Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[Shaira]

Hi Jason,

Inconsistency on pp184 and 185 (Skill Training & Research sections):

p184 col1 2nd para line 3:

"As the student, your character does not need to make an experience roll - completion of a unit of training always allows a skill increase roll."

p185 col2 4th para line 2:

"Just as with training, you must make an experience roll, just as if you would if your character was learning from experience..."

(I'm currently assuming the first para is correct and the 2nd is just a typo - ie delete "Just as with training" and start the sentence on "You")

I've also noticed minor typos here and there - just a couple. Do you want us to catch those, or are they being dealt with elsewhere?

Cheers,

Sarah

[Shaira]

Hi Jason,

Apparent inconsistency in procedure for POW Gain Rolls, as follows:

p186 col1 para2 "POW Gain Rolls" says you get a POW Gain Roll if i.) you are the attacker and ii.) You have a 95% OR LOWER chance to succeed - ie no POW Gain Rolls for the attacker if 96%+ success chance.

However, the "Gaining POW" subsection in the Magic Powers section (p92 col2 para5) says you get a POW Gain Roll any time you overcome the magical resistance of a target of equal or greater POW. This also includes defensive resistance. It specifically states "Overcoming a target of lower POW does not provide a chance for improvement".

Likewise, you have the same in the "Increasing POW" subsection in the Psychic Powers section (p112 col2 para2), and also in the "Exercising Power" paragraph of the "How to Become a Better Sorceror" subsection in the Sorcery Powers section (p127 col1 para3).

[i think we hammered this out in a thread already & you confirmed that you had to overcome a POW equal to or greater than your own, in attack or defense, to get a POW Gain Roll. Just need to clarify which it is.]

Cheers,

Sarah

[randallorndorff]

Jason, thank you for your responses, that clarifies the justification for the pistol stats, as well as your answers to my EDU and Skill questions.

Also bumping the following as I have not seen a response yet. Thanks!

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!

[Shaira]

I'm a bit confused by the Attack and Parry Matrix on p193, specifically the use of the word "OR" on the results "Critical vs Special", "Critical vs Success", "Critical vs Failure", "Critical vs Fumble".

To be concrete, take "Critical vs. Success". The Attacker criticals, the Defender succeeds in parrying. The stated result is:

"Attack does full damage plus normal damage bonus, has special result by weapon type, or parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage.*"

The asterisk takes you to the footnote explaining what happens if attacking or parrying weapons get destroyed by this damage.

Now, I don't actually understand the stated result. On the surface, it looks like I'm being offered three results. Either:

i.) The attack does full damage plus normal damage bonus (and DOESN'T ignore armour any more, whereas Critical vs Failure does)

OR

ii.) The attack has a special result by weapon type (impale, etc)

OR

iii.) The parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage.

It doesn't sound right. How do I decide which to use? The SB5 equivalent reads "Attack slips by enough to do ordinary damage and ignores armour".

I got a couple of hints from the SB5 "Special vs Success" result:

"Attack hits hard enough to do ordinary damage, armour defends normally. If parrying with a weapon and not a shield, lower weapon hit points by 4."

SO... would I be correct in interpreting the BRP Critical vs Success result something like this?

i.) The Attack does full damage plus normal damage bonus, armour protects.

ii.) If the weapon type has a special result (such as bleeding), it does that AS WELL (I couldn't work out if this is AS WELL or INSTEAD!)

iii.) In any case, the parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage.

I'm not sure whether I'm just being a bit dumb , but these results may need a bit of clarification.

[The Venomous Pao]

Two more that I spotted last night (but failed to post)...

1) The Force Field power never seems to clearly state what armor value each level of the power confers.

2) The Defense power has conflicting info. In the power summary table it is listed as a 5% benefit per level but in the actual description of the power it is listed as a 1% benefit per level.

I don't have the book with me right now, so I can point to specific page numbers, sorry.

[Jason D]

1) The Force Field power never seems to clearly state what armor value each level of the power confers.

I'll clarify, but it's 1 point of armor value per level.

