Barak Shathur

57 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Not really. Look at broadsword, long spear, pike, lance, etc. There really isn't much of a drop compared to slashing weapons. A handful of slashing weapons do a point more than a comparable impaling weapon, but usually at the cost of defense, as wooden hafted weapons tend to break easier. And a 1 popint difference doesn't compare the double damage of the impale. 

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. 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Not really. Impaling weapons hold their own with most of the slashing weapons. You might have a one point advantage with some weapons, but usually at a cost elsewhere. For instance a Pike (2D6+1) has a better SR , lower DEX requirement,cost less, and  and more hit points than a Rhompilia (2D6+2). 

Current BRP doesn't have SR or Rhompilias, and Pike does 1d10+2. Maybe you're looking at RQG?

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

If we bring up mounted combat then impales are unmatched, since not many PCs can match the db of a horse.

As it should be.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The RQ2 crush was nasty for big brutes too.

I'll take your word for it. Not that familiar with RQ2. 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Semi-realism. Padding is very effective against blunt weapons in real life. I rather be wearing a nice gambeson that curibouilli if hit by a mace. But in the RQ3 errata half of armor protection was the padding.

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.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think it helps to mirror the late bronze early iron age battlefield, where spears dominated. In fact, historically spears still dominated the battlefield until superseded by firearms. Knife and Spear (bayonet) are still the secondary weapons today. 

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.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The "sword fetishism" thing is due to sword having more status historically and in the legends. Everybody cam name (at least one of) King Arthur's swords, but few ever know about Rhongomiant. So I think it's less of a game system thing and more of a genre thing. D&D went with a model Medieval/High Fantasty/LotR model while RQ was made for Glorantha. Had D&D been based on, say, Ancient Greece, the sword probably won't have been showcased.

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.

1 minute ago, Mark Mohrfield said:

RQ2. The impaling rules were standard, the slashing rules were optional and presented in the appendix.

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.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The old RQ slashing crticals used to help edged weapons, but back then impales did max+rolled.

Which version was this? In RQIII, slash and crush specials simply created a higher likelihood of knockdown, nothing else. 

25 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No problem. THe trick here is figuring out where you want to bend BRP to emulate MERP and when not.

I still favor the idea of using the specials and crticals for any extra benefits. Not only would that make magic skills over 100% mean something, but it would fit in with how BRP handles other skills.

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

13 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Well unless you use the lower of the spell list and the magic casting skill. This is similar to what what RQ3 did with sorcery. There were a bunch of magical skills and when someone would cast a spell they would have to roll against the lowest magical skill that applied. 

For example if someone had Create Fire at 80%, Duration 70%, Multispell 65% and Range 50% and they wanted to create a half dozen fires spread out of a 100 meter circle,  that would burn for an hour they would roll against the 50% Range skill (the lowest of the involved skills). 

You could have Spell Lists and a Basic Magical Casting skill and use the lowest. Since Level x10% will usually be higher than MERPC caster's Base Spell OB or Directed Spell OB, you usually be rolling against the magical sting skill for converted NPCs, which keeps things simple.

 

I kinda think you need the spell list % to monitor spells known, as least if you want to keep it MERPish. Regular BRP would just let the caster have access to the spells but give more potent spells a higher magic point cost. 

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)

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Good. I agree that 2d6 per mp would have been over powered

Sounds like a plan, but much as D/E crtis are nasty the A and B crits are really just the point where actual injuries start to occur For the most part BRP crticals and specials can do the same thing. You might just bump up the success level of those particular spells. 

 

Yeah, MERP used two skills, Base Spell OB and directed Spell OB for most things, and had a couple of outliner for using magic items and reading runes.. It probably used two skills to slow down advancement a little. If one skill did everything then every spellcaster would max that one skill out. With a couple of skills they have to make choices. 

But I thin you will probably want to keep the Spell List% to work out spells known, as previous discussed. 

 

One possibility would be if casters rolled against the lower of their magic skill or their spell list. So if a 12 lvl Mage with Fire Law 120% and Directed Spell 58% were to toss a fireball it would be at 58%. That way when a mage learns a new list he won't be a master of it right away. This wouldn't hurt with NPC stats since you will be given them 10% per level to start, so it will usually be higher than their Base and Directed OBs. 

 

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.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Sounds like a plan, but much as D/E crtis are nasty the A and B crits are really just the point where actual injuries start to occur For the most part BRP crticals and specials can do the same thing. You might just bump up the success level of those particular spells.

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…

28 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Please, can you tell us more about this BRP MERP Project please?

Or at least tell me! 🙂

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). 

38 minutes ago, Susimetsa said:

I come from a bit of a different angle to this, but I just think it is worth noting that MERP and BRP are not so dissimiliar in the end. BRP is a more pure skill-based system, while MERP handles some facets of the system based on character levels. BRP's strength is the levelless, down-to-earth design which I also think would be a perfect fit of a Middle-Earth setting. Rather than a direct translation of spell lists, I would pick and choose what BRP/Runequest etc. already offer and work them into separate sets for ranger type characters and animist type characters etc. Perhaps also adapt some iconic MERP spells to BRP. It would require a relatively big reimagination of the published campaigns and adventures, though... 😕

 

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. 

53 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I think you need very different guidelines to convert NPCs if you want this to work.

