Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Arioch on March 09, 2009, 10:27:45 PM
-
I've been using Combat Companion for a while now, and I would like to share some thoughts/opinion about it. :)
What I liked:
- the new armor rules: reducing skills needed for armors to one was imho a very good idea. The AbtP rules are a bit complex (expecially when you try to figure out material/magical bonuses for single armor pieces) but I liked them, as they fix some of the problems of the old AT rules, in addition to expanding characters' options regarding armors.
- combat styles: I really liked how the new maneuvers expanded tactical options during combat for all characters (we had mages blocking attacks with their staves, fighters going from defensive manuevers to all-out attacks using killing strike etc, depending on the situation, archers aiming at their targets using the brace maneuver, and so on... my players really loved this part of the system!).
Combat styles also fixed other problems, like some unbalance issues we had with Adrenal Defense and the old MAC division between Basic/Advanced styles.
Plus, IMHO the weapon division into groups is much easier and makes much more sense than any weapon catergory.
- condensed combat tables: quick and easy to read! I'm starting to prefer them to normal "single weapon" tables from Arms Law.
Where I think it could be improved:
- Maneuvers: I think that they're a good concept, but imho they should be free, every character should be able to attempt them with no penalty and with every style. Linking them to single styles cause some problem (expecially beacuse they raise the final cost of the style): for example in some situation my players wanted to try a particular maneuver (like feinting or disarm) and telling them "no, you can't because it's not in your style" felt a bit constraining, expecially in a system as RM, where usually you can at least attempt to do anything.
- Maneuvers (2): some of the maneuvers (disarm, for example) used different mechanics in their resolution (for example man. roll plus resistance roll, plus maybe some modifier to OB). I think that this is a bit awkward and that it can be confusing, using only one mechanic to resolve them would imho be much better.
- AbtP: as I said above, they could be probably made a little easier.
- Combat tables: I think they carried over some of the old Arms Law tables problems, but I'm mostly talking about the various "status" (stunned, KO, etc...) causing some confusion on what is needed to heal them and I think that without a complete revision of criticals' nomenclature this problem cannot be resolved.
Also I think that the chapter about using them should have made more clear that flavor text in criticals entries is just flavor text, and that it should be taken only as an example.
What do you think? Any other impression/suggesition on CC??
-
Arioch;
I would have let the play try a maneuver but provided a heavy penalty. But you talking about it may allow Rasyr to add an article to a RMC edition or a RMX edition.
MDC
-
Arioch;
I would have let the play try a maneuver but provided a heavy penalty. But you talking about it may allow Rasyr to add an article to a RMC edition or a RMX edition.
MDC
I already had a similar idea (if you search the forum you should find another discussion where I adressed this issue), actually tested it for a while and this lead me to think that maneuver should be free and with no penalty attached to them (more or less like harp combat maneuvers).
-
In one issue of Express Additions, there is an option to remove them from styles, and to allow them to be acquired for either a single style OR all styles through purchase (i.e. DP spending).
However, if you want to give them for free, then I would suggest that institute a plan that only allows one move to be learned every so often. Perhaps starting them off with one or more.
For Example:
For Melee/Ranged Maneuvers
Fighters - Start with 3 moves
Rogues - Start with 2 moves
Thieves and CC Professions - start with 1 move
All others - start with 0 moves
For Martial Arts moves
Warrior Monks - 3 MA moves
Monks - 2 MA moves
All others - Start with 0 moves
And then gain 1 additional move for every 5 ranks in a weapon or MA skill -- the move to be learned is required to be of the same type of the ranks -- ranks from multiple skills do NOT add together
Joe the Fighter starts with 3 moves. He then gets skill with Broadsword and bow. He has 4 ranks in each. When he goes up a level he only buys 2 ranks in broadsword, giving his 6 ranks in it and 4 in his bow. This means that he learns a new combat move, but it has to be a melee move, it cannot be a move for use with the bow.
Next time he goes up a level, he gets 2 ranks in bow, putting it to 6. This allows him another combat move, but this one has to be one that can be used with his bow.
Just an idea....
-
I like it ;D
-
I prefer the way maneuvers are resolved in Harp. The rest of the combat rules in CC are great (styles...).
-
Many of the maneuvers in CC I allow as a fixed option available to anyone, much like parry, since they are effectively limited by OB anyway. It works well. Instead in my own rules for combat styles I use talents that are tied to to style and available for purchase for one time DP costs.
