Jump to content

Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications


Jason D

Recommended Posts

It is the highest initial unmodified characteristic that's correct.

The move away from POW as the power budget was specifically to reduce the "one stat to rule them all" syndrome.

Coolness. Y'all will just want to hit that first paragraph then.

Thanks for the responses, Jason.

75/420

---

Geek blogging at http://strangestones.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally I put this on rpg.net, but it was suggested I post this here for efficiency:

"Got the 0th edition rules, good stuff! Both of these questions are regarding the Point Based Character Creation option on page 19.

1) No "base" level is listed. I assume 10 + normal modifiers for age (and intangibles such as background)?

2) The option says that you can alter the EDU stat with points as desired, but it does not list a cost. I assume 3 points because skills are based on it and it is thus goes in the more expensive category of characteristics?

In all honesty though, errors/unclear sections normally stick out like a sore thumb to me, and I have found very few for a "0th edition proof" copy of the rules. Kudos to you and Chaosium!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) No "base" level is listed. I assume 10 + normal modifiers for age (and intangibles such as background)?

The Education section says the GM should assign it based on age and background. The "base level" would be the GM's decision based on the setting and the campaign.

For example, if the GM is setting a game in a college, he may decide "Everyone begins with an EDU of 12, representing high school education - any additional points spent indicate your year of college or some additional external schooling".

2) The option says that you can alter the EDU stat with points as desired, but it does not list a cost. I assume 3 points because skills are based on it and it is thus goes in the more expensive category of characteristics?

Correct.

It should have been in there, but since it's one optional system referring to another optional system, it may have gotten accidentally overlooked. I'll see that it goes into the corrections for the final book.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On p11 the definition of "Characteristic Check" says that it is your characteristic multiplied by a "multiple" and gives an example with a multiple of 3.

On p20, Step Four of character creation, it says to multiply each characteristic by 5 to get the "Characteristic Roll". If "Characteristic Roll" is not a "Characteristic Check", why did we define a "Characteristic Check". If Characteristic Roll == Characteristic Check, we either need to change the definition so it's only x5%, or add additional columns on the character sheet.

on p171 (nice index by the way), the description of Characteristic Rolls almost clears it up. (It would be nice to add a page number [p175] to that Action Difficulty section redirect. But this introduces the skill halving mechanic, rather than explaining different multipliers.

Unless there is another reference back to "Characteristic Check" (I admit that I'm working slowly through the document, and only reading ahead by index), you can probably just drop the Characteristic Check definition altogether.

Steve

Bathalians, the newest UberVillians!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On p11 the definition of "Characteristic Check" says that it is your characteristic multiplied by a "multiple" and gives an example with a multiple of 3.

On p20, Step Four of character creation, it says to multiply each characteristic by 5 to get the "Characteristic Roll". If "Characteristic Roll" is not a "Characteristic Check", why did we define a "Characteristic Check". If Characteristic Roll == Characteristic Check, we either need to change the definition so it's only x5%, or add additional columns on the character sheet.

on p171 (nice index by the way), the description of Characteristic Rolls almost clears it up. (It would be nice to add a page number [p175] to that Action Difficulty section redirect. But this introduces the skill halving mechanic, rather than explaining different multipliers.

Unless there is another reference back to "Characteristic Check" (I admit that I'm working slowly through the document, and only reading ahead by index), you can probably just drop the Characteristic Check definition altogether.

Steve

I think thatis becuase the GM can and should vary the mutiple based on the diffiuclty of the task. That is the way it has always been done. The STATx5% roll is the most common, but STATx3% or STATx1% (or even x10%) can come up.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize that you are very busy working on the final version, but will we get the missing weapons at some point (i.e. Plasma Pistol, Daggers)?

At least with regards to Daggers (as they are commonly used in many varieties of campaigns), are they statistically the same as the ones in Stormbringer 5th edition? It would seem so, but the damage for a thrown dagger in the combat example is different than that of the "throwing dagger" (although those could be different weapons). Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has been noted yet or not:

The Skill Results Table (and at least one of the following examples) seems to assume that skills percentages are rounded up when calculating Criticals and Specials, while the rules as written say to round fractions down.

It's been noted upthread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think thatis becuase the GM can and should vary the mutiple based on the diffiuclty of the task. That is the way it has always been done. The STATx5% roll is the most common, but STATx3% or STATx1% (or even x10%) can come up.

I understand, but the text should be consistent for clarity.

Steve

Bathalians, the newest UberVillians!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is minor and maybe completely intentional, but the Medium (9mm) Pistol is much less powerful in BRP than in CoC (1d8 as opposed to 1d10, 2 attacks per round as opposed to 3).

The only real time this is jarring to me is that the SMG does the old 9mm damage but the medium pistol does not.

Could these changes be due to introducing the "Major Wound" rules by default?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shield Table (p261)

I don't know if this is a range of typos or not....

