Barak Shathur

13 hours ago, FilBot3 said:

What I got from this is that if you're on the same DEX rank for Initiative, and you have a long weapon, you technically go first. Then the subsequent shorter weapons go. In my mind, I would be using that Length rating as denoting when a person "closes the gap" and engages an enemy, the Long length weapon would be able to act first, then Medium or Short length weapons, until fully engaged and distance is closed to 0.

Again, see what I wrote later in the post you quote:

On 8/29/2022 at 5:11 PM, Barak Shathur said:

Then under Weapon Length on p. 235, we have,

“A character armed with a long weapon attacks first against an opponent using a medium or a short weapon, despite his or her DEX rank. The long weapon-user attacks at his or her DEX rank if that is higher, or just before his or her opponent in the opponent’s DEX rank (if equal to or of lesser DEX than the opponent).”

So it's made clear (one of the few things that are with regards to this issue) that Long weapons go before all other weapons, regardless of DEX rank. The rules say that if the opponent has higher DEX, the Long weapon user goes first on that DEX rank. It would maybe have been simpler to just let all Long weapons go before all short and medium weapons, in their own round segment so to speak, instead of figuring it out within each combat group. But whatever.

I'm going to try to summarise it as I understand it, or as I find it playable:

1. Long weapons go before all other melee weapons, regardless of DEX rank.

2. Long weapons can choose to keep short and medium weapons at bay instead of attacking. The short or medium weapons then have to succeed with a Dodge roll if they want to attack.

3. A short or medium weapon user can enter close combat with a long weapon user by succeeding with a Dodge roll. Then, the long weapon user loses one action and can only attack OR parry OR dodge, instead of two of those. Also, parrying may be Difficult for the long weapon. To disengage, the long weapon user needs to use dodge, brawl, or use knockback. Then we're back to situation #1. Another option is to switch to a short weapon.

On 9/2/2022 at 2:03 PM, NickMiddleton said:

The  Fatigue rules I wrote for BRP (original published in the Outpost 19 monograph) were predicated on the idea that one assessed the characters level of fatigue and that imposed penalties, and one only used CON rolls if it seemed likely that would change. IF the characters force march 30 miles in a day with full gear etc, they are weary that night. If they run the five miles back to the village carrying heavy loads they have to make a CON roll - if they make it they are tired, if they fail they are weary and if they fumble they are exhausted.

Place the emphasis on the condition / current situation, not on adding another thing to keep track of. That was always my issue with RQ3 fatigue rules: fiddly calculatoin for something else to keep track...

That sounds good for large scale operations, such as the one you describe. What I'm after though is a fatigue system for tactical situations, like combat, where you would be penalised for carrying a lot of stuff and wearing a lot of armour. CON and STR should be involved. I think the best one I've seen in a BRP context is in RQIV:AiG, where you roll CON to check fatigue whenever it would be relevant to know if PCs are fatigued, such as right before combat. If you are carrying less than STR in ENC, you roll CONx5. Between STR x1 and STR x2 (IIRC), roll CON x4, etc. Fail equals fatigue (-3% to everything). Then you roll again after maybe 10 rounds, and another fail means another level of fatigue, so maybe you're at -5%. And so on. It's not as fiddly as fatigue points, but it gives a granular relationship between ENC, STR and CON.

But I'm trying to figure out if there's a workable system in BRP as written. Seems there's some groundwork laid, but it's not been fully implemented.

So I think I'll use this thread to bounce ideas and queries about interpretations and clarifications of rules. BRP has two (optional) fatigue systems. One is fatigue points from RQIII, the other is one that requires a stamina roll after CON x 3 rounds of intense activity, e.g. combat, after which everything becomes Difficult. I like the idea of a simpler fatigue system, but for an average person, that's 33 rounds before checking! Doesn't seem like it will have much impact on the game.

Now under the armour and shields descriptions there's an entry for "burden", which is given as Light, Moderate or Cumbersome. It further says that it may be used with the optional fatigue system above, but doesn't clarify how. Does anyone know how it was intended to work?

I've come up with an idea where if you carry anything with a Moderate burden, you roll for stamina after CON x 2 rounds, and for Cumbersome it's CON x1 rounds. But I'm curious as to how others interpret this? 