-
In one issue of Express Additions, there is an option to remove them from styles, and to allow them to be acquired for either a single style OR all styles through purchase (i.e. DP spending).
I think that in my future games I'll use the option from that Express Additions (my players will kill me if I tell them that I'm going to change how styles are handled once more ;D).
But overall I agree with Vroom and think that most of the maneuvers should be freely avaiable to all characters (fall characters should be able to attempt to feint, to disarm an opponent, to brace/aim, to try a reverse stroke, etc...).
Limiting access to this kind of maneuver IMO is somehow strange in a system like RM, where usually alla characters can attempt any kind of maneuver, regardless of their profession.
At the same time I don't think that making them free for all characters would be overpowered or unbalancing, as maneuvers effectivness depend mainly on character's OB.
But I don't know, maybe there's some problem I cannot see in this approach.
Note that overall I think that CC is really cool, and a great addition to RM set of rules.
Actually, if a RM revision will be ever done, I hope that its combat system will include many of the CC options, as they make combat more vibrant and tactical.
-
A little update, I've decided to make some maneuvers free for all (everyone can use them if they're using the right type of attack) and discard the others.
These are the maneuvers that I've decided to keep:
- Basic (All)
- Brace
- Defensive Strike/Throw
- Disarm/ Martial Disarm/ Disarming Throw/ Grappling Disarm
- Far Shot/ Far Throw
- Fast Strike/ Quick Shot
- Grab
- Grappling Block
- Killing Shot/ Killing Strike
- Legsweep
- Martial Strike
- Martial Throw
- Offensive Shot/Strike
- Riverse Stroke
- Sacrifice Disarm
- Sacrifice Throw/Strike
- Feint
What do you think?
-
IMO I would let the PC's pick a number of them that they can use without any penalty and the rest would be used unskilled. So for example every PC gets 3 at rank 1, and another 4 at rank 5, etc. That way they are not proficient all across the board in combat maneuvers.
MDC
-
IMO including the maneuvers in the style is the best option (as in CC rules), because we have the profesion differences in a direct way in the DP cost. So a fighter can have more maneuvers as its base cost is lower than for a rogue.
There is an easy and versatile way, use a "set" of common maneuvers, and allow to use them with no including it in the style, but with a penalty (like -25 or -30). Disarm is a clear example of common maneuver. This set is personal for any GM and there is no need for a common rule about his.
In styles, I'd only change (and we changed it for our game), that you can add ANY at any time, while originally there are points that are fixed, like the single-group weapons for the style. I think the usual way to learn weapon styles is first focus in a single weapon, and once 'mastered' (so you have enough bonus to combat well) expand it to more weapons. I like characters to be versatile.
About armors, it can take some work at begining, but once you learn how to use it there is really not much work.
The other point I'd revise is the attacks parameters, like the magic 'balls' and 'bolts' (there is a thread about this), as other weapons that we see they lose effectiveness while others not.
-
IMO I would let the PC's pick a number of them that they can use without any penalty and the rest would be used unskilled. So for example every PC gets 3 at rank 1, and another 4 at rank 5, etc. That way they are not proficient all across the board in combat maneuvers.
MDC
Why?
There is an easy and versatile way, use a "set" of common maneuvers, and allow to use them with no including it in the style, but with a penalty (like -25 or -30). Disarm is a clear example of common maneuver. This set is personal for any GM and there is no need for a common rule about his.
I don't think that a fixed penalty for "untrained" use would be a good choice: adding a manuever to a style makes its costs higher and this would mean that PCs would be paying multiple times for a single-time advantage.
-
Arioch,
Why? well IMO as you learn a style you will only be able to pick up some much information. So even if they show you all of them you should not IMO be able to pick up all of the maneuvers. Does this make sense to you?
MDC
-
Not much to tell the truth, I really can't see why a character shouldn't be able to at least attempt any maneuver in the list.
On the contrary, I see plenty of reasons to let them: imho it's more balanced (as anyone can attempt any move), for many of them is also more "realistic" (the fact that a character cannot attempt to disarm? or feint is just silly imho), and they make combat more tactical and fun.
-
Not much to tell the truth, I really can't see why a character shouldn't be able to at least attempt any maneuver in the list.
On the contrary, I see plenty of reasons to let them: imho it's more balanced (as anyone can attempt any move), for many of them is also more "realistic" (the fact that a character cannot attempt to disarm? or feint is just silly imho), and they make combat more tactical and fun.
