Basic roleplaying combat system

[Gollum]

I think in your case GURPS prepared you for BRP. The complaint that BRP offers too many options is not unique to BRP, it is common among most generic rule systems HERO, GURPS etc.

I think someone coming from another generic system will generally take all the options in stride, as it is a common feature of generic games. I think it is largely those coming from single genre rule systems that get overwhelmed.

Yes, it is true. And even if I only played with Call of Cthulhu before, I already knew the BRP system. The memory of these rules helped me to read through the big golden book and to understand rules.

[Gollum]

Coming back to the main topic of this thread – sorry for the digression…

This has surely been discussed before, but anyway.

p. 203

In settings where shields are also used, a successful shield parry may not be enough to stop a blow, and damage from the attack can potentially pass through the armor value of the shield and to the character. In these cases, armor values for both shield and armor are subtracted before the character takes damage.

Contradicting rule on p.191 (in my printed version) stating that parries with weapon or shield deflects all damage.

Embarrassing..................

I don’t know all Chaosium’s publications, so I can’t say what is the real authors’ intention.

All what I can tell is that the rule page 191 explicitly says: “A successful parry, with weapon or shied, deflects all damage from the incoming attack. A parry is an all-or-nothing affair. Shield AP/PH are used only when dealing with damage done directly to the shield itself, as in an attack to try and destroy a shield or parrying weapon (p206); or when resisting Damage vs Shield AP on the resistance table when parrying a Crushing blow (p196), or when 2 or 4 HP of damage are done to the “parrying weapon or shield” on the Attack and Defense Matrix (p193).”

Having said that, if you look at the AP stat of any shield, you will notice that it is huge: 15, just for a buckler. So, even a critical battle axe blow from a good warrior won’t go through (max of 1d8+2+1d4 = 14).

It remains an all-or-nothing affair.

[vagabond]

Coming back to the main topic of this thread – sorry for the digression…

I don’t know all Chaosium’s publications, so I can’t say what is the real authors’ intention.

All what I can tell is that the rule page 191 explicitly says: “A successful parry, with weapon or shied, deflects all damage from the incoming attack. A parry is an all-or-nothing affair. Shield AP/PH are used only when dealing with damage done directly to the shield itself, as in an attack to try and destroy a shield or parrying weapon (p206); or when resisting Damage vs Shield AP on the resistance table when parrying a Crushing blow (p196), or when 2 or 4 HP of damage are done to the “parrying weapon or shield” on the Attack and Defense Matrix (p193).”

Having said that, if you look at the AP stat of any shield, you will notice that it is huge: 15, just for a buckler. So, even a critical battle axe blow from a good warrior won’t go through (max of 1d8+2+1d4 = 14).

It remains an all-or-nothing affair.

We're talking the BGB, yes? My copy from the original run has no such rule on page 191. Neither does my playtest/proofread copy.

Another item people seem to be ignoring, when using the matrix, if your weapon or shield loses 2 or 4 HP, then the AP/HP drops. When your shield or parrying weapon is down to 2 AP/hp after one long or a few protracted battles (and the PC has not replaced/repaired the shield/parrying weapon), the be very careful the next time your opponent scores a critical hit. Based on the matrix and its note at the bottom, you're going to take damage even if you roll a success for parry.

Also note, two reasons why a shield is better than parrying with your weapon - shields typically have more AP/HP than one handed weapons, and, not only can your weapon lose AP/HP parrying blows, but also when it is parried against. In other words, your weapon stands to lose AP/HP faster than your shield, which means your weapon will break sooner, which means you will be weaponless until you can grab another. Another issue - a fumble while using a weapon to parry could lead to loss of the weapon as well - check out the Melee Weapon Parry Fumble Table. Notice there is no such fumble table for shields.

[RosenMcStern]

Er, gentlemen, is it possible that you have threadjacked a little bit?

[Gollum]

We're talking the BGB, yes? My copy from the original run has no such rule on page 191. Neither does my playtest/proofread copy.

Sure?