Ok, so I think I can piece it together, despite the extremely convoluted formulations. On p. 189, under Actions, we have,

“Within a particular DEX rank, attacks usually go in order of weapon type. Attackers armed with missile weapons (bows, guns, etc.) are considered to act before those in hand-to-hand (melee) combat. After these go characters armed with long weapons (spears, lances, etc.), then those with medium-length weapons (swords, axes, etc.) and finally those with short weapons (daggers, etc.) or who are unarmed. “

Then under Weapon Length on p. 235, we have,

“A character armed with a long weapon attacks first against an opponent using a medium or a short weapon, despite his or her DEX rank. The long weapon-user attacks at his or her DEX rank if that is higher, or just before his or her opponent in the opponent’s DEX rank (if equal to or of lesser DEX than the opponent).”

So users of Long weapons skip the line if their opponents happen to have higher DEX.

Finally, the text under Close Combat and Closing should really read Long weapons vs “shorter” or “short or medium” weapons, rather than just “short weapons”, since the latter can be confused with the category Short weapons.

The references to SIZ should be ignored.

Am I right?

6 hours ago, FilBot3 said:

I'm still drawing blanks reading through this. Grapple and Brawl are range: touch and length: close. That means that I have to close the distance and touch the opponent. However, a dagger that is also a one handed attack is only range: short with no listed length, which I would assume is close because you have to "get in close" to use it.

Lamenting, I wish that the Length was called out in these stats in the book as the character sheet seems to call for it.

I'm glad it's not just me who's confused about this. And those entries on the character sheet add even more confusion. "Touch" is not described as a range in the rules, AFAICS. And the weapon tables don't have a statistic for "length".

Re-reading the sections on Close Combat, Closing and Weapon Length, the best I can make of it is that "Length" is called "Range" or "Rng" on the Melee weapon tables. The rules under Weapon Length apply to this aspect. Short range is in this context merely descriptive, without any practical impact, since it's Long weapons vs everything else.

The SIZ entry on the melee weapon tables would then apply to the rules under Close Combat and Closing. So again, weapons of SIZ 1 or less have a special relationship to weapons of SIZ 2+, similar but not identical to the relationship for Long vs and other weapons. Weapons of SIZ 1.5 (mainly swords) deal with all weapons (except those with Range: long) the same.

What would seem more reasonable to me would be if Medium weapons have the same relationship to Short weapons as Long weapons have to everything else, regarding initiative, keeping at bay and closing. But the rules explicitly deny this. Also, the SIZ as Length breaks down in some instances, since a Hammer (SIZ 1.5), for instance, would then be longer than a Rapier (SIZ 1) and a Warhammer (SIZ 2) longer than a Broadsword (SIZ 1.5).

I wish a developer would step in and clear this up. Maybe it's time for a new Errata?

Ok, mulling this over I have come down on this side regarding shields: the 'slung shield' function can be used in combat if the user simply holds it in place, providing half AP to the locations covered, as long as it is not used to parry actively with (you can still parry with your hand weapon). If used for parrying, you in essence have two parrying weapons: your shield and your hand weapon, providing an extra unpenalised parry if you use both for parrying. I think this can be extrapolated from the rules as written without stretching them too much, and makes shields a meaningful choice.

15 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Might be an interpretation matter... To me "slung" means it is just hanging from a strap (similar to a single-strap backpack/sling-pack) and one is not gripping it at all with the offside hand -- ie; there is nothing bracing the shield to even keep it in place. Anything hitting it is going to move it around (and if it is "dangling" over the arm, rather than stowed across the back, that means it could be moved into interference with the weapon arm).

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch but to me it seems like a logical interpretation. By 'slung' they obviously mean shields that are hanging on a strap, basically kept in storage on your back or shoulder. But I don't really see the practical difference between a shield that is hanging on a strap,  blocking attacks by just being in the way, and one that you're holding in place with your hand or arm, as long as you're not moving it around to parry with. So I think it should be doable within the rules system as written. 

16 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Actually holding the shield, even if not actively moving it to parry/block, is a different matter -- one of bearer's choice of which hand to use for parrying. One has essentially chosen to cover an area, regardless of where attacks are coming in from vs choosing to cover attacks themselves.