For me attempting something and actually doing something is a lot different.
Also as I say quite often if it makes your game better then do it.
MDC
-
Not much to tell the truth, I really can't see why a character shouldn't be able to at least attempt any maneuver in the list.
On the contrary, I see plenty of reasons to let them: imho it's more balanced (as anyone can attempt any move), for many of them is also more "realistic" (the fact that a character cannot attempt to disarm? or feint is just silly imho), and they make combat more tactical and fun.
Well, the problem of allowing to use all the maneuvers with no penalty are that arms are overpowered (as you have many possibilities with no paying DPs like with using 'spell mastery') and that you have no difference between styles, and it is known that in real life some combat styles are better than others, but harder to learn.
If you don't like a fixed penalty, then use something like half-OB or half-ranks (that is not the same than half-OB).
-
It would seem to take an awful lot of overpowering to make spell casters start bemoning how powerful arms is.
-
Well, difference between styles would still be there thanks to style options, which I intend to keep unchanged.
And, as LordMiller said, overpowered? SU can fly, become invisible, control your mind, kill you in various picturesque ways, heal people, ressurect people,... OTOH Arms users can... hmmm... fight?
-
Overpowered in the way that you can do all those thing for free, in spells you need to PAY for all that. So, all combat maneuvers?, of course, versatility is the best, but for free and everyone?, that is the overpower, with a DP cost of 1/5 you can do all what you want, and that is unbalanced.
Then it is very easy and cheap to be a perfect archer with very low cost, and you can brace, killing shot, etc. Too far from being a perfect spell caster, where you need the spell list, spell mastery and surely other skills like magical language to increase your spell casting bonus for the SCSM derived from the spell mastery use.
And, of course, the situation that for using arms is free, while using spells everytime you spend PPs, so it is limited, and that is a point that looks arms users never wants to take in mind when comparing. It is the classic arms vs magic discussion.
-
To summerize what's been said, Arioch feel that free manuvers are totally ok while most others feel there should be some sort of restrictions?
Rasyr made a very nice suggestion a while back.
Another option would be a fixed one time cost, let's say 4DP per maneuver for argument's sake.
Maybe combine the two?
To make it all free seem a little on the generous side to me and I'd personally prefer some sort of restrictions.
-
Overpowered in the way that you can do all those thing for free, in spells you need to PAY for all that. So, all combat maneuvers?, of course, versatility is the best, but for free and everyone?, that is the overpower, with a DP cost of 1/5 you can do all what you want, and that is unbalanced.
Unbalanced? Everyone can use them, even spell users! Arms users would be just better at it (after all, they're Arms users...).
It would be unbalanced if only arms users gained them, but since everyone get the same options I can't see how it can be unbalancing...
Then it is very easy and cheap to be a perfect archer with very low cost, and you can brace, killing shot, etc. Too far from being a perfect spell caster, where you need the spell list, spell mastery and surely other skills like magical language to increase your spell casting bonus for the SCSM derived from the spell mastery use.
Come on, what can an archer do, other than shooting arrows very well? How much versatilty there's in that?
I understand that you like spell users, but you can't really say that as they are they're balanced compared to non spell using professions! They're obviously much more powerful, and the fact that they have to spend PPs to use spells is not a balancing factor IMHO, as when they have no more PPs to spend (and it's a rare occasion, save for low-level characters) they can still use normal skills, like all the other characters...
You say that Spell users need a lot of skills compared to non spell using characters? Ok, let's look at how actually things work.
Let's analyze a random list, say the first from Spell Law, Essence: Delving Ways.
2 ranks in it and you get Text Analysis I, which gives you 2 ranks in ANY written language you want.
A few more ranks in the same list (which means the same skill) and you get spells that gives you more information than the skills they mimic (stone lore, metal lore, etc) and with NO chance of error!
How many skills would have to develop a non spell using characters to reach the same level of versatility??
Oh, yes but the poor spell user has to spend PPs to use those spells! So he will be able to cast them only say, seven to ten times before... having to rest! ::)
And that is just an example, you could take every spell list (and there's a lot of them) and draw the same conclusions.
So sorry, but your arguments in defense of spell users don't convince me at all.
To make it all free seem a little on the generous side to me and I'd personally prefer some sort of restrictions.
