Barak Shathur

I just remembered that there’s a pdf file for converting Harnmaster for Middle Earth. It’s rather brief, mostly it’s stats for the various races, plus discussions of differences between Kethira and Arda in terms of cultures, religion etc. I’ve been wanting to test it myself.

Which is why I like the impale rule as implemented in the earlier versions of RQ and also BGB, where a lighter weapon such as a short sword can do more damage than a heavier one on a special success, simulating the effect of precision in contrast to brute force. This effect was unfortunately neutralised in RQG by also giving slashing weapons double damage on specials.

Agreed. But certain design choices are better simulation wise, without adding bloat.

I want to say something about this idea of min-maxing, which people keep bringing up as some sort of critique of my position. This is a total straw man. What I'm talking about is evolutionary logic, which is a trademark of simulationist games like BRP/RQ etc. It just doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint that any individual or species, in matters of life and death, would choose anything less than the best option available to them. A species that completely irrationally handicapped itself would not survive for long, it would be transplanted by other groups and species that didn't. And the dwarves are extremely rational, and have been around for a long time as a species. This is a question about game design. It has absolutely nothing to do with min-maxing.

Because maybe RQG's weapon system perhaps does not reflect reality that closely? Like Godlearner said, a short stabbing sword is more useful in a tightly packed, othmosis style melee or otherwise cramped space than a long slashing one. There might be other benefits, like the ability to 'crowd' your longer weapon wielding opponent, where the shorter weapon also has some advantage. And possibly there are other advantages that are hard for us to imagine from our armchairs. None of this is reflected in the rules. So then you either have to write the rules so that a gladius would be the obvious choice for a legionnaire, or you give him what would be the most effective melee weapon for him under the rules as written. BRP, for example, has a technical way of making short swords useful weapons, by giving them Impale, unlike longer swords that only have Slash (which doesn't do double damage under that system). That's one way to simulate the different but equal status of those two particular weapons. Another way is the rule for close combat, where short weapons have an advantage (while long weapons have the ability to keep shorter ones at bay). And again, the rules as written seem to contradict this, certainly in the case of the primary melee weapon (warhammer) dwarves are given in the printed RQG. At least now that it has been corrected, and has Impale, it could be argued it is an effective weapon against such foes, but a battle axe would seem much more so (especially against the tree-like Aldryami). Warhammers are supposed to be good against armoured foes (although rules wise, battle axes are better), which, correct me if I'm wrong, neither Uz nor Aldryami in general seem to be. If anything, I would say, in RQG Iron dwarves would be likely to train more with a battle axe, that being more effective (rules wise) in every way, and keep a warhammer as a backup weapon, since it can double as a smithying and all purpose tool. Thus I would switch the percentages for those two skills.

But "Shields as passive armor Can you bear a shield with, let’s say, a Great Axe or a Bow, although you can not parry, in order to get some kind of “passive defense” against missiles, or, otherwise, what is the meaning of the expression “A shield may not be ready for use when the adventurer is using a two-handed weapon” in p. 219 Here’s where we get into some crunch, based on how realistic you want to go. In the real world, shields usually require a hand to hold onto an interior strap or handle so they don’t get in the way or slip around. Part of a shield’s virtue is being mobile enough that it doesn’t take hits directly, angling them away from the defender when possible. These straps not like Captain America’s magical shield that has grips tight enough for him to wield it like a weapon AND then slip over his shoulder with backpack like straps. (Comics version Captain America, in the movie he has some sort of magnetic harness.) That’s not super-fun, though, and fantasy art and fiction is full of characters with a shield slung over one arm loosely while using a two-handed weapon like a bow or great axe. So if as a GM you want to allow it, we suggest using this ruling: The adventurer will receive no benefit from the shield unless against melee or missile fire that happens to strike that or an adjacent hit location (see p219) AND comes from a direction that would reasonably have a chance of hitting (gamemaster discretion). In this case, the shield will protect for half its usual armor points (as per the rules for a slung shield on the back, p219). For example, an adventurer is using a bow, holding it with their left hand and drawing the string with the right hand. The shield is affixed to the back of the left arm. An attack comes from the adventurer’s left and rolls the left arm hit location. The shield, being between the attacker and the arm in question, protects for half its normal value. Later in the same combat, an attack comes from the right/front or back and rolls the left arm hit location. The gamemaster decides that the arm is exposed and that the shield isn’t between the attack and the arm, so the shield is useless."

No problem. And yes, parrying with the shield prevents your weapon being damaged, which however is pretty rare in my experience. Against high damage attacks like great weapons and large monsters it makes more sense to parry with the shield though.

This is what I meant (if I read you correctly), and how the rules work as I understand it. Since in RQG it makes absolutely no difference to parrying whether you have a shield and weapon or just a single weapon, you might as well use the shield as passive armour while you parry (and attack) with your weapon. This is pretty much the only way using a shield in melee makes sense to me within RAW. Otherwise it's just dead weight as far as I can tell.

