scale down the monsters a bit).

Yup, and the BRP MERP Project already does this. I’ve been using it more or less for the past two years. However, I want to try to adapt the MERP spell lists instead of having to spend time reimagining an equivalent to the myriad MERP spells.

I don’t hate MERP, I just want to play MERP modules with BRP. Why does this seem to irk you so much?

So according to my system currently, Shock bolt would do 1d4 damage at spell level 1, and Fire ball 3d6. Each extra spell level adds one damage die.

You were not wrong. I’m thinking this out as I go along, with the help of the excellent feedback in this thread.

Because I want to play through my MERP modules using a BRP system. I agree that MERP is over saturated with magic. Sometimes this has been rationalised as representing more the supernatural abilities of some special individuals, rather than D&D type pyrotechnics. But when everyone starts out with a +15 sword it cheapens it a bit. So yeah, MERP is in some ways a flawed implementation. However, a big part of this for me is also simply nostalgia. In my campaign so far though, the PCs have run in to exceedingly few spell casters, and so it will remain.

IIRC (don’t have the books at hand) lower level spells were limited with regard to how high a result they could achieve on the ‘Bolt’ and ‘Ball’ attack tables, respectively. So in conversion, the spell damage could follow the critical damage equivalent I gave above.

Again, simplicity is my goal. I’ll probably go with a flat 10% magic skill per level, affecting spell level known, casting chance of success, and perks like increased spell effects at cutoffs like 200% and 300%. Level 20+ casters are extremely rare in MERP, but they are powerful so I think this could fit the structure. Thinking more about this ‘magic skill’, I now think it should be one skill that applies to all spell lists known, rather than a separate skill for each list. This is mainly for simplifying NPC conversion.

I’ll probably convert to BRP damage. 1d3 for A, 1d4 for B, 1d6 for C, 2d6 for D, 3d6 for E maybe. The reason for the steep progression at the end is that D and E criticals are usually incapacitating.

Either this, or the improved basic spell effect. Gonna think about this and select whatever is simpler.

No, that would be overpowered. Probably start it at 2d6 in that case, plus 1d6 per added level.

Ideally, spells would function as close to BRP/RQ equivalents as possible. But 8 MP for 1d6 damage seems absurd. Maybe MP cost should follow BRP here, so in effect 1 MP for a basic Fireball, which however you can only cast if you have 80% or higher skill.

I’m of two minds here. On the one hand, reducing the number of critical tables shrinks the number of possible outcomes of individual attacks, which becomes a bit absurd once you’ve driven the orc’s jawbone into his skull with your warhammer for the umpteenth time. On the other hand, scanning 20+ columns of small, tightly hand written text late at night burns brain cells at an alarming rate. I think the solution came in the form of the Rolemaster Combat Minion program, 25 years too late though.

Well that makes more sense! Still, in MERP/RM a 25th level Mage or Animist is probably much more powerful than a 25th level Fighter, so I’m not sure it would be so off. Also, it’s a matter of the convenience of the conversion for me.

The MERP days where some of the best. Still, I imagine myself today reading off those tables leading to other tables, and I just can't even anymore. As I've said above, I've been using the BRP MERP Project for my campaign so far, and the Spell Specialties do a good job of implementing MERP-y magic for BRP, yet differ enough from MERP spell lists that it creates a lot of work for me when I want to convert an NPC. This kind of work I need to cut out, even though MERP/RM magic isn't very well tailored to Middle-Earth in my mind.

Indeed, by an order of magnitude.

Under my system, since I'm basing it on BRP the basic fireball would do 1d6 damage, not 8. So a wizard with 170% in Fire Law (equivalent to a 17th level MRP/RM wizard) would be quite puny unless he gets some more bang for his magic points. I agree with 1 SR per magic point, that's how I've been running it. And yes, one possible solution would be that at 100%, the spell effect is doubled, so that your fireball does 2d6 damage, at 200% 3d6 etc. That might fit better with the overall system, though splitting magic attacks would scale better with regard to skill level. I even had the official GM screen! Didn't help. In recent years I've heard some GMs actually handed out the different tables to players, so that everyone handled something during combat. Pure genius if you ask me. Of course, back in the day when the GM was the all powerful Demiurge, giving players access to the secret tome of knowledge would have been anathema, like breaking the fourth wall or something.