IMHO you forget that PCs wouldn't be the only ones to receive these options, even monsters and NPCs would be able to choose freely among them. As a result, combat will become overall:
- more tactical: with these options aviable you really have to think when choosing your round action!
and
- deadlier (which also means potentially quicker)
Also, higly skilled combatants would be a lot better than unskilled ones, as they could take full advantage of maneuvers (and high level foes would become really frightening, think of what a Dragon could do!).
-
Saying that spell users can use those combat maneuvers too as balanceing factor is not realistic. A spell user favored for using combat maneuvers?, not much really, with 20-30 OB...
Well, to see the balance, it is easy, compare:
- Before:
- Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost.
- Arms users: need to dev. weapons and combat maneuvers. Reasonable DP cost.
- After (with the suggestion using maneuvers it for free):
- Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost. (it is the same!)
- Arms users: need to dev. weapons. How cheap!.
As summary, if before in any RM version you needed to develop the maneuver you want to use (RMFRP as combat maneuver, RM2 as skill, CC as more DP cost for the combat style), why now all that must be for free?.
If the old system, we can take RMFRP as base that needs to develop combat maneuvers, how can be using ALL the combat maneuvers for free balanced?. In RM all you want to learn must have a cost, is a RM system basis.
Do you think yet that is balanced?.
-
not much really, with 20-30 OB...
Even with Directed Spells?
Well, to see the balance, it is easy, compare:
- Before:
- Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost.
- Arms users: need to dev. weapons and combat maneuvers. Reasonable DP cost.
- After (with the suggestion using maneuvers it for free):
- Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost. (it is the same!)
- Arms users: need to dev. weapons. How cheap!.
I think you forgot something in you little analysis:
- weapon skills can be used only in combat
- the only limitation to spell lists is a player creativity
Do you think yet that is balanced?
Yes
-
Right, I forgot about directed spell styles, but in any case is unbalanced to use for free something than before you needed to pay for it.
You can apply some relax to rules, but making things free is not the best method at all.
For create another examples, think that is as integrating 'spell mastery' in spell lists (so use the SCSM table for 'spell mastery' check rolls'), or allowing any tier rank for MA with no penalty (I can try to hit with my puch harder any time).
Then, in arms is the same, when you develop weapon bonus, that only includes the basic use (think that weapons DP cost are relatively low compared with other skills, because is thought to be purchased with other skills together, if not, look at tech/trade - vocational or maybe urban as examples of other skills cost), that is, hit and parry normally, so if you want to use it in a more sophisticated way, you need to learn, and this implies you need to pay for it, for what you want to be that increases your skills (better spells, better combat, anything).
So, obviously you can use what you want in your game, but think in RM is a basis that anything that makes you more skilled, requires a pay. So you can set the skill more wide (the relax I taled about before, i.e. we use the 2-weapon combo for categories and not for single weapons combo), cheaper, everyman for some professions, etc., but finally they require a payment in any case.
-
On the other hand it is not very hard to make the argument that the majority of those moves is ignored today when it is an extra skill.
The cost benefit analysis clearly say that the maneuvers costs far to many DP for the added benefit of having the option. It would not surprise me if the majority of the players out there prefer to spend the DP on different things. If Arioch players are so inclined then his change does not change the balance at all between arms and spell users.
-
$0.02 here. . .or it does indeed shift the balance in favor of arms, but the balance as is, is already tipped so far in favor of casters, that you would have to move very far in the other direction before you could honestly complain about arms being overpowered in relation to casting.
-
My experience is that, in most fantasy games, magic is the great equaliser. Spell-users don't start off overpowered in most games (many are quite weak to begin with), it's only as the levels get higher and higher do spell-casters come into their own. However, unless your playing a low magic setting, a fighter type at those same levels is usually a walking golem of magic items making him just as potent, if not as versatile, as a spell-user. If you aren't giving the fighters those types of items then the spells should be scaled back as well, IMO.
jolt
-
I find that in high magic item games, the casters tend to be covered in items too. . . .
-
So, obviously you can use what you want in your game, but think in RM is a basis that anything that makes you more skilled, requires a pay. So you can set the skill more wide (the relax I taled about before, i.e. we use the 2-weapon combo for categories and not for single weapons combo), cheaper, everyman for some professions, etc., but finally they require a payment in any case.
Hmmm, the fact is that I've no problem with weapon costs, it just seem silly to me that a fighter with 50 ranks in his weapon cannot disarm an opponent because this option isn't included in his style, while for example a mage with 50 ranks in one spell list can choose among dozens of options when using that spell list.