The more I think about it, I would make HP = SIZ, modified by CON instead of the other way round.

I would buy it, for sure.

I think the dream dragon we encountered went down in two or three.

If my calculation isn't off, a 63 HP giant would have 21 HP in its head. A critical with a broadsword is 18 HP damage, plus DB of +1D4. Should take care of it. Not to mention possible magical damage added to that. Sounds about right to me?

I've been ruling in my BRP game that for creatures like humans, where STR and SIZ have similar range, they can't differ by more than 6 (so one die, essentially). If they do, you move points from the higher to the lower until they are within 6. For dwarves and orcs, I make it 12 (I give dwarves SIZ 1d6+6).

I was just thinking that it might make more sense in RQ to reverse the DB and HP generation systems, so that HP goes back to being the average of HP and SIZ, while DB is based STR, with a modifier for high or low SIZ. Why? Because arguably, strength is more important for damage generation, since kinetic force is the most important factor here, and higher muscular strength allows you to move your weapon faster. Large body mass can help with a stable point to generate that force from and allow you to 'lean into it', but it's not as decisive (and small size can detract from it similarly). Size however has a huge impact on ability to sustain damage. It's been said before on these forums, a given blow might knock a small creature down while not having much impact on a large one. I'd say it's at least as important as health and ability to withstand pain (CON).

I feel vindicated. This is exactly how I feel about it. For me, BRP systems flunked the SIZ stat in a couple of ways. One being that it was completely untethered to STR, which could make for some absurd combinations. The other that it ought to represent mass, not height, since it has such a big effect on both DB and HP. But in most iterations I've come across it seems to be implemented more as the latter, most egregiously in the case of dwarves, who ought to have larger SIZ than pure height would dictate, due to their stockiness. Even RQ dwarves, who emphatically are not D&D or Tolkien dwarves, with 4D6 STR surely have got to be heavier per inch than humans. If they're not super muscular they at least probably have much denser muscle tissue, and much heavier bone structure to support that immense 'pound for pound' strength. Which should net them a greater SIZ stat. Still, I'm not sure I'd give them the same mass as humans, but at least 1D6+6, if humans are at 2D6+6. RQ3 had 6 kg per point of SIZ (at least at the humanoid end of the scale) and this makes sense to me. I'd put an average dwarf at around 120 cm and 54-60 kg (SIZ 9-10). Oh and I should clarify, I don't see dwarves as 'combat monsters'. I think they should be about on a par with humans in a stand up fight. Not better, but definitely not inferior. That's how they were when RQ was first conceived, before humans had their sudden growth spurt, and that's how they ought to be in my mind.

I have been running a MERP conversion campaign off and on for the last two years. I started out with RQ3 because I felt the grittiness and the character building fit the world quite well. After a while I started adding elements of BGB to it, like the multiple parries, weapon specials and fate points. I felt the sweet spot was somewhere there, though now I've switched over almost entirely to BGB. I've been using the fan made MERP-BRP conversion that I got from this site, although I found some of the creature stats (e.g. elves) were a bit unbalanced. I liked the magic system, but since I'm using actual MERP modules I got tired of converting the spell lists to suitable spells from the magic supplement, so I started just adapting the MERP spells to BRP. As a whole I find BRP is a really good fit for Middle Earth.

I think this from the QA under “Shields as passive armor” is the best use one can have for a shield within the RQG rules: The adventurer will receive no benefit from the shield unless against melee or missile fire that happens to strike that or an adjacent hit location (see p219) AND comes from a direction that would reasonably have a chance of hitting (gamemaster discretion). In this case, the shield will protect for half its usual armor points (as per the rules for a slung shield on the back, p219). It would be nice if they could just write that “holding a shield in place without using it to parry actively provides half its AP to the locations covered against melee or missile attacks coming from the facing direction” or something.

That makes sense, thanks!

Follow up! In the Bestiary, it says an average dwarf is 115 cm and 45 kg. Average SIZ is 7, which is slightly over half of the human average of 13. So is an average human just under 230 cm tall?

Yup. I made a fan edit of the Rings trilogy for myself where I tried to edit out the worst of Gimli’s nonsense to make it a little more watchable. And book-Gimli is one of my favorite characters!

Good catch!

The later contributions here have been truly awesome. Again, the information contained in this thread alone would seem to justify a dwarven supplement. Just to clarify: I too have no interest in the Jacksonian dwarf, scottish-spouting, beer-frothing, rage-clowning. That is something quite far removed from Tolkien's Khazâd. Maybe that image is more in line with the Warhammer Fantasy universe? It's plain to me that Gloranthan dwarves are a different kind of bird. More machine-like. An iron dwarf adventurer would in my mind be an Individualist, maybe due to some freak accident in the process of creation imbued with a kind of self awareness that sets him/her apart. Kind of like the Tin Man, wandering the world searching for his heart. Or individual soul.

