Skills over 100% and two weapons.

[Verderer]

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?

Well, from GM point of view, anything that allows the players to waste their über-skills is good, no? Besides, it gives they players a (false?) sense of superiority and empowerment (I have more attacks than the puny NPC!) Granted, not all players are that shallow, but hey, many are!

And in some situations (multiple opponents etc.) it just might make sense?

[RosenMcStern]

Rod, you did not quote my "It is your game, do as you wish". In any case, I doubt the RAW should be read as you do, allowing multiple attacks with bows. There is a specific section covering this case under the "Volley fire entry". I think we spotted another small hole in the rules.

Jason, what is your saying about this? Which rule applies to bows?

Well, from GM point of view, anything that allows the players to waste their über-skills is good, no? Besides, it gives they players a (false?) sense of superiority and empowerment (I have more attacks than the puny NPC!) Granted, not all players are that shallow, but hey, many are!

I did not want to say this, but I am afraid it is the truth.

And in some situations (multiple opponents etc.) it just might make sense?

I think everyone agrees that splitting attacks against multiple opponents is ok.

[threedeesix]

I doubt the RAW should be read as you do, allowing multiple attacks with bows. There is a specific section covering this case under the "Volley fire entry". I think we spotted another small hole in the rules.

Actually, Volley Fire is limited to the number of attacks noted in the Attk column of the weapon tables. Essentially, one attack can be made at full skill. When making more attacks than this you use Volley Fire and the attacks are Difficult. In the case of Bows, which have an Attk of 1, this would not allow extra attacks so Volley Fire is not an option.

Now granted, this could be a typo, because the description kind of contradicts this at the beginning. But when reading the entire thing, this is what I got out of it. The example supports this as well. Personally, I would prefer it if the rule allowed the player to exceed the normal number of attacks, but as written this does not appear to be the case.

Rod

Edited July 10, 2010 by threedeesix

[rust]

Looking at historical records, 1 arrow per 12 seconds seems right for a

normal archer, although a master archer was expected to hit a human-

sized target at a distance of 200 yards twelve times in one minute.

[RosenMcStern]

I might add that if you apply the split-over-100 rules to missile weapons, then you can shoot three heavy crossbow bolts in a round. Which is a no-no in any game.

[rust]

The 137 longbows recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose had a draw strength between

445 N and 823 N (100 to 185 lbf) and an average draw length of 76 cm, and the skeletons of

longbowmen show severe deformations to the left body side because of the strength required

to draw the bow repeatedly over a short period of time.

Player characters are of course superhuman beings (*cough*), but I think that a longbow ra-

te of fire of one per round / 12 seconds would be realistic, someone able to draw a 500 N

longbow more often per minute could probably have won a wrestling match against Heracles

or Thor with his left arm alone ... such archers did exist, but in my view they are beyond the

scope of a normal setting.

So, no split bow attacks for me.

[threedeesix]

Realism is great for a realistic setting, but defining what is and isn't realistic in a game that supports both the fantasy and super hero

genre seems kind of strange to me. Obviously, playing in a strictly realistic setting would call for realistic rules, but my characters fight

giants and dragons in one game and supermutants and giant scorpions in another. Realism is not quite as important to me.

If I ever continue my BRP Traveller campaign or even BRP Star Trek, this would be more of an issue.

Rod

Edited July 10, 2010 by threedeesix

[rust]

It is the charm of BRP that it can be used just for realistic historical settings just as

well as for truly fantastic ones, and I have no problem with either - I just happen to

prefer the more realistic ones.

[soltakss]

I might add that if you apply the split-over-100 rules to missile weapons, then you can shoot three heavy crossbow bolts in a round. Which is a no-no in any game.

The problem with Crossbows is that it takes a number of rounds to reload them.

I've got no problems with putting two arrows in a draw and shotting both at once, splitting the skill between them. The Samurai are said to have done this as a matter of course.

[RosenMcStern]

I've got no problems with putting two arrows in a draw and shotting both at once, splitting the skill between them. The Samurai are said to have done this as a matter of course.

I doubt the rule was intended to simulate this

[icebrand]

Lets see, RAW supports splitting for multiple enemies.