My experience is that, in most fantasy games, magic is the great equaliser. Spell-users don't start off overpowered in most games (many are quite weak to begin with), it's only as the levels get higher and higher do spell-casters come into their own. However, unless your playing a low magic setting, a fighter type at those same levels is usually a walking golem of magic items making him just as potent, if not as versatile, as a spell-user. If you aren't giving the fighters those types of items then the spells should be scaled back as well, IMO.
jolt
First, I really can't see why some profession should be more powerful/versatile than others, no matter at what level.
Second, magic items aren't a solution since:
a) even spell users get them (and often are more proficient in using them, as they have lower costs for skills like attunement or runes)
b) RM isn't d&d and doesn't require that characters receive X magic items each level (and this is not something I want to see in RM, too). By the RAW a GM could decide to give no magic items at all, without having to adjust spell lists in any way
c) givin a lot of magic items to non SU is just a palliative, is like giving them a limited acces to spell lists to make them less underpowered compared to SU. I don't think this is a good idea, spells are for spell users, Arms users should be better at doing other things rather than gain some minor magical power.
-
First, I really can't see why some profession should be more powerful/versatile than others, no matter at what level.
A Channeling spell caster is presumed to be borrowing the power of a God, yes? How are you going to make him no more powerful than someone who is not, yet still keep setting logic in your magic?
I can understand the "everybody should be equal" thing..... but unless you drastically change the premise of magic entirely, I don't see how it's possible.
A "balancing" solution that is possible is to make the use of magic much more risky. A 50+ level fighter may be able to go hammering his foes all day, literally cut a swath through his enemies... but a 50+ level channeler can affect all life on an entire continent. "Plague" comes to mind.
And I'm okay with that. But for magic and non-magic to balance, a failure should be as catastrophic as a success is beneficial. If the high level fighter badly blows it, he may give himself a D crit, he may have just killed himself outright. But if he was "on his game" that day he could still only take out one or two guys at a time. Fine and good. If the high level caster succeeds, he may change the nature of reality for tens or hundreds of miles in all directions.
If that caster does the magical equivalent of a D crit to himself, with that much power, that widespread...... the mind boggles. Casters might be appreciated sometimes.... but people would stay well away from them, especially if they started doing their weirdie dance and speaking their gibberish.
-
A Channeling spell caster is presumed to be borrowing the power of a God, yes? How are you going to make him no more powerful than someone who is not, yet still keep setting logic in your magic?
??? I can't really understand your argument.
Why can't Channeling users be balanced toward other professions? They channel their power from the gods, right but they don't have access to all of their power!
I can understand the "everybody should be equal" thing..... but unless you drastically change the premise of magic entirely, I don't see how it's possible.
Note that I don't want to make all characters equal, nor change the magic system: I just want to inject more tactical options in the combat system!
-
pastaav's point is a good one.....most of these maneuvers are simply ignored because they are often too specific to warrant spending DP's on them. I've also made similar maneuvers free just like parry. I use my own style system, but anyone can parry, disarm, subdue, and a few others.
Is anyone arguing that parry is a maneuver that should be paid for? I don't see the difference between parry and disarm or any of these other basic maneuvers. They are all learned as a matter of course when learning to fight. None of them seem to define a specific style of fighting. To make style defining abilities and moves I use talents (one-cost, not figured into the style cost), but these are unique abilities rather then any of the basic maneuvers that I see here.
-
Hmm... seems that we have lost a couple of pages of posts here, but I think that Vroom summarizes my thoughts well.
Oh, and BTW, I don't think that making those maneuvers free will make non users more powerful than spell users, nor do I care about it very much (so we don't have to repeat the arguments made yesterday and that went lost ;)).
-
??? I can't really understand your argument.
Why can't Channeling users be balanced toward other professions? They channel their power from the gods, right but they don't have access to all of their power!
Holy Bridge and Unholy gate channel ANY spell from the chosen god. So Clerics and evil channelers do have the full might of their god at their disposal. GM discretion of course... (since GM is the one taking the role of the god)
-
??? I can't really understand your argument.
Why can't Channeling users be balanced toward other professions? They channel their power from the gods, right but they don't have access to all of their power!