This is what I'm talking about. Since BRP makes no distinction between parrying with a weapon you're also attacking with, and parrying with a dedicated parrying weapon such as a shield or a second weapon, one could see shields being useful basically as extra armour that also intercepts missiles and that can be used to parry with if so desired. 

On 8/16/2022 at 3:39 AM, Baron Wulfraed said:

Personally, I'd focus on the "arm/shoulder or back" and restrict incidental protection to just those locations (though most of the games don't specify the back as a location -- you get arm, or chest). If the shield is a large tapering shield I'd maybe allow a "slung on back" to cover chest& abdomen. Bit more problematic if dangling over the arm -- technically that would cover a /side/ attack. It's also a less secure position and might shift depending upon what that side arm is doing -- so... upper arm coverage, lower arm probably exposed.

 

So in BGB, all shields have the hit locations covered specified. Buckler has arm,  round shield has arm & chest, hoplite covers everything except the legs etc. I see using the shield passively in this way as corresponding to holding the shield in place and denying access to those areas, while parrying actively with your hand weapon. 
 

Incidentally, this is a common method in SCA fighting. 

Sorry to bring this back on-topic, but after re-reading the paragraph "Slung shields", where it says,

"Usually shields are worn slung over the arm/shoulder or
back when not being used actively in combat. If the
gamemaster is using hit locations, you can add 1/2 the
armor protection of a slung shield (round up) to any hit
location struck by a weapon, in addition to any armor
points already in that location."

... I've come to the conclusion that it is quite possible under rules-as-written to use the shield passively as extra armor while using your weapon to parry with, and that this is the only meaningful reason to use a shield in melee in BRB (again, if you want to play RAW which is my ambition right now). Given that shields have around 20 HP, half of that means that the covered locations become invulnerable to most attacks except from two-handed weapons and large monsters.

Incidentally, this is clearly stated as possible in RQ IV/AiG, which is from where they probably got this rule.

Ok, after readings through a number of times, this is the best interpretation I can put on it. 

1. Weapons of SIZ 0-1 have disadvantages against weapons of SIZ 2+. In regular melee combat, the SIZ 2+ weapons strike first. They can also choose to keep the small-weapon-user weapons at bay by rolling a successful attack roll, instead of doing damage. In that case, the small-weapon-user needs to roll a successful Dodge in order to close and attack. The combatants are then in "close combat". Now, the large-weapon-user can only either attack, parry or dodge, instead of two of those. Also, parrying becomes Difficult for the large-weapon-user. None of this applies to weapons of SIZ 1.5 in this context.

2. Some weapons are further categorised as "Long", irrespective of SIZ. The rules above apply to them vs both "short" and "medium" weapons.

3. I honestly don't know what differentiates "short" and "medium" weapons, unless these categories supersede SIZ values (which thus are entirely irrelevant for this issue), in contradiction to the paragraph "Close Combat" I quoted earlier.

1 hour ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

But aren’t you familiar with it already? There’s a lengthy thread over in the Mythras section concerning the damage of spears, axes and swords that you started. So that suggests you have Mythras in some form. 🙂

Have it but haven’t played it, or studied it in depth. 
 

Had fun jousting with you guys though 😉

The more I hear about Mythras the more I like it. I’m still resisting but it’s getting difficult! 😄

2 minutes ago, Mugen said:

In RQ3, Broadswords popularity can be explained by the impale rule. I don't know how the Special effect for slashing weapons compares to Impale in other editions of RQ. If you ignore that rule but leave other technical aspects unchanged, you change the balance between weapons.

I agree, which is one of the reasons why RQ3 is my favorite iteration in terms of the weapon tables. In BRP however, broadswords only have slash special effect, and thus have no upside compared to e.g battle axe. But impaling weapons do less base damage, so if I give broadswords impale, those weapons become kind of useless. But first strike capacity would somewhat mitigate the broadsword’s weakness. 

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

For melee weapons, the category should not really be Range. It should be Length, Reach, or some such (short, medium, long reach). Traditionally, the longer weapon gets the first strike, regardless of the DEX or SR of the person with the shorter weapon; theory being that you have to get past the business end of the longer weapon. In order to get past the business end of the longer weapon, you must declare that you are Closing, succeed in a defensive roll (getting past the business end), and then you can strike.