2) The Defense power has conflicting info. In the power summary table it is listed as a 5% benefit per level but in the actual description of the power it is listed as a 1% benefit per level.

The summary chart is in error - it's 1% per level.

[The Venomous Pao]

I'll clarify, but it's 1 point of armor value per level.

Cool. That was more-or-less my guess. But it's nice to know for sure. I think that all the references to "1 SIZ" got things turned around and somehow that got dropped. At least, that would be my guess

The summary chart is in error - it's 1% per level.

Thanks again. That makes good sense.

[Shaira]

Hi Jason,

There are a handful of issues with the "Combat Example" (pp209-210 of the Combat Chapter), as follows:

i.) As a general impression, there is very little actual combat for a combat example! There are a couple of missile attacks, then a fair bit of jumping, then lots of healing, and so on. I'd expect some to and fro melee and a few missile attacks in a combat example.

ii.) In "Sixth Combat Round" and "One More Combat Round", Kallistor uses the magic spell Heal on Evard's wounds. The examples say that Heal costs 1 PP per level of spell. However, on p98 there is an inconsistency in the Heal Spell description: whilst the Power Cost Per Level is shown as "1", the first sentence of the spell description says "Each level of this spell costs 3 power points to use". Depending on which is correct (and I'd guess 3PP per level for 1D6 healing, but I'm a tight-fisted sonofabitch , so that may be too mean), the Combat Example may need rewriting.

iii.) At the end of the "One More Combat Round" section, there is the sentence "Kallistor can use the Healing 1 spell again tomorrow, as well". I don't understand this sentence; even if the spell costs 3PP, after 2 uses Kallistor still has 8PP left, enough for 2 more uses. I can't find any reference to say that the Magic Spell "Heal" can only be used once per wound per day - is there a reference somewhere? I note that the Sorcery spell Heal (costs 2pp and heals 1D3 - not the one used here) can only be cast once per Wound (not per day - just once per wound) - there seems to be no such restriction for the Magic spell.

Cheers!

Sarah

[Shaira]

Hi Jason,

There is a difference between how Fumbles are calculated for Skills (p173) and Combat (p193). I'm not sure if this is intentional, but I'm guessing not.

On p173 the "Skill Results Table" shows Fumbles going from 96-00 for low skills to 00 for high skills - pretty much the old RQ system.

On p193 the "Fumble" subsection in the right-hand column gives the Fumble chance of 99-00 for weapon skills under 100%, and 00 for those over - the SB5 system.

Like I say, I'm guessing this is just an oversight, but if it is intentional it's probably worth making it explicit.

Cheers,

Sarah

[Shaira]

Hi Jason - me again!

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I have a question about the Dodge skill...

Under "System Notes" of the Dodge skill description on p55, it says

"A successful Dodge roll cannot reduce an incoming attack's success lower than 'failure'."

This seems to imply that the Dodge roll, when used in combat, should be treated as an Opposed Skill Roll as per p173. Is this the case? If so, it's probably worth being explicit in the skill description. Also, just to avoid confusion, it might be worth rewording this along the lines of

"A successful Dodge roll which succeeds with a Special or Critical success versus an Attack with a lower success level cannot reduce that incoming Attack's success level to lower than 'Failure'"

or some such. Maybe even an example to show that a Critical Dodge versus a Simple Success does not make the attacker fumble, just to be absolutely clear!

Personally, I hope this is the case - it's a neat touch and nicely differentiates Parries and Dodges into tactical choices, which I was starting to wonder about!

Cheers,

Sarah (as if you didn't know... )

[The Venomous Pao]

Here's a minor one: In the "customizing professions" example featuring the medieval mystery solver, the suggested change from "Missile Weapons" to "Melee Weapons" lists "1H Sword" as the specialty. It looks like the rest of the rules don't separate 1h and 2h swords out as separate specialties but instead just call it "sword" without any further splitting of type.

Very, very minor. But it caught my eye last night.

[Shaira]

This one's a dumb question, but as I can't actually find an answer in the rules, maybe not so dumb!

What happens when a standard attack is met by a standard parry?

