A couple of questions

[sumtara]

Finally get time to read the rules and a couple of things have me a little confused.

Weapon breakage rules seemed to be mostly Stormbringer / Elric rules with some RQ 3 stiched on . The * note at the bottom of the Attack and Defense matrix does not make sense. It talks about the remainder of damage that gets past a broken weapon / shield gets applied to the attacker. But the enteries marked with * state that no damage is rolled.

Is the Opposed skill text on page 173 supposed to be in the main text as it duplicates the optional rule on page174? Also it does not really gel with the results listed under skills such as stealth on page 81.

[Jason D]

I'll take a look at it over the weekend (swamped here at work and without my book), but hope to have some answers for you other than "Hey, new errata!"

[sumtara]

I'll take a look at it over the weekend (swamped here at work and without my book), but hope to have some answers for you other than "Hey, new errata!"

Did you get a look?

[Jason D]

Did you get a look?

I must confess I didn't get the chance.

This weekend was a swamp of family-related duties, as well as being a holiday weekend with obligatory social engagements.

[vagabond]

Weapon breakage rules seemed to be mostly Stormbringer / Elric rules with some RQ 3 stiched on . The * note at the bottom of the Attack and Defense matrix does not make sense. It talks about the remainder of damage that gets past a broken weapon / shield gets applied to the attacker. But the enteries marked with * state that no damage is rolled.

Actually, if you look closely, some of the asterisked entries state damage is

rolled. It looks like either a global search and add was done on the chart, or

someone wasn't paying too close attention. The bottom two or three asterisked

entries are failed attacks or attacks that are beaten by superior parries, and

thus no damage is rolled. But, the top two or three are successful attacks

and lesser parries where the parrying weapon takes damage and can break.

So for those entries, the asterisk is correct. The matrix makes sense over all,

just a minor annoyance.

Is the Opposed skill text on page 173 supposed to be in the main text as it duplicates the optional rule on page174? Also it does not really gel with the results listed under skills such as stealth on page 81.

I'll reread this section later.

Ian

[sumtara]

Actually, if you look closely, some of the asterisked entries state damage is

rolled. It looks like either a global search and add was done on the chart, or

someone wasn't paying too close attention. The bottom two or three asterisked

entries are failed attacks or attacks that are beaten by superior parries, and

thus no damage is rolled. But, the top two or three are successful attacks

and lesser parries where the parrying weapon takes damage and can break.

So for those entries, the asterisk is correct. The matrix makes sense over all,

just a minor annoyance.

Ian

No still does not make sense

"Critical attack versus special parry

partially deflected or dodged and achieves a

success. Attacker strikes defender and rolls damage

normally. Defender’s armor value subtracted from

damage. Parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of

damage.*"

Nothing in that states that any damage is reduced it is the quality of success that is reduced. Damaged inflicted to Parrying weapons is a fixed amout and has nothing to do with the weapon used. These rules seem to come from Elric / SB 5. But the Damage rolled v's Weapon Hp'ss is only applied on Attacks and Parries with same result e.g. Successful attack v's successful Parry.

This is the Elric rule.

"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 of damage 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. >Exception: the attack and parry matrix notes two instances when a weapon (but not a shield) loses hit points without first having itsown hit points exceeded."

How would you implement the rule as written? Attack rolls critical and defernder rolls success. Attackers rolls normal damage and compares it to the defending weapon's hit points - 4. If the damage is greater the weapon is broken and the difference is applied to the target.

[vagabond]

No still does not make sense

"Critical attack versus special parry

partially deflected or dodged and achieves a

success. Attacker strikes defender and rolls damage

normally. Defender’s armor value subtracted from

damage. Parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of

damage.*"

Nothing in that states that any damage is reduced it is the quality of success that is reduced. Damaged inflicted to Parrying weapons is a fixed amout and has nothing to do with the weapon used. These rules seem to come from Elric "/ SB 5. But the Damage rolled v's Weapon Hp'ss is only applied on Attacks and Parries with same result e.g. Successful attack v's successful Parry.

This is the Elric rule.

"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 of damage 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. >Exception: the attack and parry matrix notes two instances when a weapon (but not a shield) loses hit points without first having itsown hit points exceeded."

How would you implement the rule as written? Attack rolls critical and defernder rolls success. Attackers rolls normal damage and compares it to the defending weapon's hit points - 4. If the damage is greater the weapon is broken and the difference is applied to the target.

Make perfect sense as written.