If you want to use a weapon length system in BRP, I would suggest that you lift from Mythras, which has thought this through much better, or at least presents it in a much more coherent way. It should slot into BRP just fine.

SDLeary

I agree. The name shouldn’t be “Range” for melee weapons, and I don’t think that word is used anywhere in the rules paragraphs. I don’t know exactly what you mean by ‘traditionally’, but I haven’t seen many (any?) attempts to figure in weapon length when it comes to strike order outside of BRP games.

What I’m after here is trying to understand how the game is supposed to be played according to how the rules are written, and try to get away from the slippery slope of house rules that I usually wind up on. I am trying to to find out if the system is actually more subtle than it seems, and if the designers did more than just put some numbers down that “seem right”.

So the reason I'm digging into this issue that it could potentially make some of the distinctions between weapons more meaningful. On its face, it looks like several of the weapons on the "Historic Melee Weapons" table are kind of useless compared to certain others. For example, the Battle Axe is largely superior to the Broadsword: higher damage (1d8+2 vs 1d8+1) and lower weight (SIZ 1 vs SIZ 1.5). The Broadsword has more HP (20 vs the axe's 15) but they are in both cases so high it doesn't make much of a difference, especially given that weapons usually don't lose HP when parrying. So there's no technical reason to chose a Broadsword over a Battle Axe, AFAICS. Yet historically, "broadswords' were very popular compared to 'battle axes". This must have been for reasons other than "they looked better" or something. My sense is that swords are so much easier to use technically, but in BRP these two weapons have an equal base chance, so that doesn't apply here. Another pair of comparable weapons is Light Mace vs Warhammer. They are identical, except that the hammer has SIZ 2 vs the mace's SIZ 1, and it also has higher STR and DEX requirements. So why would one ever choose a warhammer over a light mace in BRP?

Now if the paragraph above that differentiates between weapons of SIZ 0-1 and weapons of SIZ 2+ applies, a lot of the weapon differences start to make sense. Now the Broadsword will always get first strike against a Battle Axe, and also won't have as much trouble against SIZ 2+ weapons. Same goes with warhammer vs light mace (although a "long warhammer" is a pretty odd interpretation of the historical war hammer, which was more like a pick and should do Impale as in RQ3, IMO).

But then the "Range" column comes in and seemingly messes up this whole fine grained and well thought out system balance. SIZ 1 weapons, like Battle Axe, are designated as "Medium" along with SIZ 2 weapons, like Great Axe. Are the rules for SIZ vs those for weapon length two different things that sometimes overlap? I guess this would work but it's very confusing. Is there a game designer who could weigh in and clarify?

Yes, to all of the above. What I'm trying to do is figure out how it is meant to be played, RAW-ly. Under "Close Combat" it says,

"When wielding a short melee weapon (SIZ 0 or 1), your
character is at a slight tactical disadvantage when fighting
an opponent armed with a longer melee weapon
(SIZ 2+)."

This makes it sound like all weapons of SIZ 0 or 1 (dagger, light mace, battle axe etc)  have this disadvantage against all weapons SIZ 2+ (spear, great axe, great sword etc). This indicates that weapons greater than SIZ 1 (broadsword, longsword, etc) don't have this issue. It also says the "long-weapon-user" can keep the "short weapon-user" at bay, if desired. A person kept at bay needs to succeed with a Dodge attempt in order to close and be able to attack.

Under "Closing", it then says,

In melee combat, once an attacker closes with a target
using a longer weapon (such as a spear-user attacking a
sword-user), he or she will always get first strike (or
action), regardless of DEX rank. After the initial attack by
the long weapon-user, the short weapon-user can act on
his or her normal DEX rank. To close with a long weapon-user,
a character must be closing on the target during the
next combat round or next available action, and may be
required to make a successful Dodge roll if being kept at
bay (see “Close Combat”, above).

So this seems to contradict the use of weapon size when it comes do determine which weapons are "long", "short" or "medium".

Finally, under "Weapon Length", p. 235, it says,

On the weapon tables, all hand-to-hand weapons
include an entry for the SIZ of the weapon (based on its
length). Weapons vary widely in length for good reason:
the longer the weapon, the more likely the wielder of it
is to be able to get in the first blow in a fight, or to be
able to hold off an opponent armed with a shorter
weapon and prevent him from making his own attack.
On the other hand, the longer the weapon, the clumsier
it is to wield effectively. See also the spot rules on
“Closing” (page 219).

