Typos, Errata , Corrections, and Clarifications

[Jason Durall]

Originally Posted by The Venomous Pao

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.

Originally Posted by The Venomous Pao

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]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

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

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

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 Durall]

Originally Posted by Shaira

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 Durall]

Originally Posted by Shaira

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 Durall]

Originally Posted by Shaira

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.