The problem with Specials

[Lord Twig]

Well, I don't know if it is a problem for everyone, but I am having a problem with them. Specifically Specials in combat.

In RQ3 if you rolled a Special success with an impaling weapon you did double weapon damage. A Special success with any other weapon did Special Knockback, but that was about it. Honestly we didn't think that was good enough and we added some house rules to help things out, but I won't go into that.

BRP allows all weapons to do something extra on a Special success, which is a good idea, but I'm not sure if it was executed well enough. It still has impaling and knockback, which is fine, but it adds bleeding and crushing, which I think have some issues.

Bleeding is a nice idea, but I'm not sure it is as useful as an impale. Also it requires that you start tracking a bleeding wound and requires a roll every round to see if the bleeding stops. This slows down the game for little gain (1hp per round).

Crushing increases the damage from your Damage Bonus, but generally not as much extra damage as an impale would do. If that was all it did it would just be a poor man's impale, but it also gives you a chance to stun your opponent for 1d3 rounds. Being stunned for 1d3 rounds is HUGE. However! You only stun your opponent if they fail a Stamina roll. This means that no matter who you are, whether you are a street urchin throwing a rock or a giant swinging a tree, your opponent has their Conx5 to resist being stunned. To me this means that it is vital that all characters get their Con up to, or as close to, 19 as possible. The result of failing a Stamina check against a Crushing attack is simply to great to risk.

I am not sure how I will deal with this in my game. It may be that it will work out fine, but right now I am thinking that it needs to be fixed.

Thoughts?

[Richard]

This does look problematic. I guess a lot depends on the exact meaning of being 'stunned'. Are you helpless, in which case this is a serious problem, or just at a penalty on your rolls? Off the top of my head maybe a simple 20% penalty for the victim, or whatever you think appropriate, on all rolls for the duration of the 'stun' would be believable and effective. For bleeding you could forego CON rolls and just say that the victim bleeds dependent on the minimum damage of the weapon. eg A dagger doing 1d4+2 causing bleeding would mean you bleed 1pt a round for 3 rounds. It would take into account the nature of the damage to some extent. CON is really already affecting the situation by helping to determine your Hit Points in the first place but maybe allow an initial CON roll to successfully 'congeal' or get lucky and only bleed for a round. Or it might be more realistic to have blood loss occur over turns rather than rounds.

[RosenMcStern]

Make a Resistance Roll of Crushing Damage vs. CON (or better starting HP) to determine whether you are stunned. Use Hit Locations and apply the stun result to the location only (as if temporarily reduced to 0 HP). Or just drop this result and leave crushing weapons to trolls with 2d6 damage bonus.

[Charles Green]

They aren't as big a problem during play as it seems in the book. At least, I don't find them to be so.

[frogspawner]

BRP allows all weapons to do something extra on a Special success, which is a good idea, but I'm not sure if it was executed well enough. It still has impaling and knockback, which is fine, but it adds bleeding and crushing, which I think have some issues.

Yes, simplifying Bleed and limiting Crush effects is probably a good idea. Something along the lines Richard/RosenMcStern suggested should do the job.

But I think these effects should be relatively minor, and just there to make combat a bit more interesting. Because I'm guessing that if you've rolled a Special (or thereabouts) you've probably scored a success for Martial Arts with that weapon - and that gives the traditional double damage effect, whatever the weapon type.

Surely, in new BRP, all serious combat-specialists would have Martial Arts(favourite weapon) skills?

[Shaira]

Surely, in new BRP, all serious combat-specialists would have Martial Arts(favourite weapon) skills?

I should think so - my guess is that is the intention of the rule. You can easily define a variety of styles, "Way of the Blade of Fire"-type special shao lin manoeuvres, etc, which apply to one or more weapons and let combat specialists learn them - making them as accessible or inaccessible as you want. It allows combat specialists to get special abilities, and differentiate themselves massively from more stealth- or magic-oriented types.

My own feeling is to make these "martial arts" something you have to belong to a particular guild / school / legion etc to learn. I'm toying with the idea of capping your martial arts skill with your Status in that school / guild / legion / etc - or at least tying them in somehow.

At least it gives fighters a chance of punching through all that demon armor flying around in my high level campaigns!

Cheers,

Sarah

[Jason D]

Surely, in new BRP, all serious combat-specialists would have Martial Arts(favourite weapon) skills?

My own feeling is to make these "martial arts" something you have to belong to a particular guild / school / legion etc to learn. I'm toying with the idea of capping your martial arts skill with your Status in that school / guild / legion / etc - or at least tying them in somehow.

Which is why I wrote this:

Due to its relative power, the gamemaster may rule that the initial skill rating in this skill be limited, that increases to this skill may be limited to training rather than normal experience, that training may be incredibly difficult to obtain, or all three of these conditions.

I'd never let players take the Martial Arts skill without a very specific reason for it relating to their origin or backstory.

I anticipate seeking out training in this skill as a big carrot for player-character warriors.

[Atgxtg]

Just once I'd like to see people are worried that the specials for Craft:Basket-Weaving are too powerful, or slow down the game or some such.

I have a suspicion that the real major flaws in any game system go unnoticed becuase they don't involve the possible death of a PC.

[Harshax]

Just once I'd like to see people are worried that the specials for Craft:Basket-Weaving are too powerful, or slow down the game or some such.

I have a suspicion that the real major flaws in any game system go unnoticed becuase they don't involve the possible death of a PC.

You should check out HarnMaster.

[NickMiddleton]

Which is why I wrote this:

I'd never let players take the Martial Arts skill without a very specific reason for it relating to their origin or backstory.

I anticipate seeking out training in this skill as a big carrot for player-character warriors.

Hehn - it was re-reading that bit recently that snapped a detail of a fantasy setting I've been working on for ages in to focus. How to give something unique and worthwhile with a modicum of rule reinforcement to the Ordos (vaguely "religious / scholarly brotherhoods of warriors and monastic types" not tied to the organised religions in the setting)? Simple - the Ordos are the only widely known about source of training in Martial Arts...

Cheers,

Nick

[frogspawner]

Due to its relative power, the gamemaster may rule that the initial skill rating in this skill be limited, that increases to this skill may be limited to training rather than normal experience, that training may be incredibly difficult to obtain, or all three of these conditions.

The limitation I'm using is that Martial Arts increases are restricted to +1%, as well as initial restriction and being tied to character background, of course. (Yes, a house rule already - sorry! But I hope it's not too out-of-keeping with straight BRP).