I don't really see the point; statistically you have WAY better chance of survival by using your full % on one enemy (mostly because how parries work now, unlike RQ3).

According to RAW, you need about 2900/(INT/2) experience checks *AFTER* 100% to reach 200%. Thats 322 (INT 17-18) to 725 (INT 8) checks... Preety much beyond every group i've seen.

The only "achievable" 200% i can see is a humakti with gifts and bladesharp... and still would take 150ish experience checks!!!

Once you achieve your 200% (190% actually) you can split for full%... But unless your opponents have 50%-60% or less chance to parry, you are STILL better off making full attacks for extra crit/special %!!!

The only REAL benefit of splitting would be: attacking the same foe (the cumulative -30% could lower the parry enough for it to be worth it), or my house rule where you can make 3+ attacks.

Otherwise, beside attacking stupid animals or that do not dodge (unlikely scenario) or multiple berserkers (yeah, right)... I really can't see the point. I mean, splitting doesn't even work on zombies now!!!

[RosenMcStern]

There are plenty of situation (magic, etc.) where you can split and still be at full percentiles. Think of a Berserker. So no need to be 190% base skill, just look for ajustments.

The point is that you are looking for a reason to split attacks. But there is no one, except:

a) emulating D&D

getting rid of more than one neglectable foe in one round, if said foes have low chances to parry.

[icebrand]

There are plenty of situation (magic, etc.) where you can split and still be at full percentiles. Think of a Berserker. So no need to be 190% base skill, just look for ajustments.

Please name those situations. Berserk as per RQ3 rules against any kind of intelligent creature equals suicide.

Fanaticism was actually used by my players as an attack spell against foes, thats how useful it is...

Bladesharp/etc? On RQ3 is hard to go over +30%, very difficult to go over 40%, and anything over 50% is not going to happen.

The point is that you are looking for a reason to split attacks. But there is no one, except:

a) emulating D&D

getting rid of more than one neglectable foe in one round, if said foes have low chances to parry.

The point is that splitting attacks as per RAW is mathematically undesirable, it is a HINDRANCE, not a help.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I've got no problems with putting two arrows in a draw and shotting both at once, splitting the skill between them. The Samurai are said to have done this as a matter of course.

Well, the samurai were said to have done a lot of things ...

But, anyway, even assuming this is possible, it's highly undesirable. You're still projecting the same kinetic energy, but now it's split between two arrows. You won't even get half damage for each, because each arrow is suffering the full losses due to air resistance. They probably also interfere with each other in flight, so accuracy will suffer. I've certainly never been able to get two arrows fired in this way to hit the same bit of the target, but that might be just me ...

It may look good in movies (well, actually I think it looks pretty silly in movies), but I doubt if it's much use in combat.

As for splitting attacks, I've never liked this rule because it seems to violate the principle behind the system, if you use strike ranks, that is. Surely the number of attacks should relate to how fast you are, not how accurate? "Splitting" has always seemed like one of those little D&Disms to me (not that I have anything against D&D, but I like my BRP to be of a different flavour). Assuming that splitting works (somehow), it seems logical that it should be worse in most cases - you are trying to do two things using the same time and energy you would normally expend to do one (a bit like the "two arrows" thing above), after all. The only reason to split attacks that I can see is to attack two relatively weak foes at once.

[icebrand]

As for splitting attacks, I've never liked this rule because it seems to violate the principle behind the system, if you use strike ranks, that is. Surely the number of attacks should relate to how fast you are, not how accurate? "Splitting" has always seemed like one of those little D&Disms to me (not that I have anything against D&D, but I like my BRP to be of a different flavour). Assuming that splitting works (somehow), it seems logical that it should be worse in most cases - you are trying to do two things using the same time and energy you would normally expend to do one (a bit like the "two arrows" thing above), after all. The only reason to split attacks that I can see is to attack two relatively weak foes at once.

With rules as they are, the only reason to split attacks is you fail at math. Splitting attacks is like giving yourself a % penalty just because. You are WAY better off doing a single, full % attack, against any number of foes, unless splitting at very high %'s (im thinking 160% at bare minimum) vs opponents with 1/4 of your skill AND below 50% (a very weird scenario).

