Skills over 100% and two weapons.

[JarrethSynn]

Sorry if this has been discussed before. I looked but couldn't find anything.

Ok. As per the rules, if you have a weapon skill over 100% you can break it up and make multiple attacks every 5 dex ranks on different targets. (Why can't it be one target?).

Now lets toss an offhand weapon that's acceptable and won't suffer the difficult roll penalty.

I have longsword of 120% and dagger of 120%.

According to the rules, I just split those and get two attacks.

How come, if my dex was high enough, couldn't I split my longsword and then make my offhand all on the acceptable dex ranks?

Example: Dex 15

Longsword 1st attack 60% at dex

Longsword 2nd attack 60% at 5 ranks lower

Dagger 3rd attack 120% at the last dex rank

Anyone shed some light on this for me?

As a side note, this is for our classic fantasy campaign. And several of the players are bummed they can't make multiple attacks on one target. Which I may allow because I don't see why you can't.

[RosenMcStern]

BRP's level of abstraction is such that a single roll represents all the individual blows you can deal in a round. The only exceptions are animals and creatures with really weird body parts. As a consequence, rolling an attack multiple times on the same target makes no sense. The advantage of having 120% skill is that you roll a special more often, thus bypassing parries or doing extra damage.

If you wish to enhance the advantages of having 120% in a weapon, use the old rule that allows using your %age above 100 as a penalty on the defense roll. It is way more effective against a skilled opponent.

[JarrethSynn]

Thank you for answering. However, I guess it is still not clicking in my head. I guess because so many other systems allow you to attack one target multiple times it still seems odd to me. I understand the critical and special successes are that much higher but I don't see why if you have a shortsword and longsword in hand you can't cut that orc up, but yet you could attack multiple orcs around you. Perhaps the light just isn't popping in my head.

[JarrethSynn]

I should also state that I know this could be easily solved by enacting a houserule of my own and normally I would. But I'm really trying to learn brp at the core and understand the mechanics at the heart first before I go adapting. I'd like to feel comfortable with a rule at the base and then have the chance to change it or not once I understand why it is or isn't a certain way like I did with hit locations. I understood that rule and made changes to help my players.

[rust]

Perhaps it would help if you would see the attack as a period of time, not as a series of actions.

A high skill enables the fighter to deal with the first enemy in less time (until that enemy is ei-

ther dead, disabled or forced to retreat a few steps) and leaves him some additional time to

turn to other opponents and deal with them, too.

All the fighter's actions during the time he deals with a single opponent are handled by one die

roll which gives the result of this entire part of his side of the combat. One does not roll for in-

dividual actions, only for the overall outcome of the entire combination of actions.

[JarrethSynn]

Okay that makes a bit more sense. Now for my second question then. According to the fighting with two-weapons, I beleive on 198 or around there, I'm not sure. If both your weapons are over 100% you can split those attacks. But it later says if those skills are over 100% and the off hand weapon is an acceptable weapon for off hand fighting you can ignore the difficult rolls. So my question is if you had the two weapons both at 120%. Why would you split your attacks? Why wouldn't you attack the two people next to you at full 120%s? I don't know why, but it all seems very confusing to me.

[rust]

As I understand it, in order to attack multiple opponents the fighter always has to split his at-

tacks, no matter whether he fights with one weapon or with two weapons - he cannot attack

two opponents simultaneously.

[kaddawang]

Basicly, the only advantage of an off-hand weapon is that you can attack two different targets in the same round when you don't have mastery(100%).

If you have 100% skill, the advantage is moot, as you have to split your attack percentages, no matter what.

This here is one of the slightly wonky parts of BRP...

[Thalaba]

Someone will correct me here if I'm mis-remembering, but...:

Traditionally, you got 2 combat actions in a round - one attack, and another for parry or dodge. You could modify that by going all defensive and parrying with both your attacking weapon and your offhand weapon, or you could go all attack and attack with both the main and offhand weapon. But you always only hads 2 actions, which meant that if you attacked with your off-hand weapon, you couldn't also parry with it or dodge that round.