By Mostali I meant Gloranthan clay dwarves rather than True Mostali.

Yes. This is one of the aspects I love about Gloranthan dwwarves, and it is obvious from one glance at the illustrations in the Bestiary. Though the example there is for a typical Iron Dwarf encountered above ground, and as such it is perhaps less likely to be SIZ 2? Again, slightly different stats for the different subtypes could be something in you were to make a dwarf supplement.

Ok, I’ll try to do this one more time (hopefully the last). It is not a matter of min-maxing. It's about logical world building and simulation of 'reality' (which all BRP systems clearly strive for). It’s *not* that I don’t agree that dwarves would be culturally predisposed to turn their tools into weapons of war - I think this is a cool and believable concept. In fact, the first time I came across this was in MERP circa 1986. At the time, it seemed new and original, but at the same time a bit weird since the canon that the game was based on so clearly established other weapons as cultural for dwarves - axes, above all, but also swords, spears and war mattocks. The background skills for dwarves in MERP were so heavily focused on concussion weapons that it was pretty much guaranteed that a dwarf player would choose those over anything else. This was at least true for almost all the premade dwarf PCs that came with the ready-to-run adventures. Now hammers for dwarves was not illogical in itself, but it's an example of where the rules incentivise player choices that implement a game world that is somewhat at odds with the goal of the game, which in this case was to simulate adventure in Tolkien's Middle Earth. Now Glorantha doesn't have this literary baggage, and dwarves could be dreamed up any way Stafford and the other creators wished. Thank god, because they made something very original and creative out of them, as with so much else. So hammers for dwarves actually make more sense in this context, and for the iterations of RQ before RQG, it also made sense from a rules perspective. But as of RQG, blunt weapons have become decidedly inferior to others (zero or negligible special effect if you have no or low DB, as will be the case with most dwarves thanks to their low SIZ characteristic), and slashing weapons have become decidedly superior (double damage on special with no drawbacks, unlike impaling weapons that can get stuck at least). In fact, in the years since I started playing RQG and other BRP games, I’ve never, ever seen anyone choose a blunt weapon. For good reason. At the same time stats for dwarves, including weapons, have been carried over from earlier editions, while with the rules changes they no longer made sense. It's really a matter of statistical survival, from an almost Darwinian point of view. Think of how weapons developed in the real world. How some fell by the wayside as armour improved, while new ones were invented to counter the better armour. Do we agree that dwarves are a highly technically advanced culture? Do they have vast amounts of wealth, compared to others? Are they highly pragmatic, and are the different subtypes highly specialised for their tasks? Are iron dwarfs specially produced to produce weapons and use them in war? What seems logical to me is that iron dwarves then would use the most effective weapons available to them, and the way warhammers were implemented in RQG, before I pointed out that they should be able to impale, given that according to their description they 'punch through armor', they were decidedly ineffective. Impale has now been added to warhammers as a correction, and have become a logical weapon for dwarves once again. So as for my original issue, it has been resolved. Your real world analogies don't hold up. An M60 to a M16 or whatever US soldiers use is more like a great weapon to a hand weapon. Not the obvious choice for all soldiers in the real world. Battle axe vs the earlier iteration of a RQG warhammer is more like an automatic rifle versus a single shot one. An impoverished army might not have enough M16s to go around, but the world's most technologically advanced culture? Would they choose hunting rifle for sentimental purposes, or because they liked to shoot ducks in their free time? And don't tell me that the dwarves don't know how to use axes or swords. It says those were the first weapons they learned to use when defending themselves against elves and trolls. They've known how to use them for millennia. Battle axes aren't that long hafted and could well be used in cramped spaces, and swords can be used to stab with. Spears or halberds might be more logical though, alongside one of those one handed weapons. And using a tool a lot does not make you proficient with it in combat. I use a saw sometimes. I don't think I could use it well in a melee. Maybe the motion would train my arm for stabbing with a sword or spear. And military war hammers are very different from smith's hammers. The chopping motion of hammering steel on an anvil all day would predispose you equally for using an axe or a war hammer. I think the main reason most players don't seem to choose great weapons is that they just haven't figured out how superior they are in RQG to everythig else. A shield is mostly good as a missile screen in this game. Coming to it as a player, I think we all (including me) just assume that a shield and sword is the safest bet. Another reason is that great weapons aren't cultural for many of the most common cultures. To finish up, I agree that it would be incredibly boring for everyone to choose the most optimised weapon, or for all dwarf PCs to be the same. Hell, if a player wants to handicap himself for role playing purposes, go for it I say. But for a species as a whole to be constructed in a way that contradicts what the description and the game world implies about them, is worse. Sorry to take up so much space with this topic. I hope this will be the end of it as far as I'm concerned.