If you want to attack two relatively weak foes at once, you should focus on one and drop it. The rules worked on RQ3 because of weapon damage / AP / Magic.

[soltakss]

As someone who has played in an GMed a number of high level camapigns, I'd say that splitting attacks is definitely a good and valid tactic.

I'm talking RQ here, and RQ2/3 in particular, so things might be different in BRP.

But, having a very high skill means that you can take out a number of lower skilled opponents quickly, rather than dragging combat out. Normally, people say that superior numbers wear you down, but splitting attacks helps take out that numerical advantage.

Berserker is also an excellent tactic when you have stocked up on defensive magic or have good healing spirits/enchantments.

Take it from me, playing a berserk centaur and taking out 6 opponents in a single round in melee combat is an experience to treasure forever.

[icebrand]

As someone who has played in an GMed a number of high level camapigns, I'd say that splitting attacks is definitely a good and valid tactic.

I'm talking RQ here, and RQ2/3 in particular, so things might be different in BRP.

But, having a very high skill means that you can take out a number of lower skilled opponents quickly, rather than dragging combat out. Normally, people say that superior numbers wear you down, but splitting attacks helps take out that numerical advantage.

Berserker is also an excellent tactic when you have stocked up on defensive magic or have good healing spirits/enchantments.

Take it from me, playing a berserk centaur and taking out 6 opponents in a single round in melee combat is an experience to treasure forever.

I did play and GM at high lvl too (the humakti reached 500%+ attack chance).

Thing is, in RQ2 you had -% parry due to high attack.

In RQ2 you had Damage and AP on successful parry, while in BRP all damage gets parried no matter what.

Against a high level opponent berserker is still suicide (i.e: dismiss magic takes care of shield, then you die cause the opponent parries and you don't).

Anyone can RUN from a berserk, who gets attacked with ranged weapons by everyone else. Of course, if the non berserk party is something else than trollkin, the berserker gets his attacks parried while he recevies one attack from whomever is attacked and two attacks by the rest, with no dodge nor parry possible.

With berserk you are allowing the mooks to actually HIT you, while you could, you know, parry, dodge and still kill them!

Let's pretend you are a runelord. You get +90% attack and automatic con rolls and lose: 90% parry or dodge, the ability to select targets, the ability to switch to ranged attacks, the ability to run away, spellcasting, including healing yourself, divine intervention (*I* would not let someone on berserk ask for anything).

IMHO the spell sucks.

Also, in BRP you do not even the odds by splitting attacks, since a successful parry negates all damage!

[RosenMcStern]

Please name those situations. Berserk as per RQ3 rules against any kind of intelligent creature equals suicide.

Fanaticism was actually used by my players as an attack spell against foes, thats how useful it is...

Bladesharp/etc? On RQ3 is hard to go over +30%, very difficult to go over 40%, and anything over 50% is not going to happen.

Not necessarily. If you have, say, 6-8 points of armour and your opponents have slashing weapons Berserk is viable. You become immune to their Special effect (bleeding), and it is rather rare that they can hurt you significantly without a critical hit. Bladesharp 8 is not so uncommon, and with BRP Magic a decent caster can throw Sharpen 9. And I could mention Axe Trance or Crush...

Another typical situation would be the band of goblins ganging up on the spellcaster. A fighter can reach 200% skill by hitting them from behind (they are facing the other guy), and must take them down before they kill the unarmored comrade. This is exactly the situation where you would split your attack.

The point is that splitting attacks as per RAW is mathematically undesirable, it is a HINDRANCE, not a help.

Splitting is not something that should be used against tough foes, this is the point. It is designed to handle multiple unskilled opponents.

[RosenMcStern]

In RQ2 you had Damage and AP on successful parry, while in BRP all damage gets parried no matter what.

Not if you special. And Berserker/Fanaticism increase your special chances. What you relate refers to RQ3, where a 20 AP shield could block almost anything, even a critical. No longer true in BRP.