Having skills over 100% allowed you to claim and additional action by splitting the attack (or parry) percentage. So with 120% in SWORD and 80% in SHIELD, a player could now attack twice with the sword at 60% each, and still parry with the shield (at 80%) or dodge, thus, now having 3 actions.

Hope that helps. Sometimes the BRP waters can get pretty muddy due to all the different versions and houserules over the years.

Thalaba

[threedeesix]

Quote Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

BRP's level of abstraction is such that a single roll represents all the individual blows you can deal in a round. The only exceptions are animals and creatures with really weird body parts. As a consequence, rolling an attack multiple times on the same target makes no sense. The advantage of having 120% skill is that you roll a special more often, thus bypassing parries or doing extra damage.

If you wish to enhance the advantages of having 120% in a weapon, use the old rule that allows using your %age above 100 as a penalty on the defense roll. It is way more effective against a skilled opponent.

This is of course how it is supposed to work. But I should note in full disclosure that for Classic Fantasy (and pretty much any BRP game I run) I still allow the extra attack against the same target if the player so chooses. I just figure that while the level of abstraction takes into account numerous blows, a high skill increases the likelihood of several good hits. It's just a house rule in my games and nothing I added to CF or anything. But it does feel more in keeping with the subject matter being emulated. After all, D&D also abstracted the combat round the same way, and still allowed multiple attacks against the same target.

Again, it's just a house rule, but thought I would mention it.

Rod

Edited July 7, 2010 by threedeesix

[threedeesix]

Basicly, the only advantage of an off-hand weapon is that you can attack two different targets in the same round when you don't have mastery(100%).

If you have 100% skill, the advantage is moot, as you have to split your attack percentages, no matter what.

This here is one of the slightly wonky parts of BRP...

Actually, don't forget this from the BRP errata...

pØ - Forgotten rules - Riposte

A riposte is a hand-to-hand attack that immediately follows a successful parry. When your character becomes a master (a skill rating of 91%+) with a hand-to-hand weapon skill (or attack and parry if attacks and parry skill ratings are being handled separately), he or she can attempt to riposte attacks. To riposte, your character must have made a successful parry with a hand-to-hand weapon against a hand-to-hand weapon attack. If the parry is successful, he or she can immediately make a counterattack--a riposte--against the attacker. The riposte is resolved as a normal attack, and the original attacker can attempt to parry the riposte.

A riposte can be attempted once per successful parry made by your character, though each subsequent riposte is at a cumulative -30% (just as parries are so modified). The riposte does not take the place of a normal attack, but any penalties for multiple ripostes will modify your normal attack if has not already occurred. If your character has already attacked in a round, the initial riposte is at a cumulative -30% per prior attack.

Clarifications:

* A shield can be used as a riposting weapon.

* A Brawl attack (fist or kick, etc.) can be used to riposte.

* The weapon riposting must be the weapon the parry is made with. Your character cannot parry an attack with one weapon and riposte with another.

* When penalties for multiple parries or ripostes reduce a chance to 0%, no further actions of that type may be attempted in that combat round.

* Multiple parries and ripostes accumulate penalties separately. Keep attack/riposte penalties separate from parry penalties - they don't stack together.

* Each riposte attempt costs 1 DEX rank. If the character has not gone already in the round, his or her DEX rank is reduced by the number of riposte attempts. At 0 DEX ranks, no further actions can be attempted in that combat round.

* A riposte can be parried and riposted in turn, and that riposte can be parried and riposted. Keep track of penalties and DEX rank costs.

[kaddawang]

Ooh, ripostes...yes, that is a seriously scary rule:)

But it doesn't matter if you're wielding 1,2 or 11 weapons.

That was the part of the OP's question that I got sort of hung up in.

Rosen McS had a nice RQ-fix on two weapon-fighting: you cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR/dex-rank.(exepting ripostes).

The Gold Book doesn't have anything on wielding two weapons. It doesn't grant any extra oomph. It is one of those things you have to houserule in if you want it.