Here, the text again refers to SIZ being based on length, but one the melee weapon tables, "Rng" is given as "Short", "Medium" or "Long", and does not map uniformly with SIZ/Enc. Many SIZ 1 and 2 weapons are Medium. So this indicates "Rng" determines weapon length, not SIZ. I guess my question is, is there a meaningful difference between melee weapons of different SIZ, or is it all "Rng"? 

In BGB, I am finding some unclarities regarding Weapon length and Range vis. Close combat. Under "Close Combat" on p. 218, "short" melee weapons are defined as having SIZ 0 or 1. However, on the weapon tables all the melee weapons with SIZ 1, like battle axe, light mace and short sword are designed as having "Medium" range. So do these count as short or medium weapons?

I gripe a lot about BRP here. That's because I love this game so much I want it to be perfect. So to balance things out, here's three cheers for BRP! What I love about it: realism with playability. Years of playtesting BRP systems have crystallised some really excellent RP technologies for gamers with a simulationist bent who also enjoy a level of gamism. For people like me, who almost exclusively plays in fantasy settings, two of the best inventions are multiple parries and fate points. The systematisation of success levels for each skill is also great. And I really like the attack and defense matrix. Bypassing a parry or dodge when achieving a higher success level both advantages high skill and shortens the ping pong aspect of melee fights. I could probably go on.

So what are the minimum amount of must have house rules for you guys? For me, I've narrowed down to a few aspects. First, I have to reduce the damage bonus system. Going from 0 to 1d4 is just too big a step. And for humans to do up to 50% more damage with most one handed weapons if they have 1 pt higher STR or SIZ than average seems excessive. Also, the rapid increase in DB at higher levels leads to ridiculous levels of damage pretty fast. So I reduce it one die step: 1d4 becomes 1d2, 1d6 becomes 1d4, 2d6 becomes 1d6 etc.

Second, I use the weapon table from RQ3, because overall, I find it to be more balanced in terms of its dynamics. For example, in BGB, there is no technical reason to choose a broadsword over a battle axe. The axe does more damage and weighs less. The sword has more HP but they don't matter with BGB:s parry rules. The only benefit to a sword I can see is that its greater size would let you strike first if both opponents happen to wind up on the same DEX rank, but that seems  a very minor difference. In RQ3 however, the broadsword can impale, which makes is potentially more deadly. So there a player can make a meaningful strategic choice between two more or less equal weapons with different advantages and drawbacks. Another example is the warhammer, which in BGB is almost indistinguishable from a mace, but in RQ3 does slightly less damage than a heavy mace (1d6+2 vs 1d10)  but can impale (which also is congruent with the historical weapon, that's what it was for). Also, I use the weapon AP from that table (which are lower than for BGB)  and let them function as armor when successfully parrying (as per RQ3), instead of just deflecting all damage. That gives some advantage to shields, which tend to have higher HP.

Finally, I interpret the passive cover rule in BGB as shields always providing half AP for the locations covered. This also makes shields a meaningful choice over two handed weapons, which in BGB are kind of a no brainer choice.

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

If it did firearm damages would be relatively fixed at a given distance, , and light weapons like daggers could never do more damage than greatswords or halberds. But as "damage" is a combination of many factors (impact, energy/area, sharpness of edge,  relative hardness of materials, user skill, point of impact, angle of attack, luck, etc.)

I see this as simulated by weapon special effects and, especially, criticals.

20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

On  one hand we want and need the threat that some random mook could take out a PC in order to make the fights interesting and hopefully exciting, but on the other we don't actually want some random mook to take out a PC. 

Even with Fate Points is still quite possible to die from a mook, as evidenced by one of my players' character's demise recently. What tends to happen is that if a PC gets into trouble and Fate Points start to run out, the player gets a choice to remain in the dangerous situation or try to get out. My player chose to stay and fight even though outnumbered by orcs, which saved the rest of the party but cost the character his life a few rounds later. 

This points to a tension I have always felt exists in the BRP games (and some others), namely that the games that focus most heavily on individualised and detailed character creation are also the ones were those characters tend to die the most, thus at a relatively high cost to a player's investement of time and engagement, while in a game like D&D (with its rather more simple and streamlined character creation), at least in the earlier iterations, provided you survive the meat grinders of the first few levels adventurers are much likely to live a long and rich life.