By BGB, I mean the big golden book “Basic Roleplaying, the Chaosium Roleplaying system”, printed version, second edition (ISBN-10: 1-56882-347-9, ISBN-13: 978-1-56882-347-8), published in january 2011…

Just a minute: I’m going to search in my book again...

…

Yes, it is still written on my copy, exactly as I quoted it… Page 191, first colomn, Little title Parry, second paragraph.

Wait another minute. I’m going to look in my pdf…

…

Hey! This page is different! But the year of publication too… May 2008.

These are two different versions of the rules. It seems that the authors changed some little things between the two.

No matter. Both are published so both are two valid rules. So the paragraph I quoted is probably an additional optional rule (or interpretation of the rules).

For the rest of your post, I fully do agree.

[Gollum]

Er, gentlemen, is it possible that you have threadjacked a little bit?

Yes. Sorry... But we are back in the topic now.

Edit

A little question, by "to threadjack", you mean to go off topic, doesn't you? I don't know this term.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Gollum

[RosenMcStern]

Yes, the word "threadjack" is a composite of "thread" and "hijack". It is forum lingo.

You probably own the hardcover edition of BRP. So there are some differences between the two. Interesting fact. Is there anything else we should be aware of? Are all these changes included in the errata?

[Atgxtg]

Er, gentlemen, is it possible that you have threadjacked a little bit?

Uh, yeah. I got sidetracked by a negative post against the Elric RPG. My intention was to show how we all look at the BRP system differerntly, and like differernt elemts and incarnations of it, by showing my dislike of CoC. And that opened the floodgates.

[Atgxtg]

Okay, I just want to see if I can put this to bed quickly. If not we can make a differnt thread (or two) about CoC and Chaosium.

First off, no, I haven't read a lot of Mythos tales. I dutifully suffered through several Lovecraft short stories and a novel or two, didn't care for it, and stopped. Yes, I know several other authors wrotee Mythos stuff, and with a different style, and even introduced more human-friendly Mythos being (Nodens). Some of the Mythos authors, such as Robert Bloch, wrote stuff I liked-usually non-Mythos stuff. But that's not what Lovecraft wrote.

It isn't that I don't like the horrot genre, I just don't like pointless gaming. In other horror RPGs the PCs have a chance of defeating evil and can make a difference. That's pretty much a fundemental element of RPGs. THe characters can overcome the bad guys some how. But CoC lacks that. The PCs can't confront the evil in anyway. IN the long term mankind is doomed. THe best a PC can hope for is to live long enough to go permanently insane.

Now, I've read the various posts from supports of CoC, and in most cases CoC is a great game if you dump the Mythos. Or at least most of it. I don't know of any other RPG where such a large percentage of players dump the yery thing the game is desired around.

As for Chaosium, sure times are tough. Especially in the RPG field. But Chasoium has been in limbo-land for decades. Other RPG companies produce product, and there are other methods of getting stuff out to the public (print on demand for one), and for attracting new players. Other companies actually have people in house who create new things, and products that go in new directions. But what innovation there is with D100 has come from third parties.

Okay, so CoC carried Chasoium for the last couple of decades. So what? If Chasoium had gone under twenty years ago, what real difference would it have made to the D100 players? As has been said before, the gold book is a nice toolkit, but all the tools in it already existed.

Okay. Hope that ends this. If not, please rebutt in a new thread.

[Gollum]

Yes, the word "threadjack" is a composite of "thread" and "hijack". It is forum lingo.

Thank you very much. I like improving my English by learning new terms.

You probably own the hardcover edition of BRP.

Yes. I first bought the pdf and, one or two years later, I also bought the hard cover book.

So there are some differences between the two. Interesting fact. Is there anything else we should be aware of? Are all these changes included in the errata?

Actually, I didn't knew there was some differences. Until today, I believed both editions were absolutely identical...

So, I compared them a bit more. I don't have the time to compare the two whole books but I still rapidly did it for the Chapter "Combat" (the topic of this thread); I also looked for the errata (with the pdf: "Basic Roleplaying Corrections").