[deleriad]

I suppose at the most fundamental level that if you allow splitting of attacks against the same target you start moving towards something that is more of a Combat Action system where your number of Combat Actions is based on your skill. The problem with talking in the abstract is that BRP has so many combat modules that the implications change massively. E.g. say you retroclone RQ3 (as I know RQ best) then being able to attack twice against the same person who only has one parry is a huge advantage. On the other hand, if using the BRP core modules with multiple degrading parries and with the BRP combat matrix then splitting attacks against a single opponent is probably going to be counter productive.

The main thing for me is that splitting attacks against single targets is a perfectly reasonable module to have in BRP. However you have to realise that BRP is not quite as modular as people sometimes assume: changing one module does have impacts on others. That said, play with whatever you have the most fun doing. If splitting attacks against the same opponent proves to be underpowered, players will gradually realise this.

[dragonewt]

I always considered that the "double attack" was more of a double strike within one attack, and hence not really two full whole attacks. For example, with a sword hit to the left of the opponent's head, after a flick of the wrist, hitting the right side of the head (without needing to bring the arm back for another full attack). Maybe this is what the original authors had in mind. However this could possibly be seen more as a follow-on attack or something very loosely similar to a riposte.

[Atgxtg]

A fairly standard line in most BRP systems was that an "attack" with a melee weapon was not a single thrust/swing of a weapon, but a combination of mutiple blows. It was sually given as the reason why someone couldn7t split attacks against a single foe.

The bug with allowing splitting attacks vs. a single foe is that the foe is still defending/parrying against the same weapon, weielded, and so should get his full parry vs. both attacks, since he is really defending against the same number of swings/thrust during the round.

[dragonewt]

The bug with allowing splitting attacks vs. a single foe is that the foe is still defending/parrying against the same weapon, wielded, and so should get his full parry vs. both attacks, since he is really defending against the same number of swings/thrust during the round.

The example I gave earlier regarding hitting left side of the head then the right, could be done be a result of the defender parrying the first hit. The resulting second strike would then be difficult to parry. However, this second strike would be the result of the attacker responding to circumstances, and not a premeditated decision to "split my attack before rolling the dice".

Are there any rules that allow a flow-on effect for a good roll for high skills? For example, if an attacker rolled well (under half of their skill) even if parried, then they would get a second flow-through strike at half their attack skill. This approach would provide a benefit for a high skill and do away with an almost artificial pre-roll decision. A pre-roll decision should be more like "I attack hard with little regard for defense" or "I attack defensively", with the appropriate modification to rolls of the dice (attack, defense and other factors like movement).

If the melee combat of a round is "a series of multiple exchanges", then the extra attacks would be a speedier set of actions at the cost of accuracy, within physical limitations (so as to exclude multiple bow or missile shots). Although in a more fantastic setting there are examples from movies where multiple arrows are fired in one shot (A Touch of Zen), or with auto-fire frenzy (Crow the Elf from "Hawk the Slayer").

Edit: I forgot about the crossbow... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6g2kF3e6ng.

Edited July 13, 2010 by dragonewt

[icebrand]

Not if you special. And Berserker/Fanaticism increase your special chances.

On Runequest 2 (the real one) berserk worked, because it actually lowered the opponent's parry into nothingness. I challenge you to an RQ3 combat any time!!!

100% combat skills, whatever spirit spells you like (up to 6 points), and whatever rune spells you want as long as they are cult-compatible. :D [if you win i'll buy the e-drinks!!!]

Lets see how your 230%+ attack and NO DODGE/PARRY whatever gets owned by my 130/100 RL!

I can make you a matrix with the %'s if you want, but unless blind luck interventes, the guy who can... you know, parry will chop the other to little pieces.

What you relate refers to RQ3, where a 20 AP shield could block almost anything, even a critical. No longer true in BRP.

On RQ3 protection "acts in every way like normal armor" (RQ Deluxe, Magic Book, Pg21), while shield gives "2 points of magical armor" (Pg36). I always ruled that critical hits bypass both [shield is already overpowered as it is].

Still, our crits were a little less powerful:

Impales rolled double damages, while the other weapons did full normal damage. Crit only ignored armors + special (so, non-impaling specials were a bit better while impaling crits were not as vicious)

[vagabond]

I believe Stormbringer had no such concept. You could swing multiple times against the same opponent, and he could parry multiple times per round, suffering a -30% per attempt.

It worked fine in play.

Ian