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Playing with more realistic game mechanics risks more realistic results. But realistic results aren't what we really want for heroic adventures. 

I rationalise it somewhat in the sense that a GM isn't always able to convey all the relevant information someone would pick up in a real life situation, and there might be cues that would inform an individual of the actual threat level that don't come across to the player until it's too late. In this sense, Fate Points can balance out this aspect and give the PC a chance to get away that the player perhaps should have taken in the first place (or would have if the information had been more complete).

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Actually it does with the differences in Weapon Quality.

If a Roundshield (WQ 13) blocks a Battleaxe (WQ 12), you first roll breakage for the axe, since it has lower WQ. Roll higher than WQ on 3d6 and the item breaks. If the weaker item doesn't break, you test the stronger item. Needless to say, it's not hard to roll over 12 on 3d6, and since almost no weapons have higher WQ than 12, most weapons will break after being parried by a shield a couple of times, whether it be axe, sword, mace or dagger. I don't find this congruent with reality.

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Again, that is exactly what could happen in BRP with your oppsing damage against AP idea.

But almost never, since a dagger (1d4+2+DB) has almost no chance of exceeding the AP of most shields (12-16 AP in RQIII), while in HARN it would be the rule.

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Defending/Parry an attack isn't just interposing something else to take the hit for you, but instead involves angling your weapon (or shield) to deflect the attack to redirect it away from you.

And it has no relevance at all what kind of weapons are involved?

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

How damaging an a weapon is to a person is not just about "relative impact", force or energy. The body part hit has a lot to do with it. What might be a 2 hit to the chest could be a 8 point hit in someone's  eye. 

This, on the other hand, HARN simulates beautifully with its injury chart. The same weapon impact can have different effects on different body parts. But at the level of granularity of BRP, there isn't much room for this nuance beyond different HP for different hit locations.

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You are oversimplifying everything by assuming high damage must mean high impact. it doesn't.

RQIII and IV certainly imply this through their rules for knockback. In the former, damage in excess of SIZ causes  knockback. In RQIV, the mechanic is similar although simplified.

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

making impact damage roll the only criteria is far from superior

Then how do you propose doing this in a way that is both simulationist and playble (the main strength of BRP in my opinion). 

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but its' not so much about being outnumbered but just the inevitiability of constanlty playing. IUf the PCs always had surpeior numbers they would still suffer more because they are there every session while a given NPC isn't. It's like watching an action TV series where the heroes face death every week, yet always come out unscathed. For instance there is a slight chance of someone decaiptating themseves with a fumble. So if you play long enough it will probably happen to a PC.

Yes! But again, it is part and parcel of being an adventurer. This is why I like BGB:s Fate Points, which is essentially a story telling device in that it removes some of the random, meaningless death that inevitably bedevils campaigns.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It's why a lot of things that people intuitively think help their characters (such as improving their skill scores) actually hurts them. If the PCs skills goes up they end up facing more skilled oppoents, which in turn increases the chances of a PC taking a critical hit. The NPCs going from 20-25% to 30% is actually a big deal, statstically.

But this is very much on a meta level, and unavoidable. And in a skill based game such as BRP, it is harder for PCs to improve their chances of survival. Magic items and armour would seem to provide the best insurance policy, can be built up over time, and do to some degree correspond to the increase of hit points of  level based games. Still, a decent GM tailors the challenges to the PCs abilities, regardless of what they are. The most dangerous games are the ones where criticals cannot be parried (such as the Swedish Drakar och Demoner -91), where it seems only a matter of time before any PC who engages in combat gets killed.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but why would the PCs bee walking around with degraded equipment in the first place? In RQ3 that rarely happened. It was more common in RQ2, but in RQ2 most people used shields, which didn't have that problem, and knew Repair to fix stuff up.

It's about simulation of a believable world. If shields can degrade, PCs can't be the only ones that it happens to.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

HARN's weapon quality roll comes to mind. Weakest weapons rolls against it's WQ and if it fails it breaks. If it succeeds the stronger weapon then rolls against it's WQ. 