[Nightshade]

Ooh, ripostes...yes, that is a seriously scary rule:)

But it doesn't matter if you're wielding 1,2 or 11 weapons.

That was the part of the OP's question that I got sort of hung up in.

Rosen McS had a nice RQ-fix on two weapon-fighting: you cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR/dex-rank.(exepting ripostes).

I still maintain this poorly represents classic single-sword fencing, especially in the strike rank system because most people will tend to strike in a very tight range of strike ranks. It might be okay with a larger range and/or one with some randomness in it.

[icebrand]

Our house rule on multiple attacks is:

• You do all attacks as difficult, and attack as much as you can (if you got 21 dex you can go at 21, 16, 11 and 6 and 1!).

• All attacks are difficult (1/2) regardless of how many you do.

• You cannot attack the same opponent twice (since attacks are actually a combination of moves). This preety much evens things out (if you got 21 dex +9 from magic you are still doing 2-3 attacks at most).

• When dual wielding, you can attack the same opponent twice (once with each weapon!). You can also do this with a shield bash, or a kick/punch/headbutt if you use only one weapon. If you attack the same opponent twice you are "focusing" on him/her so you cannot attack 3rd parties

• You may cast sorcery (we use slightly tweaked "magic" from the BGB) as a difficult skill more than once, and/or mix it up with attacks.

[NickD]

Actually, don't forget this from the BRP errata...

Hey threedeesix,

Do you know where I can find the official BRP errata? I can't seem to find them in the downloads. Sorry if i'm missing something.

Nick

[JarrethSynn]

Thanks for the input everyone. I think after chewing on what all have said and reading over the rules a few more times I may decide this. Knowing the style my players are used to, and the books and films they strive to emulate, I will allow multiple attacks on one target. If their skill is below 100, they will need two weapons to do so, and it has to be 5 ranks apart. If above 100% and they have enough dex ranks, I will allow a split of attacks. Such as the Longsword of 150%, 3 attacks at 50, 50, and 50. Now that you have all explained it how it is supposed to work and showed me some house rules on how you guys adapt it, I think this will suit my group well. Thoughts?

[soltakss]

RQ2 had the idea of Anti-Parry, where your parrying skill was reduced if the attacking skill was over 100%. That reduced combat times immensely.

RQ3 did away with this and combat times lengthened dramatically. We brought in the idea of attacking the same foe multiple times on a weapon split and it serves to re-emphasise the importance of having a superior skill.

BRP is similar to RQ3 in many ways and I'd allow splitting against the same opponent in BRP.

I think that JarethSynn's house rule for splitting of weapon attacks should work fine. Dodging might become an uber-skill because you can dodge all the attacks from a single opponent in a round, so coming at you with the Longsword/Longsword/Longsword attack could be countered with Dodge.

Don't forget, if you allow multiple weapon attacks on the same foe (no reason why you shouldn't) and have a high skill then you can split both weapons against the same person. So, attacking with two Longswords at 150% could allow you to attack at 50/50/50, 50/50/50 giving you six attacks, if you have the DEX. Using Strike Ranks limits this to a certain extent as you have to have enough SRs to make the attacks. Using DEX Ranks doesn't stop this in the same way (I don't use DEX Ranks - do you have DEX for each subsequent action, so DEX 16 gets an attack on 16,8,4,2,1?)

[threedeesix]

Hey threedeesix,

Do you know where I can find the official BRP errata? I can't seem to find them in the downloads. Sorry if i'm missing something.

Nick

It's in the Supplements and Monographs section, under the Basic Role Playing thread.

Rod

[RosenMcStern]

This is all very fine, but most of these HR are not as useful as you may think. If you are 150%, one in three of your attacks will be a special success, negating your foe's parry or doing extra damage. Since in many cases (highly skilled or heavily armored opponent) this is actually better than attacking three times, can someone explain to me the reasons why you need the extra complication and additional die rolls?

[rust]

In almost all situations I would also very much prefer one 150 % attack to three 50 % attacks.