Why are the AP/HP values so high? Based on what's stated in the combat chapter, they can loose a lot of defensive value on a special or better, rather than the one point when value is exceeded as in RQ, or points over value in SB.

These high values and the ability to damage them on a special or greater, make anyone with a shield and even pretty moderate amour pretty indestructible.

A typo??

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is minor and maybe completely intentional, but the Medium (9mm) Pistol is much less powerful in BRP than in CoC (1d8 as opposed to 1d10, 2 attacks per round as opposed to 3).

It was specifically balanced to be a mid-ground between the low damage, high rate-of-fire light pistol and the high-damage, slow rate-of-fire heavy pistol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armor: AP (p258)

States that there are two armor values separated by a slash; first is fixed AP, second is Variable.

The chart on p257 has separate columns for each, not one with two values as described.

I'll fix that - it was a change in the table layout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shield Table (p261)

I don't know if this is a range of typos or not....

Why are the AP/HP values so high? Based on what's stated in the combat chapter, they can loose a lot of defensive value on a special or better, rather than the one point when value is exceeded as in RQ, or points over value in SB.

These high values and the ability to damage them on a special or greater, make anyone with a shield and even pretty moderate amour pretty indestructible.

A typo??

SDLeary

I think you're contradicting yourself, or I'm missing something in your statement.

If a shield is (relatively) easy to damage, then wouldn't someone using one become easier to eventually kill?

Since shields are designed to be able to soak up a lot of damage, they're pretty tough. However, since they can be damaged by specials and criticals, they're hypothetically vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're contradicting yourself, or I'm missing something in your statement.

If a shield is (relatively) easy to damage, then wouldn't someone using one become easier to eventually kill?

Since shields are designed to be able to soak up a lot of damage, they're pretty tough. However, since they can be damaged by specials and criticals, they're hypothetically vulnerable.

In RQ for example, AP values on the shields is much lower, 8 points lower in the case of a hoplite shield (18 in RQ vs 26 in the table on p261). In RQ, Javelins did 1D10 damage (I believe they based this on a Pilum), in BRP its 1D6+1/2DB. Even using the higher damage rating from RQ, the hoplite shield in BRP cannot be penetrated, even on a critical. Even a BRP Buckler or Half Shield will stop a BRP javelin, most of the time on a crit.

In RQ and Stormbringer, a shield is damaged if its AP are exceeded. In RQ, the shield is reduced by one AP, in Stormbringer by the difference (thus 28 points done to a 26 point shield do 2 points of damage to the shield). In BRP, its listed as requiring a special, and then only inflicting one or two points of damage to the shield, depending on the parry success level.*

By increasing the AP/HP value of the shields, and by increasing the threshold required to damage the shield, the fighter with the shield has become much more a tank than they were before. Fine in a Stormbringer (Epic?) level game or higher, but a bit high for a normal or heroic level game.

I know all this can be changed based on genre and house rules. It just seems like these changes will prolong combat a bit more for those who choose only to use the core, or in pick-up games.

Thanks! :)

SDLeary

* Another change just noted... The "Attack and Parry Matrix" on p 193 shows shields taking damage (up to 4 points) depending on the level of success of the attacker. This is another change over the old "core" rules. Intentional?? :)

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In RQ for example, AP values on the shields is much lower, 8 points lower in the case of a hoplite shield (18 in RQ vs 26 in the table on p261). In RQ, Javelins did 1D10 damage (I believe they based this on a Pilum), in BRP its 1D6+1/2DB. Even using the higher damage rating from RQ, the hoplite shield in BRP cannot be penetrated, even on a critical. Even a BRP Buckler or Half Shield will stop a BRP javelin, most of the time on a crit.

In RQ and Stormbringer, a shield is damaged if its AP are exceeded. In RQ, the shield is reduced by one AP, in Stormbringer by the difference (thus 28 points done to a 26 point shield do 2 points of damage to the shield). In BRP, its listed as requiring a special, and then only inflicting one or two points of damage to the shield, depending on the parry success level.*

By increasing the AP/HP value of the shields, and by increasing the threshold required to damage the shield, the fighter with the shield has become much more a tank than they were before. Fine in a Stormbringer (Epic?) level game or higher, but a bit high for a normal or heroic level game.

I know all this can be changed based on genre and house rules. It just seems like these changes will prolong combat a bit more for those who choose only to use the core, or in pick-up games.

Thanks! :)

SDLeary

* Another change just noted... The "Attack and Parry Matrix" on p 193 shows shields taking damage (up to 4 points) depending on the level of success of the attacker. This is another change over the old "core" rules. Intentional?? :)

SDLeary

I think I see the confusion here, and I'll make sure it's clear(er) in the BRP book.

For normal use, shields shouldn't have their armor values applied twice, which is essentially what you're doing here (once as a armor value, once as HP).

Generally, it's only when you're dealing with specials and criticals that the shield's AP or HP are even an issue. These are ablative, as well, so a damaged shield has a lower AP for subsequent attacks.