HARN's breakage system is the worst I know of. It takes almost no consideration of relative impact. A dagger may break a tower shield with one hit, while a troll's maul might bounce harmlessly off a buckler or broadsword. Here, BRP iterations like RuneQuest and Drakar och Demoner are far superior in that actual damage rolled determines the chance of damaging the parrying weapon.

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Any sort of weapon breakage, degradation or otherwise, can be said to penalize the player characters. The same can be said for critical hit and fumble systems. 

The  player characters show up and play each game session, and roll dice, while the NPCs only show up for their key scenes in an adventure. So the PCs will roll the dice much more than the NPCs, and the multiple rolls make it much more likely that a e low percentage thing will occur. In addition, because the PCs are the "stars" of the game, those rolls actually matter, where that might not be the case for one-shot NPCs.  Nobody really cares if an extra's shield breaks and he get's run through during the battle, it's just good drama. But when it happens to a player character it can be a campaign altering event. 

But a lot of things we tend to like in BRP games penalizes the player characters. Just having multiple skills in a campaign penalizes the PCs. NPCs have a defined role in an adventure and will naturally be written up with any skills they need to fill that role. For instance, an NPC pilot will know how to fly, a soldier how to fight, a physician will know how to treat wounds, etc. But players don't really know what skills they will need during their adventures of it they will have those skills at a score high enough to rely upon. So PCs study and improve multiple skills to try and cover potential situations.  

 

With shield degradation, especially with the RQ3 armor point model, the degradation really isn't much of an issue to the PCs as it took a lot of damage to actually damage a shield, and PCs could buy new/spare shields and/or cast Repair to fix the ones they have. Of course RQ2 had shields as indestructible, in fact it was one of their major advantages over weapons. 

 

I agree that critical hit systems in particular penalise PCs, since they tend to be outnumbered and thus are more subject to potential criticals than NPCs. Apart from that, of course PCs are subjected to greater dangers than most NPCs, after all they are supposed to be adventurers! They live a life of danger! That's simply part of the territory.

My problem with degradation of equipment is relevant for what happens in any given encounter, to which PCs will bring deteriorating equipment while NPCs invariably do not. It's also partly a matter of realism or world consistency. If PCs walk around with damaged weapons, so should NPCs. And that would be onerous to implement. Better to simulate it with a simple breakage test. I just had an idea, if an attack exceeds a parrying weapon's AP, the parrying weapon breaks if the damage overcomes its AP on the resistance table.

18 hours ago, Mugen said:

This has already been said concerning RuneQuest, and I must say I'm not fan of the idea that a shield should just be a passive part of your armor.

Note that the more I think about it, and the more the changes made by RQG concerning weapon skills are excellent for Samurai-type settings, where the closest equivalent to a shield are the "sode" pieces of armor worn over the shoulders.

I checked in Mythras, and the shield fully protects the locations, and not with reduced efficiency. Also, in Mythras fighters trained with a shield always have the same parry chance with their shield and their main weapon.

One could also allow shields' full AP to be added to the locations covered, if preferred. But that's not really the point. I see it more as the shield providing interference for any attack that tries to strike those locations, making such attacks less likely to get through. My SCA experience was certainly that if you have a shield, you very rarely get hit on the shield arm or the parts of the torso that it covers in its base position. It's just too much in the way. My interpretation of this rule would simulate that.

I just re-read the section on p. 263 on shields. I'm thinking it might be possible to use the 'slung shields protect certain locations' so that instead of using the shield to actively parry, you can let it simply provide half its AP to the locations covered. You might still parry (and attack) with your weapon in this case. I think this is the way Mythras does it? Alternatively, one could just let the shield provide the half AP to the covered locations even if you use it to actively parry. Either way, it gives shields a defensive edge over parrying with a weapon.

25 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Note that all it takes to ensure you hit the same location twice is a combat Special Effect.

That still means it takes two successive hits for this special effect to have any impact. As far as I can tell, all the other special effects have a potentially immediate effect. Also, sundering armour feels a little "gamey" to me. Is this what axes do? Is it how axes were used historically? To me it seems the concentration of force of any hafted weapon is more likely to have a bludgeoning effect, simulated by reduction of AP, rather than permanently destroying a whole section of armour. Also as I said before, it gives me as a GM more book keeping to keep track of. Simple armour reduction seems both more realistic and easy to implement. But that's just me.