So, how flawed is BRP ... ?

[Mankcam]

Whoops - my previous reply was actually posted in the wrong thread!

[Dredj]

The one thing that draws me away from BRP (and pretty much every system out there) is the lack of levels for success. You make the roll to see if you hit. Then you have to do a separate roll to see how well you actually did hit (damage done), unless you rolled a critical. I just think that how well you hit should be determined by the initial roll to hit. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

[pansophy]

I actually like exactly that. I want to see if I hit, if the enemy is evading the hit, and if my weapon does enough damage to penetrate armor.

What you are suggesting is something that IMHO D&D is doing - which I do not like at all. Savage Worlds is a bit similar to that to a certain point.

[vagabond]

The one thing that draws me away from BRP (and pretty much every system out there) is the lack of levels for success. You make the roll to see if you hit. Then you have to do a separate roll to see how well you actually did hit (damage done), unless you rolled a critical. I just think that how well you hit should be determined by the initial roll to hit. It's just a pet peeve of mine.

Umm, there are levels of success. Critical, Special, Success, Failure, Fumble. All levels affect what is needed for the opponent to parry/dodge (usually, an equal or better success level to ensure partial block/parry/dodge) as well as affecting how much damage is applied.

Ian

[Dredj]

Umm, there are levels of success. Critical, Special, Success, Failure, Fumble. All levels affect what is needed for the opponent to parry/dodge (usually, an equal or better success level to ensure partial block/parry/dodge) as well as affecting how much damage is applied.

Ian

You're right, but I'm talking about something more fine-grained. I guess I want more crunch to my PC's ability to hit.

[Atgxtg]

You're right, but I'm talking about something more fine-grained. I guess I want more crunch to my PC's ability to hit.

What you might consider is using the average damage as a basline and then adding 1 or 2 points per 10 you hit by. Specials would do dobule the average and so on. You could evenshave off a few points from he low end for poor hits.

For example, if a weapon does 1D8.You could have any hit hat just hits (within 10%) only do 2 points, a solid hit do 5, and then add +1 per 10% over the needed to hit, up to a max of 8 (one less than the special damage). Then havwe specials doe 9, and so on.

[Dredj]

What you might consider is using the average damage as a basline and then adding 1 or 2 points per 10 you hit by. Specials would do dobule the average and so on. You could evenshave off a few points from he low end for poor hits.

For example, if a weapon does 1D8.You could have any hit hat just hits (within 10%) only do 2 points, a solid hit do 5, and then add +1 per 10% over the needed to hit, up to a max of 8 (one less than the special damage). Then havwe specials doe 9, and so on.

Thank you for the suggestion.

[Smoking Frog]

You're right, but I'm talking about something more fine-grained. I guess I want more crunch to my PC's ability to hit.

There's also the rule that aiming for a particular location is a Difficult action (so 1/2 the normal chance to hit). Depending on how crunchy you want your system, you could use the "half or under" as another level of success, and then apply a different amount of damage for each success level (SUCCESS, UNDER HALF, SPECIAL, CRITICAL). Then you'd just have to worry about 4 "target numbers" rather than using small increments. But if you want something really crunchy, this may not have enough nuts for you . . . .

[Dredj]

Thank you.

[Psuedosirus]

1 way in which BRP is not flawed is having god-like wizards dominating adventurer parties by the later parts of their earlier careers. Actually, casters could stand a little beefing up in BRP. If anyone knows some good work in this direction, please pass it on.

[pansophy]

I really like the little math that is involved in playing the game. Not a lot of '+' and '-' for one roll have to be considered, it's mostly an Easy, Average or Difficult task.

I do not like games that give me a bonus for having this edge, then a malus for a situational thing and some other modifiers here and there, that I have to sum up and then add to a die roll only to see, I failed the task. Boring.

BRP is nice and simple. Roll the dice, maybe it's special or critical, but mostly it's just a result that is either under or over the skill value. Simple.

I can live with the SIZ Table and some other problems like 'shields' and a wrong table in the book here and there. These issues are fixed easily and the system overall does not have to many loose ends while not being too tight either.

[Redge]

1 way in which BRP is not flawed is having god-like wizards dominating adventurer parties by the later parts of their earlier careers. Actually, casters could stand a little beefing up in BRP. If anyone knows some good work in this direction, please pass it on.

Good point about the 'god-like wizards'.

If you give your Magic using character high INT they'll be able to memorise plenty of spells (INT/2) and a high POW plus a staff (or some other PP holding device) will give you lots of juice. The high INT will also help with max level of each spell that you can cast (INT/2 again). Then learn broadsword to 75% (like Gandalf) and no one will mess with you ;-)