Your PCs will never be really equivalent to MERP characters of a given level. Even if they have quite a number of skills that stays very low like in BRP, they are also far more constrained by their level.

Also, what do you dislike so much in MERP ? If it's the massive number of tables, a solution could be to replace most of them with a single one, with less possible results.

The static maneuver table could work for this.

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

7 minutes ago, Mugen said:

They use the same attack table, yes, but that table lists Maximum results for spells other than Fire and Lightning.

As a result, Shock bolts can't do more than 14B on a character with no armor, while Fire bolts can deal 36E with an attack roll of 150+ (even though it deals the same 14B on a roll of 90).

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. 

3 minutes ago, Mugen said:

My understanding was that you intended to use the same damage value in BRP for both spells, despite the level difference.

Sorry if I was wrong.

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

11 hours ago, Richard S. said:

I guess my question is if you're going to be playing a middle earth campaign, why do you need a spellcasting system? Only the elves and ainur (plus a few non-elf relatives) have real magic, and very little of what Tolkien described is anything like the flashy spells of most FRPGs.

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. 

16 hours ago, Mugen said:

And what about lists which have elemental attacks at lower levels ?

IIRC, Light Laws has a bolt spell which has a lower level than Fire Bolt, but can deal less damage.

If both those spells deal 1d6 damage, that means Fire Law is going to be a poor choice for attack spells. Which is strange.

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. 

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You could assume a slowdown of skills past 75% or 100%, Something like 10% up to Level 10 and then 5% or even 2%. That way a Lvl 25 wizard would have 10x10%+15x2% for 130%, much closer to the 125% warrior. IMO it really depends on just what perks come with a higher spell list skill. Originally I was thinking it was just going to be what spells you know and maybe the cast chance. But if there are other perks it could be an issue.

BTW, what you could do is apadt a bit from RQ sorcery and Myhtras criticals. What if there were a list of special effects that a caster could choose from on a special success roll. Things like reduced magic point cost, increased spell level, increased range, increased duration,reduced casting time (Say DEX SR or 5 DEX ranks), multispell, mulittarget, etc. A crtical would let the cast pick two special effects. That would be simple yet give the telecasters a bit more flexibility.

 

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. 

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

BTW, What are you going to do about the MERP criticals? Some of the spells simply cause a "Type C" crtical or some such. Are those going to be converted to damage, a roll on the BRP critical table (say -A: 30%, B:-20%, C:-10%, D: +0%, F: +10%, E: +20%), or what?

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. 

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You might consider reducing the magic point cost and  the casting time. So a animist who has Healing Ways at 100% can cast a healing spell at 1 magic point less and 1 SR/DEX rank faster. THis would allow experienced caster to toss off minor magicss more quickly and often. Makes sense for a master spellcaster.

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

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Now would that be 2d6 per magic point? 

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

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I thought you were going to follow MERP more cloesly. That is Since Fire Ball is an 8th level spell it cost 8 magic points and did 1d6 damage per magic point. If you make the spell variable then it obviously not so powerful, but that also sort of downplays the higher level spells, as any damage spell can be pumped in in BRP.

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. 

 

18 hours ago, Mugen said:

For comparison sake, MERP had only 4 weapon tables, and (IIRC) 2 spell attack tables (bolts and balls).

I don't think the change to crit tables was a good idea, though. I prefered the separated A, B, C... collumns from RM.

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. 

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Yes, because I needed another character type for comparison. 🙂

Basically, what I meant was "you shouldn't give a 25th level Magician a 250% skill because a 25th level Fighter will only have a 125% skill."

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. 

51 minutes ago, Susimetsa said:

I loved MERP back in the day and I still have it and several of its supplements on my bookshelf. Still, I'd base my Middle-Earth game more on the BRP system and merely reimagine certain spells from the MERP spell lists in the BRP system as needed. It would also give a good opportunity to remove some of the more outlandish spells from the selection (MERP was/is a fun system, but, IMHO, somewhat too magic-heavy for the Middle-Earth setting).

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. 

47 minutes ago, Susimetsa said:

 Still, I don't think MERP had an overabundande of such tables - it was Rolemaster that was the main culprit in that regard.

Indeed, by an order of magnitude.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Maybe. But I'm not keen on the idea. It probably should still take time to cast spells and the game effects of someone throwing two or three fire balls or other area effect spell should be pondered before going down that route. Fire Ball is Lvl 8 so by your method 8d6 damage, twice for two spells. Ouch. No one's walking away from that in BRP, unless they are a Maiar, or a dragon. Two Death Clouds? I mean it's a big game changer. You vcan do it, bu it will shift the balance of power over to the spellcasters.

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.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Personally I'd go with either reduced POW costs or maybe a free level upgrade. I'd probably say a spell should take 1 SR/DEX Rank per POW point, too.

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.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

LOL! Back when I ran MERP I photo copied the dozen or so required tables and stabled them to some manila folders to make a GM screen (that was back before scanners, inkjet printers, and customizable GM screens). It really helped to keep the game flowing. 

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.

16 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Yes, but my point was that about the imbalance that would cause a +10% per level to Spellcasters skills.

Yet you used a fighter as your example. 
 

Anyway, spells in MERP barely function like skills at all, so the comparison is halting at best.