The Attack Results Table on p193 says "Defender blocks damage, no other result". However, the "Broken Weapons" spot rule on p215 says that a weapon will break if it is used to parry an attack which causes more damage than the parrying weapon's HP.

I ended up going to the SB5 rules, as a lot of the combat clearly is adapted from that. I found the following quote (SB5 p117, "Damage from Parries"):

"Weapons and shields can also be damaged. Weapons are built to withstand hammerings, and weapons and shields normally parry without damage. However, if the rolled damage from a very strong blow exceeds a weapon's hit points by at least one hit point, the weapon then breaks. If yet more points were done by the blow, these would pass on to the target. Shields behave the same way but are stronger, breaking when their hit points reach zero, not when their hit points are first exceeded."

Now I can't find any analogous wording in BRP Zero; does this rule still hold? It would make sense, but the wording of the BRP rules suggests that a successful Parry completely wards off a successful Attack, end of story - no need to roll the attacking weapon's damage to see if the weapon or shield breaks, and certainly no possibility of any extra damage "getting through" to damage the target. Counter-intuitive, I know - you could parry a brontosaur and get away with it - but I'm thinking from the POV of those who don't have the SB5 rules handy to reference...

I could be missing the BRP Zero section where the SB5 "Damage from Parries" rule is mentioned, but if not, and the SB5 rule still holds, it might be worth putting it in and being really explicit here so that new players (and old dullards like me ) "get it".

Cheers,

Sarah

[Jason D]

There are a handful of issues with the "Combat Example" (pp209-210 of the Combat Chapter), as follows:

Issues noted.

Thanks!

I'll give the combat example another look - maybe even rewrite it from scratch if I've got the time.

[Jason D]

There is a difference between how Fumbles are calculated for Skills (p173) and Combat (p193). I'm not sure if this is intentional, but I'm guessing not.

It's an oversight. It should default to the Stormbringer 5 system.

[Jason D]

Dodge issues snipped...

Good points.

It's a bit unclear, but the attack/parry matrix is the ultimate authority.

I'll address it with my edits.

[Jason D]

Here's a minor one: In the "customizing professions" example featuring the medieval mystery solver, the suggested change from "Missile Weapons" to "Melee Weapons" lists "1H Sword" as the specialty. It looks like the rest of the rules don't separate 1h and 2h swords out as separate specialties but instead just call it "sword" without any further splitting of type.

Very, very minor. But it caught my eye last night.

Already been noted and sent on, but thanks!

[Jason D]

What happens when a standard attack is met by a standard parry?

The attack/parry matrix is correct, while the spot rule is in error. I'll address it.

It was included (if I remember correctly) to address times when an attacking weapon should have a better-than-normal chance of breaking a shield or parrying weapon, even on a successfully-parried blow. One such condition might be when the attacker is more than twice the SIZ of the parrying character.

I'll clarify the text.

[The Venomous Pao]

Already been noted and sent on, but thanks!

Rockin'. You rock, rocker.

And yes, the cedar has been quite unpleasant 'round these parts lately. :eek:

[Shaira]

The attack/parry matrix is correct, while the spot rule is in error. I'll address it.

It was included (if I remember correctly) to address times when an attacking weapon should have a better-than-normal chance of breaking a shield or parrying weapon, even on a successfully-parried blow. One such condition might be when the attacker is more than twice the SIZ of the parrying character.

I'll clarify the text.

Thanks for all the info Jason! Just to clarify on the Attack vs Parry then, if both succeed, do I roll the Attack damage *anyway*, and if the damage exceeds the parrying weapon's HP, the parrying weapon breaks and any extra damage gets through to the defender? Or (as seems unlikely, but the Attack Results Table seems to suggest) does a successful Parry *completely* negate a successful Attack, regardless of how much damage the successful Attack might do?

Cheers!

Sarah

[Jason D]

Thanks for all the info Jason! Just to clarify on the Attack vs Parry then, if both succeed, do I roll the Attack damage *anyway*, and if the damage exceeds the parrying weapon's HP, the parrying weapon breaks and any extra damage gets through to the defender? Or (as seems unlikely, but the Attack Results Table seems to suggest) does a successful Parry *completely* negate a successful Attack, regardless of how much damage the successful Attack might do?