The HP for shields came from Stormbringer, or were extrapolated using those values as a benchmark. And for clarification, RQ was the third tier of reference for this book. In order, the first source was Elric!/Stormbringer, then Call of Cthulhu, then RQ was utilized where those works didn't suffice. Then came Elfquest, Ringworld, Superworld, etc. So things aren't supposed to work exactly the way they do in RQ.

I must confess to a bit of frustration that, due to factors beyond my control (the release of the old RQ3 stuff as the BRP monographs, for example) it's been assumed that this work is somehow meant to fill the same role of RQ. If you'll note, many of the optional systems are those from RQ, while the default is a gameplay style more inspired by Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was specifically balanced to be a mid-ground between the low damage, high rate-of-fire light pistol and the high-damage, slow rate-of-fire heavy pistol.

There is actually some real world justification for that. Originally SMGs were designed to fire an bullet that was an intermediate cartridge more powerful than a pistol, but not quite up to rifle standards. This idea had made a comeback lately, too.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I see the confusion here, and I'll make sure it's clear(er) in the BRP book.

For normal use, shields shouldn't have their armor values applied twice, which is essentially what you're doing here (once as a armor value, once as HP).

Not really applying them twice. There is only the one value. When a shield is damaged, that one value drops.

Generally, it's only when you're dealing with specials and criticals that the shield's AP or HP are even an issue. These are ablative, as well, so a damaged shield has a lower AP for subsequent attacks.

Actually, its having their integrity only effected at this time (during Specials and Criticals) that makes them more durable than in RQ or Stormbringer. In these two games, their integrity was reduced when their defensive values were exceeded, not simply during Specials or Criticals.

The HP for shields came from Stormbringer, or were extrapolated using those values as a benchmark. And for clarification, RQ was the third tier of reference for this book. In order, the first source was Elric!/Stormbringer, then Call of Cthulhu, then RQ was utilized where those works didn't suffice. Then came Elfquest, Ringworld, Superworld, etc. So things aren't supposed to work exactly the way they do in RQ.

Understood. The issue here is that the higher defensive value of the shields IS taken from Stormbringer AND they are harder to damage than they were in either RQ or Stormbringer, not simply that they are higher than the shield values in RQ.

I must confess to a bit of frustration that, due to factors beyond my control (the release of the old RQ3 stuff as the BRP monographs, for example) it's been assumed that this work is somehow meant to fill the same role of RQ. If you'll note, many of the optional systems are those from RQ, while the default is a gameplay style more inspired by Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu.

No no.. this is understood.

Thanks Jason! :)

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jason

I first posted this on the Opposed Rolls thread, but I think your description of how Opposed Rolls work on p174 needs some clarification.

In situations where two skill rolls are opposed, both characters roll against their respective skills. The character that achieves the highest degree of success wins the contest. However, if the loser's skill roll was successful, he or she can modify the winner's degree of success, shifting it downward one degree for every degree of success he or she achieves above failure. In the event that both parties achieve the same degree of success, the higher die roll wins the contest, giving the advantage to character's with higher skill ratings.

I believe you mean that if both characters get the same level of success then you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner down to a failure... AND... In the case of tied criticals or specials the winner only achieves a normal success.

If so, then you should change the above text to make this specific.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

Equipment: Advanced Missile Weapons Table (p256)

Stun weapons in general.

There is no description of how these weapons work. I'm assuming these work based on the "Stunning or Subduing" Spot Rule, but there is nothing to direct you here. Or is it the "Knockout Attack" Spot Rule?

---

Spot Rules: Stunning or Subduing (p232)

Bullet point two references "blunt weapon special effect described on page 232 of Chapter Five: Combat".

Obviously the rule referenced is not on p232. ;-)

The only rule I can find that references blunt weapons in the Combat chapter is the Crushing rule for Special Successes.

Also, bullet point three references another Spot Rule... Knockout Attack. Perhaps the two should be combined to avoid the cross referencing?

Thanks!

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

Equipment: Advanced Missile Weapons Table (p256)

Stun weapons in general.

There is no description of how these weapons work. I'm assuming these work based on the "Stunning or Subduing" Spot Rule, but there is nothing to direct you here. Or is it the "Knockout Attack" Spot Rule?

---

Spot Rules: Stunning or Subduing (p232)

Bullet point two references "blunt weapon special effect described on page 232 of Chapter Five: Combat".

Obviously the rule referenced is not on p232. ;-)

The only rule I can find that references blunt weapons in the Combat chapter is the Crushing rule for Special Successes.

Also, bullet point three references another Spot Rule... Knockout Attack. Perhaps the two should be combined to avoid the cross referencing?

Thanks!

SDLeary

Thanks!

I'm distressed to find out that most of the footnotes for the weapons tables are missing. Those explained a lot, and I'm going to try to find out from Charlie if they were intentionally removed or if it was an oversight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...