"Attacker strikes defender and rolls damage normally" - clear as day

"Defender’s armor value subtracted from damage" - clear as day

"Parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage" - clear as day

So, the attack does normal rolled damage, armor defends, and parrying weapon

takes 2 HP. So, the defender takes damage roll - armor defense. Again,

it is sloppy editing, but it is pretty clear. The only question would be if the

parrying weapon takes 2 HP of damage, but only has one HP left, does the

remaining 1 HP of damage pass on to the defender. I'd say yes, but that

is the only unclear part of the rule IMHO.

You are right that this is partially based upon the Elric!/Stormbringer rules,

and perhaps could be rewritten a little better, but it is does make sense as

is.

-V

[Shaira]

No still does not make sense

"Critical attack versus special parry

partially deflected or dodged and achieves a

success. Attacker strikes defender and rolls damage

normally. Defender’s armor value subtracted from

damage. Parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of

damage.*"

Nothing in that states that any damage is reduced it is the quality of success that is reduced. Damaged inflicted to Parrying weapons is a fixed amout and has nothing to do with the weapon used. These rules seem to come from Elric / SB 5. But the Damage rolled v's Weapon Hp'ss is only applied on Attacks and Parries with same result e.g. Successful attack v's successful Parry.

[...]

How would you implement the rule as written? Attack rolls critical and defernder rolls success. Attackers rolls normal damage and compares it to the defending weapon's hit points - 4. If the damage is greater the weapon is broken and the difference is applied to the target.

This gets easier to understand when you take the following premises:

i.) Attack vs Parry / Dodge is basically an Opposed Roll. A successful Parry or Dodge degrades the level of success of the Attack.

ii.) A successful Parry / Dodge *completely avoids* a successful Attack. You don't roll damage for the attack and compare it to the Parrying weapon's HP as you did in RQ3 - it's an all or nothing thing.

Keeping the above points in mind, Critical Attack vs Special Parry works as follows:

- The Special Parry reduces the Critical Attack by 2 success levels, ie it effectively *becomes* a Standard Successful Attack. The Parry in that instance has no further effect - it's not going to block any damage from that Standard Successful Attack, for example.

- You roll the Standard Successful Attack damage and apply it to the target, reducing for armor (it's a Standard Success, not a Critical any more).

- As stated in the Attack / Defense Matrix, the Parrying weapon or shield takes 2 points of damage directly to its HP.

That's it. I think a lot of confusion can come from expecting Parries to operate as they did in RQ - they don't.

The asterisked footnote at the bottom of the Attack / Defense Matrix could be clearer, that's for sure. What *I think* it's addressing is what happens, for example, if the Parrying weapon only has 1HP left when it Special Parries a Critical Blow. We could probably use a little clarification here from Jason, but I think this means either:

i.) The remainder of the 2 points of damage caused by the Special Parry vs Critical Attack (for example) gets through, ie 1 point of damage. This seems a bit lame.

OR

ii.) If the Parrying weapon does in fact break, at that point you should roll the Attacking Weapon's damage *as a normal attack*, subtract however much damage the Parrying Weapon sustained before breaking (1 or 2 points in the case of Special Parry vs Critical Attack), and the rest gets through.

That's the way I see it (and am currently playing it)!

Cheers,

Sarah

[vagabond]

Is the Opposed skill text on page 173 supposed to be in the main text as it duplicates the optional rule on page174? Also it does not really gel with the results listed under skills such as stealth on page 81.

OK, I finally got a chance to read this stuff in detail. The text on page 173 is

different from the first optional rule on page 174. In essence, the main

rule states that skills are rolled, and degrees of success determine who succeeds.

The better degree of success is the winner, with the loser's degree of success

can reduce the winner's success. In the event that both sides roll equivalent

degrees of success, the higher roll wins. This favors the side with the higher

skill level, but still allows the lesser skilled side a chance. The first optional rule

basically says to ignore the degrees of success and just compare dice rolls

Black Jack style. The highest successful roll wins. Again, this slightly favors

the side with the higher skill, but still allows the lower skilled opponent a

chance. If you reread it closely with this summary in mind, you'll see the

difference in the text.

The main rule retains the degrees of success, so the description of Stealth

on page 80 (not 81) is still valid. The different levels of success indicate what

level of success is needed with a Listen roll. The first optional rule does away

with levels of success altogether.

-V

[sumtara]

The main rule retains the degrees of success, so the description of Stealth

on page 80 (not 81) is still valid. The different levels of success indicate what

level of success is needed with a Listen roll. The first optional rule does away

with levels of success altogether.