The chance to get a special or critical success would be higher, and the chance of a failure and

especially a fumble would be lower - and in my view it is even more important to avoid a fum-

ble than to get a special or critical.

Edited July 9, 2010 by rust

[icebrand]

This is all very fine, but most of these HR are not as useful as you may think. If you are 150%, one in three of your attacks will be a special success, negating your foe's parry or doing extra damage. Since in many cases (highly skilled or heavily armored opponent) this is actually better than attacking three times, can someone explain to me the reasons why you need the extra complication and additional die rolls?

That's why i allow any number of multiple attacks at 1/2 value. 3x 75% attacks vs 1 150% attack can be worth it!

[Nightshade]

I think the situation is somewhere in-between.

1. Avoiding fumbles: I'm not sure I'd split into three 50's, , but the difference between two 75% and one 150% in frequency of fumbles is probably unnoticable to most people.

2. Criticals: Similarly, most people aren't going to notice the difference between the critical chances of the two above.

3. Specials: This is a little more of an issue. However, notice that someone with 150% attack has a 30% chance of a special. A successful parry against that special will make it a hit. Two 75% chances, on the other hand, will still presumably force the -30% parry/dodge mechanic into place, which in many cases will at least potentially produce the same result, and has the advantage that it produces potentially more damage.

Personally, I suspect against single opponents, using the old deduction of Parry (and vice versa on Attack) would make a more effective and visible difference. Against multiple opponents, it'll likely be a different story, if they're weak enough to make splitting a good idea.

[RosenMcStern]

Uhm, I see that this thread has taken a particular route. You are simply looking for a way to tweak the rules in order to make multiple attacks per round (D&D rule) a viable tactics for highly skilled characters. You are of course free to do whatever pleases you in your games, but please consider one nontrivial detail: multiple attacks per round against the same target represent a flurry of blows, i.e. sacrificing precision for speed and frequence of attacks. As anyone who has real combat experience will tell you, this is something that only rookies do: a master never sacrifices precision for number of attacks. If he is fighting an inferior foe, he will try to land a single, disabling blow: one hit one kill. If he is facing an equivalent opponent, he will use his skill to carefully find an opening, bypassing his enemy's defense; in no case will he flurry against another master, as this would be a suicide.

[rust]

Besides, in my view such a houserule would tend to complicate the game and slow it down, in

the worst case even to turn role-playing into roll-playing, when combat involving several highly

skilled opponents would require dozens of die rolls for the multiple and split attacks and parries

of a single combat round.

While this may be fun for a game that has its focus on combat, for my preferred style of role-

playing it would only put the game mechanics in front of the story and thereby interrupt the sto-

ry, damage the suspension of disbelief and waste a lot of time - I am far more interested in the

final outcome of the combat and how the story develops from there than in any details of the

combat.

[threedeesix]

Besides, in my view such a houserule would tend to complicate the game and slow it down, in

the worst case even to turn role-playing into roll-playing, when combat involving several highly

skilled opponents would require dozens of die rolls for the multiple and split attacks and parries

of a single combat round.

It would require no more rolls than splitting the attack among 2 or 3 different opponents, which is how the rule is

supposed to work, so whats the difference? And, if an individual player doesn't like the extra rolls, he can still opt

to make only one attack.

please consider one nontrivial detail: multiple attacks per round against the same target represent a flurry of blows, i.e. sacrificing precision for speed and frequence of attacks. As anyone who has real combat experience will tell you, this is something that only rookies do: a master never sacrifices precision for number of attacks. If he is fighting an inferior foe, he will try to land a single, disabling blow: one hit one kill.

And using the rule as written doesn't make sense when it comes to bows and the like. If your character can fire

three arrows at three different targets, why can't he fire them at the same target? And then if you "house rule"

that you can fire them at the same target, bows become better than melee weapons.

I just think it's foolish to argue about house rules because it seems to defeat the whole purpose of house rules in

the first place, so I'll bow out of this one. I allow multiple attacks against the same target, my players don't mind

(and actually like) the extra rolls, play the way you enjoy the game.

Rod

Edited July 9, 2010 by threedeesix