The errata changes have been made; thus the pdf "Basic Roleplaying Corrctions" becomes obsolete if you have the 2011 hard cover second edition.

And for combats, I didn't notice any other change than the Parry paragraph, page 191. Note that I just looked quickly at each paragraph to see whether they changed. I didn't read them carefully. So, I may be wrong. Now each other page of the Combat chapter looks strictly identical.

[Gollum]

Okay. Hope that ends this. If not, please rebutt in a new thread.

I would have a lot of things to answer... But, finally, I think that it is just "une affaire de goûts" (a matter of taste/preference). Thus, it would probably be an endless discussion, even in another thread.

[Atgxtg]

I would have a lot of things to answer... But, finally, I think that it is just "une affaire de goûts" (a matter of taste/preference). Thus, it would probably be an endless discussion, even in another thread.

That is exactly what it is, a matter of preference. In fact, that was my whole point. I don't like CoC, but a lot of people around here do. It was in response to a dig at Elric!.

Another example for me would be Classic Fantasy. There are those who like it, and who like bringing in old style D&D elements into the BRP system. But for me, one of the reasons why I gravitated to RQ was to get away from old-style D&D elements. So to me, CF is just wrong. It goes in the exact opposite direction that what I want. Not that other people don't or won't like it. But the idea of someone deliberatly trying to make BRP more like D&D has me making SAN checks.

But then, there are things that I like in RPGs that other people don't care for. C'est la vie.

[axe-elf]

CoC is a nice game, but it hasn´t much shield wielding

I have read through the BRP rules now, and my initial indignation on game designer sloppy work has faded a bit. It is a good generic game, when investing some work in it. I have decided on three small fixes on the game combat mechanic that makes a big difference for me

1. Add shield AP to skill rating when shield is used to parry.

2. Axe (battle and wood) do damage of d8+db

3. Weapons may do other special damage than the one listed if plausible, with a -5% to hit (declare before roll).

That sums it up... I hope. Now it only has to be tested in real play.

[vagabond]

Sure?

By BGB, I mean the big golden book “Basic Roleplaying, the Chaosium Roleplaying system”, printed version, second edition (ISBN-10: 1-56882-347-9, ISBN-13: 978-1-56882-347-8), published in january 2011…

Ah, yes. Mine is first printing, May 2008.

ISBN-10: 1-56882-189-1

ISBN-13: 978-1-56882-189-4

which follows the playtest doc almost completely.

Ian

[vagabond]

Another point.

In addition to what I posted above regarding how AP/HP are lost, and what can happen when you lose all AP/HP with your parrying weapon/shield, as well as the fumble table, I highly recommend using the separate attack and parry skill option. That way, a player is forced to choose if they want to invest skill points in parrying with a weapon, and the risks associated with it, or invest in making your shield your prime blocking device. You can then play with the starting skill values for attack and parry/block with weapons and shields to represent weapons are better at attack (higher starting base) but harder to parry with (lower starting base) vs. shields being the reverse (lower starting base for attack, but higher starting base for block).

Also, using the riposte rules, and the above attack and parry skill separation, again, the player must choose between investing points in boosting attack and parry with weapon to get the best riposte option at the expense of greater chance of weapon breakage/loss, vs. spending points in shield block/riposte for less risk when blocking blows, but more ineffective riposte with a shield bash.

[Thalaba]

THe characters can overcome the bad guys some how. But CoC lacks that. The PCs can't confront the evil in anyway. IN the long term mankind is doomed. THe best a PC can hope for is to live long enough to go permanently insane.

This is grossly incorrect. PCs can confront the bad guys who, for the most part, are other humans trying to summon mythos creatures. They can also confront the Mythos creatures and win, though it is more effective to use magic to banish them than to use force to kill them. The fate of mankind on the long term is ambiguous (not 'doomed') and in any case 'the long term' is longer than any PC's natural life, so who cares. PCs need not go insane in the game - it's all in how the GM runs it. The fact that many GMs and players like to play up the insanity when they talk about their games is neither here nor there - you don't have to if you don't want to.