I'll have to double-check when I get home and to my copy of the rules, but I believe it's the first of the two.

That's why the AP of shields are so high - they're not easy to damage.

[randallorndorff]

Possible point of clarification/suggestion: The Craft rules do not match the Equipment Quality rules later in the book. Also, by making the Critical skill bonus equal to the Manipulation skill bonus, you reference an optional rule and potentially make the bonus lower than the flat 5% given for Special success. Maybe make the Critical skill bonus equal to 15% like the Equipment table? Thanks for the hard work, as always.

[Shaira]

I'll have to double-check when I get home and to my copy of the rules, but I believe it's the first of the two.

That's why the AP of shields are so high - they're not easy to damage.

Cool - that does make perfect sense. It's probably worth making it absolutely explicit in the rules (I can't find any mention of it, although you could deduce it from a couple of things).

BTW - did you catch my three posts on p8 of this thread? In particular the one on understanding the Attack & Parry matrix? Not bugging you for an answer - just wanted to make sure you'd seen them.

Cheers,

Sarah

[Jason D]

BTW - did you catch my three posts on p8 of this thread? In particular the one on understanding the Attack & Parry matrix? Not bugging you for an answer - just wanted to make sure you'd seen them.

I've seen them, but am making sure my answers are correct before replying.

Thanks!

[Shaira]

Hi Jason,

In the BRP rules-as-written, there doesn't seem to be any way - magical or otherwise - to heal a limb which has been severed either as a result of a major wound or the optional hit location system. Is there supposed to be a "Regrow Limb" type spell somewhere or something? I thought maybe a higher level of the Heal magic spell might be up to it, but the description there says specifically not.

Cheers,

Sarah

[Lord Twig]

Trying to figure out BRP parry has been an exercise in page flipping.

On page 191, It says that a character with a weapon of shield can "parry a blow", but nowhere does it say exactly what that means. A sentence that says, "If the attack is parried the defender takes no damage" or "all damaged is blocked" or "the defender subtracts the AP of the armor from the attackers damage" would go a long way to make things clearer.

So, I believe a successful parry blocks all damage from a successful attack. (Or the attack is blocked so the attacker doesn't do any damage. Subtle difference.)

Hmmm... Actually the whole "Attack and Parry Matrix" needs to be redone I think. Reasons given below.

Attack vs. Parry = Result

Critical vs. Critical = Defender blocks damage, no other result.

Special vs. Special = Defender blocks damage, no other result. Attacking and parrying weapon or shield both take 1 point of damage. (If there is no other result, how come both weapons are taking damage?)

Success vs. Success = Defender blocks damage, no other result.

So, equal success level equal no result, unless they are both specials, then they both take damage? Isn't that a little confusing? I think making it a standard "if tied no result" rule would be much better.

Attack vs. Parry = Result

Critical vs. Special = Defender blocks damage, no result, or parrying weapon or shield takes 1 point of damage

Special vs. Success = Attack does normal damage, has special result by weapon type, or parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage.

In each case the attack beat the defender by the same degree, but we have very different results. The inclusion of "this OR that" is terribly confusing. Maybe in the first case it was supposed to be and? Again the "no result" doesn't make any sense. For the second, perhaps you roll damage and compare it to the AP/HP of the shield? If it exceeds the shields AP/HP the shield is broken, if not it takes 2 points. Why does a Critical vs. Special do 1 point and a Special vs. Success do 2?

Attack vs. Parry = Result

Special vs. Failure = Attack does normal damage, has special result by weapon type.

Success vs. Failure = Attack strikes defender, defender's armor value subtracted from damage.

This suggests that a Special will ignore armor, which I know isn't right. Perhaps it should read: "Attack does normal damage, defender's armor value subtracted from damage and has special result by weapon type." And the second should read: "Attack does normal damage, defender's armor value subtracted from damage." I think it is important that the exact same phrase be used when you have effectively the same result.

The Shield skill refers you to the "Attack and Parry Matrix" on page 191, but it is actually on page 193 (Jason has probably already caught this one).