Jump to content

PhilHibbs

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2,916
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by PhilHibbs

  1. Yes, I know that. I'm not sure what I'm failing to get across, but I do understand how the chart is built. What I'm trying to ascertain is, why do you think it is deliberately wrong rather than just a mistake?
  2. Calculated what way? Specials and crits are all calculated rounding up on the BRP chart. Are you saying it isn't a mistake because all of it is wrong rather than just part of it? It would be very bizarre indeed if they changed the method of calculation for part of the chart, so consistency is not evidence of deliberation.
  3. A summary chart that is "a tad more generous" than the rules are should at least point that out. Otherwise, you'll have some players calculating it in their heads using the old RQ3 chart they have lying around because they noticed the BRP chart is wrong, and others using the more generous BRP chart without noticing it. When they notice, the ones using the proper rules will feel cheated, especially if they've been in conflict with the other player. An incorrect chart about something so fundamental to the game system is a bit of a catastrophic error. If Mongoose had made that mistake, they'd nev
  4. Are attack and parry combined into a single skill in BRP? In RQ3 they were always separate skills, so it was better to have sword attack and shield parry. Combining the two into one skill for a single weapon changes the balance so you're better off with just a sword as that's just a single skill. MRQ goes one step further so you can have one combined "Sword & Shield" skill. If you don't want that, I think you might need to boost the effectiveness of shields somehow to compensate. Are there any problems in BRP with using a one-handed weapon to both attack and parry in the same round? If
  5. I think the RQ3 creatures section said to use 2d6+4 for STR and SIZ for human females, but that adventurers should not use different rolls. Most people who are playing non-warrior female characters tend to assign lower rolls to those stats anyway when using elective systems.
  6. Does it matter that it isn't RuneQuest? Lots of people seem happy with BRP, and that isn't RuneQuest either.
  7. The original release had the declaration, but someone removed it.
  8. It isn't "penalising both" really, because you are already penalised by having your skill over 100 largely wasted in an opposed contest. The winner is the person who succeeds with the highest die roll, which means if you don't do something about it, people with skills over 100 have no relative advantage other than their crit chance. By reducing both, you let the highest skilled person keep their advantage, whilst the lower skill person loses out. For example, if I have 150% and you have 100%, the only difference is in my higher crit chance. However, if we reduce you to 50% and me to 100%, I'm
  9. Yes, that's a nice simple mechanism for opposed rolls. It has always been a tradition in RuneQuest, though, that the mightiest hero can be felled by a single trollkin. Everyone's vulnerable to the "lucky crit" (except the character in an old campaign of mine who had so many Hit Points from strengthening enchantments that he survived a 01 crit to the head with a heavy crossbow). Still, that 01 is still a crit, and even if you have 500% skill, you only have a 50-50 chance of beating it. Hm, that raises an interesting point. If you have 50% skill and I have 500%, what happens? You are always goin
  10. I'm not actively pursuing any alternatives, just talking about them. Someone mentioned rolling a parallel d20 to indicate crit, special, and fumbles. I pointed out that that doesn't scale above 100%, and neither does the "bump". So you're trying to answer a question that I'm not asking, I'm not sure anyone really is.
  11. Easier calculation for levels of success. I was extolling the virtues of the MRQ/Wayfarer system of divide-by-ten-and-round-up, as it is trivial to calculate the critical chance for any skill, as compared to RQ3/BRP.
  12. That gives a very different progression over 100%. Instead of your special chance going up by 1% for each 5% of skill increase, it goes up 1 for 1.
  13. GURPS Glorantha? Broo & Burrows?
  14. Also the "parallel d20" doesn't work for skills over 100%.
  15. So the Quick-Start Edition rules are different to the BGB? That's odd.
  16. I got the impression from pansophy that it was "round to nearest", i.e. halves round up. That was the usual principle in AHRQ3. *Edit* Just found a scanned image of the AHRQ3 Game Aids, and that appears to be "halves round up", so BRP is different to AHRQ3.
  17. It's 20% rounded down, where as BRP (Quick-Start Edition) has 1/5 of skill rounded up. No reason why that is bad, so long as you're aware of it. So on a crit vs failure, do you award 3 CMs instead of two? Or do you not use CMs?
  18. According to BRP Quick-Start Edition, you round up. Is the BGB different? I have the Quick-Start PDF with me, my physical BGB is at home.
  19. Yes it will, the systems are balanced differently in this respect. BRP has a 1/5 chance special success for an impale, which does extra damage, and a 1/20 chance crit that does maximum damage and ignores all armour. MRQ2 has a 1/10 chance crit that, if the opposition doesn't parry, gets you two manoeuvres, from which you can choose Maximize Damage and Ignore Armour, or Choose Location and Max Damage, or Impale and Ignore Armour, or any of a variety of other combinations. But the "double maximum ignoring armour" can't happen in MRQ2, and "ignore armour" is much less common in BRP. So, if you
  20. Those mechanisms were my main concern about MRQ2, they are a radical departure from the way things always used to be - no more dividing the round into Strike Ranks, no more "aimed shots" or split attacks over 100%. I'm really happy with the way it has worked out, though. If anyone's curious as to how a fight might go in MRQ2, here's a writeup of my last session. http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=47291
  21. Some people won't be happy until they can roll 1d100 to decide which rules variant to use this session. Personally, one of the reasons I'm not keen on BRP is that there is too much choosing to do. I demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
  22. I stumbled a little doubling 7.7 quickly, I came up with 15.5 which I then rounded up, and the answer 16 even made sense to me since 77 is closer to 80 than 70. Even so, compare your impressive result to MRQ2's (or, should I say, your) divide-by-ten-and-round-up, and the time becomes too short to measure. I see that as an advantage.
  23. So, you're happy calculating the special success chances for 33%, 77% and 123%? No cheating. Let me know how many seconds it took you to calculate them.
  24. No it isn't. It might be easy to do in your head, but not in everybody else's head. Most of my group can't - or don't want to - do it. In all the years that I played RQ3, no-one I ever played with worked it out in their head, we always used tables, most people wrote their special and critical chances for combat skills on their character sheets. MRQ2 is the first incarnation of RuneQuest or BRP for which we have all done crit chance calculations in our heads (although I can't remember the COC rule, maybe that was simple enough, I never played it often enough to remember).
×
×
  • Create New...