-V

So using the oppossed roll system in the main rules someone using Stealth makes and oppossed roll against a Listen roll. Any level of sucess means that a new Listen roll is made (noting that under success in the Stealth skill text it says a successful Listen check must be made and not has to have been made). On a failure the character making the Stealth roll must make a luck roll and Fumble gets the character noticed by everyone)

[vagabond]

So using the oppossed roll system in the main rules someone using Stealth makes and oppossed roll against a Listen roll. Any level of sucess means that a new Listen roll is made (noting that under success in the Stealth skill text it says a successful Listen check must be made and not has to have been made). On a failure the character making the Stealth roll must make a luck roll and Fumble gets the character noticed by everyone)

You're not quite understanding it.

The description on page 80 says that a Stealth success of succeed or better

requires a Listen success of equivalent or better level to notice. It does not

say to roll again. It is just laying out what is required. In other words, it pretty

much echoes how the Opposed Skill test works.

So, using the main rule, one side rolls against Stealth, and the other against

Listen. Compare the levels of success to determine who "wins" the contest,

with any necessary success level shifts applied. Finally, in the event of a tie

(i.e. both sides rolled equivalent success levels), the side who rolled highest

wins.

-V

[Jason D]

You're not quite understanding it.

The description on page 80 says that a Stealth success of succeed or better

requires a Listen success of equivalent or better level to notice. It does not

say to roll again. It is just laying out what is required. In other words, it pretty

much echoes how the Opposed Skill test works.

So, using the main rule, one side rolls against Stealth, and the other against

Listen. Compare the levels of success to determine who "wins" the contest,

with any necessary success level shifts applied. Finally, in the event of a tie

(i.e. both sides rolled equivalent success levels), the side who rolled highest

wins.

-V

This is indeed the correct interpretation.

My apologies if it was vague... though I didn't write the skills chapter, I did edit and rewrite some of it, and should have made it plainer.

[Jason D]

The asterisked footnote at the bottom of the Attack / Defense Matrix could be clearer, that's for sure. What *I think* it's addressing is what happens, for example, if the Parrying weapon only has 1HP left when it Special Parries a Critical Blow. We could probably use a little clarification here from Jason, but I think this means either:

...

OR

ii.) If the Parrying weapon does in fact break, at that point you should roll the Attacking Weapon's damage *as a normal attack*, subtract however much damage the Parrying Weapon sustained before breaking (1 or 2 points in the case of Special Parry vs Critical Attack), and the rest gets through.

The second of Sarah's explanations is the correct one.

My apologies... in the back-and-forth of sending edited text, it was sometimes difficult (if not impossible) to make sure that the revised text in a table matched the surrounding text (which sometimes had also been edited by someone other than myself).

BRP had three outstanding volunteer editor/proofers in the form of Sarah, Rodney, and Ben Monroe. I edited the pre-EZ draft, and Charlie did an editorial pass of his own. So Charlie had the task of trying to assemble four separate (sometimes redundant, sometimes contradictory) sets of edits into a single book, in addition to my own last-minute additions and "Ooh, if you can, add this..." inserts.

I worry that the book probably needed one last "every change made under one set of covers" editing pass, but the timing was such that I think we would have been dragged from our computers, out of our homes, and stomped to death in the streets by anxious BRP fans if we had delayed the release any longer.

[Shaira]

I worry that the book probably needed one last "every change made under one set of covers" editing pass, but the timing was such that I think we would have been dragged from our computers, out of our homes, and stomped to death in the streets by anxious BRP fans if we had delayed the release any longer.

I suggest we follow the Grand Old Tradition and compile any errata or clarifications . Actually - Trif's new wiki would be perfect for this sort of thing. How 'bout it Sverre? Could you set something up so we can post up clarifications, etc, by page number? It'd be a good central point to collate all this stuff.

Cheers,

Sarah

[sumtara]

You're not quite understanding it.

The description on page 80 says that a Stealth success of succeed or better

requires a Listen success of equivalent or better level to notice. It does not

say to roll again. It is just laying out what is required. In other words, it pretty

much echoes how the Opposed Skill test works.

So, using the main rule, one side rolls against Stealth, and the other against

Listen. Compare the levels of success to determine who "wins" the contest,

with any necessary success level shifts applied. Finally, in the event of a tie

(i.e. both sides rolled equivalent success levels), the side who rolled highest

wins.

-V

What about the Hide skill if it is suppossed to be an oppossed roll. What spot roll are the modifiers listed in the hide roll result descriptions suppose to apply to?

It looks to me that the results descriptions under the skills where created before the oppossed roll system.