[Gollum]

CoC is a nice game, but it hasn´t much shield wielding

I have read through the BRP rules now, and my initial indignation on game designer sloppy work has faded a bit. It is a good generic game, when investing some work in it. I have decided on three small fixes on the game combat mechanic that makes a big difference for me

1. Add shield AP to skill rating when shield is used to parry.

2. Axe (battle and wood) do damage of d8+db

3. Weapons may do other special damage than the one listed if plausible, with a -5% to hit (declare before roll).

That sums it up... I hope. Now it only has to be tested in real play.

Yes. I sounds to be good house rules. I hope we will see something like that soon. Maybe in the third edition?

[Gollum]

This is grossly incorrect. PCs can confront the bad guys who, for the most part, are other humans trying to summon mythos creatures. They can also confront the Mythos creatures and win, though it is more effective to use magic to banish them than to use force to kill them. The fate of mankind on the long term is ambiguous (not 'doomed') and in any case 'the long term' is longer than any PC's natural life, so who cares. PCs need not go insane in the game - it's all in how the GM runs it. The fact that many GMs and players like to play up the insanity when they talk about their games is neither here nor there - you don't have to if you don't want to.

I do agree with you. But since it is not the topic of this thread, there is another one if you want to gon on with this discussion: Shelfjacked or "Dude! Where's my game?"

[RosenMcStern]

These sound like they would fix your doubts. But I can foresee that they will not work as you think.

1. Add shield AP to skill rating when shield is used to parry.

It is a bit awkward as a rule. It requires adding non-decimal numbers, and a swashbuckler is better off using a hoplite shield than a main gauche (yuck!). Try this instead:

"The final chance of parrying with a shield cannot be inferior to its automatic chance of blocking an incoming missile, that is 15/30/60 according to shield size".

This will make the shield an excellent choice for the unexperienced fighter and against a mob, but a poor choice for the experienced swashbuckler who is 75%+ with his weapons. As it should be.

2. Axe (battle and wood) do damage of d8+db

This way, cutting an inanimate wooden object with an axe is harder than doing the same with a sword. And a warrior in full plate is invulnerable to axes. Swords do not do less damage than axes, they are just easier to wield. If your really want to give swords an edge, make Parry with an axe Difficult.

3. Weapons may do other special damage than the one listed if plausible, with a -5% to hit (declare before roll).

-5% is a nuisance to remember and nothing else. Either you make it Difficult, or you allow all weapons to do all kinds of plausible special damages at no penalty. Also, why on Earth should one pre-declare what he is doing? It is just a complication inherited from RQ3.

Edited September 2, 2012 by RosenMcStern

[axe-elf]

It is a bit awkward as a rule. It requires adding non-decimal numbers, and a swashbuckler is better off using a hoplite shield than a main gauche (yuck!). Try this instead:

"The final chance of parrying with a shield cannot be inferior to its automatic chance of blocking an incoming missile, that is 15/30/60 according to shield size".

Hehe.. I don´t think adding non decimals is a problem. I think it´s fun having shields loose AP/HP during combat (because of crushing or special attack), also loosing some of their effectiveness. It adds to the visualization of combat.

Also I don´t see how a swashbuckler is better of with the hoplite shield. True, it requires more skill to parry with the main gauche (something I think is realistic), but it is also a much better offensive weapon. Remember, shield attack skill rating is halved (halved, not difficult, p.206) and shield AP is not added to skill when attacking. With my rules a swashbuckler could entangle an opponents weapon, and then attack with the main gauche next round (or same round, if he is good).

The shield parrying rule you describe seems OK, also.

This way, cutting an inanimate wooden object with an axe is harder than doing the same with a sword. And a warrior in full plate is invulnerable to axes. Swords do not do less damage than axes, they are just easier to wield. If your really want to give swords an edge, make Parry with an axe Difficult.

True, but I would just make the task difficult or impossible, if players start chopping wood with swords. With my rule a longsword and a battle axe actually gives the same damage.