Holy Bridge and Unholy gate channel ANY spell from the chosen god. So Clerics and evil channelers do have the full might of their god at their disposal. GM discretion of course... (since GM is the one taking the role of the god)
Let's talk about balance/unbalance of the magic system in another thread, please...
-
Hey buddy, you were the one who started it. ;)
-
Note that I don't want to make all characters equal, nor change the magic system: I just want to inject more tactical options in the combat system!
-
You can also consider it the way Harp does.
Use a maneuver with a full skill bonus for those trained in a specific manuever and let others use a less efficient method using the sum of two stats (and maybe add their rank in the weapon style).
Example from Harp :
Disarm exists as a skill (for those trained in it) and could be translated by the disarm maneuver integrated in a specific style thus using the full style bonus against the opponent.
Disarm is also a basic maneuver that anyone can use providing they have at least one rank in their weapon but it uses only Agility+Quickness stat bonus + number of ranks in the weapon as a bonus. Anyone can attempt a disarm maneuver but with a much lesser bonus.
-
It would be the same thing as having those maneuvers as separate skills, which is something that I don't like.
-
I just want to inject more tactical options in the combat system!
I'm all in favor of that. But does it follow that "injecting more tactical options in the combat system" means giving those not trained in feints, disarms, etc. the same chance to succeed as those who are?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that seems to be what you're suggesting.
-
To a degree, it's all OB or rank based in some manner. . .to offer a completely side example using non real rules/mods just because it demonstrates all the angles at once:
If disarm is -20 OB, must hit high enough to inflict one hit of damage, RR of ranks in weapon vs ranks target has in weapon.
So your mage with 2 ranks and a 15 OB in dagger could attempt a disarm, it's just really unlikely to work.
The fighter with 20 ranks and a 175 OB in Broadsword is far more likely to suceed.
but any git can say "I attempt to knock the weapon out of his hand." (Most unarmed and armed fighting training touch on weapon traps or disarms at some point, and there's no reason when confronted in your livingroom by a lunatic with a knife, you couldn't attempt to disarm them with a fireplace poker, even if you never trained in any form of fighting.)
-
You can also consider it the way Harp does.
Use a maneuver with a full skill bonus for those trained in a specific manuever and let others use a less efficient method...
but any git can say "I attempt to knock the weapon out of his hand." (Most unarmed and armed fighting training touch on weapon traps or disarms at some point, and there's no reason when confronted in your livingroom by a lunatic with a knife, you couldn't attempt to disarm them with a fireplace poker, even if you never trained in any form of fighting.)
And that is precisely the option I first proposed, use a penalty for those not trained, you can use an additional -30, or use half OB, maybe using only stats is too much for Arioch purposes of flexibility.
-
I'm all in favor of that. But does it follow that "injecting more tactical options in the combat system" means giving those not trained in feints, disarms, etc. the same chance to succeed as those who are?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that seems to be what you're suggesting.
No, as LordMiller said chance of success depend on rank in the style, which reflects a character's training in his weapon/style.
This imho makes more sense and is more fun than having to train/learn each maneuver separately..
-
With Lord Millers example about I also think that most trained styles and advanced self learning would touch on disarm maneuvers and other combat maneuvers. But I do think that it does have to be taught rather than just picking up a weapon and self teaching yourself for 5 ranks.
MDC
-
To a degree though, someone with no ranks attacking with a fireplace poker to knock a weapon out of someone's hand is not unlikely. "I tried to knock the knife out of his hand" is as likely as "I tried to bash his head in." I have had zero weapon training, and I'm confident that I could whack something out of someone's hand (In fact, I did disarm someone with a knife using a skateboard as a teenager).
-
LordMiller> How would you disarm someone if you only have a dagger? I've trained in knife fighting so I know how but it's very different from using a fireplace poker.
-
But I do think that it does have to be taught rather than just picking up a weapon and self teaching yourself for 5 ranks.
Markc, I don't believe that a character could self-teach himself more than 1-2 ranks in any weapon, unless he already knows how to use a very similar weapon, is a weapon genius (warrior extraordinarie talent or something like that), or I'm running a wuxia style campaign.
Thrud, the point is that imho:
- if you have ranks in a weapon/style, then you've some degree of training in it and you know how to perform all basic maneuvers with that weapon. The more ranks you buy, the more expert you'll become and your maneuver attempts will becom more and more likely to succeed and more and more effective.