[vagabond]

What about the Hide skill if it is suppossed to be an oppossed roll. What spot roll are the modifiers listed in the hide roll result descriptions suppose to apply to?

It looks to me that the results descriptions under the skills where created before the oppossed roll system.

Again. I'll have to re-read the Hide skill description.

The skill descriptions were most likely not created before the opposed roll system,

but it is possible that they were written without consulting the opposed roll system.

Or, the skill descriptions are meant to be "descriptive" more than "mechanical".

Either way, I'll reply later.

-V

[Jason D]

The skill descriptions were most likely not created before the opposed roll system, but it is possible that they were written without consulting the opposed roll system.

I suspect that this was the problem. I was actually sort of surprised when Sam turned in the skills chapter with detailed success levels described for each and every skill.

[vagabond]

What about the Hide skill if it is suppossed to be an oppossed roll. What spot roll are the modifiers listed in the hide roll result descriptions suppose to apply to?

OK, my interpretation of how to handle it, so don't count it as "written in

stone". Jason can chime in on it as he sees fit.

Stealth/Listen is a true opposed skill test. Both events happen simultaneously.

Both skills are tested against as active skills at the same time. You try to move

silently while someone is listening.

Hide/Spot is not simultaneous. One does not try to hide from someone else

while they are being observed by that person. One does not try to hide an

object while someone is watching them (that would be Sleight of Hand).

So, the "Hider" rolls against Hide. Once the result is determined, refer to the

skill description to see how the "Spotter" is affected. In the case of a Fumbled

Hide, for example, the Spot roll is now an "Easy" task. In the case of

hiding an object, the Spot roll gets a bonus. So, roll against Spot, modified by

as described in the Hide skill description, and determine results. In the case

of hiding an object, the final roll results are compared as if a normal Opposed

Skill test including modifiers. In the case of hiding yourself, the skill description

says basically that the Spot need to have a greater Level of Success than

the Hide, that there are no "ties". This is fine with me since, as I said, Hide/Spot

are not truly Opposed Skill test. However, you can easily use the normal

Opposed Skill test to resolve it.

The exception to the simultaneous Hide/Spot is when someone is attempting

to sneak past someone else. But, in the Hide skill description, that is covered

with two successful Hide rolls and a successful Stealth roll. Hide assumes the

person is sitting still.

-V

[Trifletraxor]

I suggest we follow the Grand Old Tradition and compile any errata or clarifications . Actually - Trif's new wiki would be perfect for this sort of thing. How 'bout it Sverre? Could you set something up so we can post up clarifications, etc, by page number? It'd be a good central point to collate all this stuff.

Cheers,

Sarah

That sounds like an article we could post in the Appendix!

SGL.

[Shaira]

That sounds like an article we could post in the Appendix!

SGL.

Ooops... I already posted an "Errata and Clarification" page after the Appendix - let me know if you want it changed!

Cheers,

Sarah

[Trifletraxor]

Ooops... I already posted an "Errata and Clarification" page after the Appendix - let me know if you want it changed!

Cheers,

Sarah

I just moved it over to an article in the Appendices chapter.

Found here now: appendices:errata_and_clarifications [basic Roleplaying Wiki]

SGL.

[sumtara]

Another question, on the attack matrix why does a special attack v's a failed or fumbled parry / dodge do maximum damage?

[SteveMND]

I just moved it over to an article in the Appendices chapter.

Found here now: appendices:errata_and_clarifications [basic Roleplaying Wiki]

SGL.

If I could make a suggestion, could errata and clarifications be noted as such when added to the Wiki (i.e., this is official errata; this is a clarification), and also a reference and/or link provided back to the original official source of said errata or clarification (presumably here on the forums or the Chaosium site or such)?

[Jason D]

Another question, on the attack matrix why does a special attack v's a failed or fumbled parry / dodge do maximum damage?

I'll look at it this weekend, but it might be a simple glitch - it should do the special result.

[Shaira]

If I could make a suggestion, could errata and clarifications be noted as such when added to the Wiki (i.e., this is official errata; this is a clarification), and also a reference and/or link provided back to the original official source of said errata or clarification (presumably here on the forums or the Chaosium site or such)?

Hi Steve,

I'm hoping that the ONLY things that go in the Errata & Clarifications section are official, ie provided by Jason or similar authority. Naturally it's possible for others to add things that aren't actually official, but that's the nature of a wiki. I'll go and put a "Source" entry in the existing 2 items to show their origin - that should be a good start.

Other stuff that isn't official / from Jason should probably go in the "Variants and Houserules" parts of the wiki, rather than the Errata.

Cheers,

Sarah