Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

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.

[SDLeary]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

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

[Pete Nash]

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!

[SDLeary]

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

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

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.

[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!

Originally Posted by randallorndorff

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.