Topic: 09-07 Level Bonus Table: RM2 Option - Body Dev Question.

[lachancery]

I searched for this on the forums, but I did not find this question asked.

In table 09-07 on p. 127 of RMC Character Law, the description for Body Dev says: "Applies to the number of "hits" obtained by each Body Development skill rank".

It's my understanding that the rest of this optional table is based on the character's level, not the number of skill ranks. My multiple choice question is thus:

1) Is the description a typo and the bonus is per character level?
2) Is the description accurate, and it's an exception to the way the rest of the bonuses work?
3) Is my understanding flawed, and the bonuses shown for all skills applicable per number of ranks, and not character level?

Thanks.

[Marc R]

Lachancery,

First, I'd like to thank you for asking a clear and concise question, and providing a book and page reference.

I believe the text for the key at the bottom of chart 09-07 should read:

"Body Dev. : Applies to the number of "Hits" obtained from ranks in body Development."

So, if you are 10th level, and your profession gets +1 in "Body Dev." then you get +10 total hits, not +1 per rank of Body Development.

All the other text relating to this section "9.3 Level Bonuses" and this option "23.1: Expanded Level Bonuses For Professions (RM2)" reference levels, as does the boxed note at the bottom of the table.

Does anyone have any comments relating to this before it's moved to official errata?

[lachancery]

Out of curiosity, I went to look in the original Rolemaster Character & Campaign Law, 2nd edition (1989 printing), when this option was introduced. Lo & behold, on page 87, in the table 15.7.2. Level Bonus Table, the description for Body Dev. also reads "Applies to the number of "hits" obtained by each Body Development skill rank". If it is indeed a typo, it is a 23 years old one. 

[Marc R]

It's likely a copy-n-paste style error, which since I was the first editing line of defense on that book, puts a share of the blame on me, but the "per rank" logic doesn't jibe with the rest of the context.

If you read all the associated rules text for that option, can you apply them to ranks, or does trying to use that table note seem to conflict with the rest of the text?

As an example, if you purchased 42 ranks of Body development by level 20, of a profession that gets +1 for BD, would you then get +42 hits? But if you purchased 10 ranks by level 20 you'd get +10, but then get none after level 20? (Since +1 bonuses become +0 after level 20?). You'd need to add on some more rules to make the note work, and when confronted with fixing a table note vs re-writing the whole section of the rules, I lean toward assuming the table note is incorrect and the body text is correct.

Without any of the other supporting rules and restrictions making any reference to ranks there doesn't seem to be any clear way to integrate that table note with any of the rest of the text, so my gut call would be to stick with the general rules text and the context of all the other table notes referencing levels.

[kevinmccollum]

I can't speak for RMC but for RM2, since you capped the hits based on race, it didn't matter if it was a per rank bonus for each rank of body development (which it has been since there was a level bonus). Fighters just capped out much quicker than normal. It continues in the same vein with the background options table where one got +3 per roll for hit points.

[lachancery]

I had read and applied it that way as well. It's one of my new player who called it out. Thanks for the reply.

[JimiSue]

I confess I have not actually read the rule - my first RM GM applied it as per rank developed (so an exception to the usual level bonus rules) and I've just continued applying that. A quirk of the maths though doing it that way is that if you have a bonus in BD you are actually better off in the long term to roll low - because you'd get more bonuses applied before hitting your racial maximum (I've always tracked the bonus sseparate to the BD rolled total for clarity).

I may need to revisit this.