-5% is a nuisance to remember and nothing else. Either you make it Difficult, or you allow all weapons to do all kinds of plausible special damages at no penalty. Also, why on Earth should one pre-declare what he is doing? It is just a complication inherited from RQ3.

I like the pre-declare. Then players would say something like "I try to impale his face with my broadsword (-5% for impaling, halved for difficult aimed strike)", rather than "I whack at my opponent". More graphical violence!

They would say: "I try to entangle my opponents sword with my rapier guard, so I can stab him with my parrying dagger next round." ... and so on.

Edited September 2, 2012 by axe-elf

[Atgxtg]

The thing is, from those of use who have played this game a lot, minor incremental skill modifiers might seem like they give you more precision and accuracy, but in play they just aren't worth the trouble to track. Just ask about RQ3's fatigue points to open up a floodgate of complaints over just that. A percent or two here or there isn't worth the bother.

AS far as changing specials go, the -5% is, as Rosen says, just a nuisence. If you want a weapon to be less effective impaling or what not, just reduce it's impale damage. It was done with halbard. So you could have a boradsword do 1D8+1, or 2D6+2 on an impale. It's easier to deal with since it the players don't have to add a modifier.

[RosenMcStern]

With my rule a longsword and a battle axe actually gives the same damage.

You are focusing on a weapon entry that does not correspond at all to what you think. The longsword that is described in the example is NOT the equivalent of the D&D longsword: look at the stats, it requires STR 7, shoud it do the same damage as a battleaxe that requirese STR 9? It has 15 HP and the same average damage as a rapier or shortsword, what else do you need to show you that it is a variant of the rapier and not Conan's or Aragorn's weapon? The weapon to which you should compare the battleaxe is the Bastard Sword, and it already does the same damage (actually 1 extra point on a crit). THAT is Conan's or Beowulf's weapon.

[axe-elf]

The thing is, from those of use who have played this game a lot, minor incremental skill modifiers might seem like they give you more precision and accuracy, but in play they just aren't worth the trouble to track. Just ask about RQ3's fatigue points to open up a floodgate of complaints over just that. A percent or two here or there isn't worth the bother.

AS far as changing specials go, the -5% is, as Rosen says, just a nuisence. If you want a weapon to be less effective impaling or what not, just reduce it's impale damage. It was done with halbard. So you could have a boradsword do 1D8+1, or 2D6+2 on an impale. It's easier to deal with since it the players don't have to add a modifier.

We´ll see what my players will say. Players may continue to do listed special damage. But if they want that special attack, I´ll make it a little bit more difficult. If I forget the -5%, I´ll come crawling back to this forum and ask you for forgiveness

[axe-elf]

You are focusing on a weapon entry that does not correspond at all to what you think. The longsword that is described in the example is NOT the equivalent of the D&D longsword: look at the stats, it requires STR 7, shoud it do the same damage as a battleaxe that requirese STR 9? It has 15 HP and the same average damage as a rapier or shortsword, what else do you need to show you that it is a variant of the rapier and not Conan's or Aragorn's weapon? The weapon to which you should compare the battleaxe is the Bastard Sword, and it already does the same damage (actually 1 extra point on a crit). THAT is Conan's or Beowulf's weapon.

I do actually think on a viking sword, not a D&D Conan sword, when I imagine the longsword. This was a one handed weapon purchased by those wealthy enough to replace it with the 1H battle axe. As the BRP rules are now, battle axe is even mightier than the broad sword.

Seems like the game designers loved axes and hated shields

[RosenMcStern]

I do actually think on a viking sword, not a D&D Conan sword, when I imagine the longsword. This was a one handed weapon purchased by those wealthy enough to replace it with the 1H battle axe.

Well, THAT weapon should have the stats of the broadsword or better the bastard sword, NOT the long sword listed in the BGB. It is your game, but I see no point whatsoever in nerfing the battleaxe to the point of making it useless against an armoured foe just because you have mistaken the entry for the slashing renaissance sword for the weapon of choice of the Vikings.

If you want a good representation of Viking equipment, try Mythic Iceland or Vikings of Legend.