- if you don't have any rank in a weapon, you're untrained in it: you can still attempt some maneuver (but very few of them, since most require that you have at least one rank to be used), but you'll probably fail, unless you're very lucky and/or your opponent is as inept as you with his weapon.
-
Arioch> That was a direct reply to LordMiller's reasoning.
I actually like the thought of learning maneuvers as you get more proficient in your style. Like Rasyr's proposal on page 1.
-
I actually like the thought of learning maneuvers as you get more proficient in your style. Like Rasyr's proposal on page 1.
One of the problems with that method is characters become suddenly higly skilled in new maneuvers as soon as they learn them, instead of becoming gradually more proficient with all of them as they gain more ranks.
-
One of the problems with that method is characters become suddenly higly skilled in new maneuvers as soon as they learn them, instead of becoming gradually more proficient with all of them as they gain more ranks.
You are looking at it the wrong way, I think. They are not suddenly becoming highly skilled in a new maneuver. They are learning a new maneuver that enhances their existing skill.
You seem to be looking as the maneuvers as if they are completely separate skills. They are not. They are special moves that compliment/enhance an existing skill.
You want to put a limit on it somehow? Fine, then limit the number of increments that may be adjusted in performing the maneuver. Remember, most every maneuver is limited by the number of ranks you know in the style. So, for example, the level in which a maneuver is learned, limit it no more than 50% of the ranks worth of adjustment (i.e. Disarm uses your # of ranks in style for RR - limit to half ranks reduces the effectiveness of the maneuver when it is first learned). Then you can increment that up by 25% of ranks for each rank purchased after the maneuver is learned (ranks learned in the same level as the maneuver do NOT count).
-
In the end also, the simulation/rules line is also important. . .I have zero ranks in skateboard, yet succeeded in a disarm in real life. . .OTOH my opponant likely had no ranks in knife (other than vs steak and pork chops) and was in the process of using the knife as a prop for an intimidation maneuver. (Ala, combat had not been declared, nobody had declared OB/DB splits, the knife was just in his hand). The rules can't really cover every possible scenario, which is why you have a GM
Likely the closest you could get would be to say that with the exception of some fantasy culture which is utterly non violent, even among children, every person should have at least 1 rank in brawling to cover any and all possible unarmed or picked up weapon attacks. I would not make an exception for real weapons vs improvised weapons. For instance if your friend's crazy girlfriend pulls his katana down off the wall and menaces you with it, I would consider that to be far scarier than if she decided to menace you with a lamp or chair, so I see no reason why she'd get a 5 OB with lamp/brawling or chair/brawling then a -25 OB with katana/sword. . .game wise it's annoying, you'd need to put some sort of limitation there to prevent people from just taking brawling to use anything.
And there is some considerable difference between an untrained "whack him in the hand" disarm vs a trained one (which can be a whack in the hand, but may also consist of any of a number of traps, hooks, flicks, etc.) I really have no idea how you'd handle that with the current rules short of a GM house rule.
Thrud - untrained, using knife vs knife, likely the only disarm is stab/cut the knife hand/arm, or an unarmed disarm ala "grab and twist" with the off hand. (Most times two idiots go after each other with knives, the Emergency room gets to practice their stitching skills.) trained you could probably also strike with the flat, strike with the pommel, or do a trap and force (ala you can release the knife or I stab/break your arm/hand).
-
Talking about RL here in the states people wielding base ball bats cause a lot of damage to other people, and if they are serious quite often death. Of course there also is Mag Lights and other improvised weapons that in my book would have there own chart for a modern game.
MDC
-
You seem to be looking as the maneuvers as if they are completely separate skills. They are not. They are special moves that compliment/enhance an existing skill.
No, I'm not seeing maneuvers as separate skills, in fact imho they are specific (or special, if you like) uses of a general skill. As Vroom said they can be compared to a parry, which also is a specific way to use your OB.
To make another comparison, take the Acrobatic skill (first skill in SoHK): you can use it to make gymnastic excercises, or to swing from one object to another, or to reduce damage from falls, or to land on foes, etc... Each is a specific use of the skill.
Do you need to pay more DPs in order ot be able to perform those specific maneuvers? No, because they're not skill enhancements, they're part of your acrobatic training, as parry, feinting or disarming are part of any weapon/martial arts/attack training.
This is one of the reasons behind my "free for all maneuvers" HR (the second is that being given more options from which to choose make combats more fun).
-
I think eventually this boils down to "What's an everyman maneuver?"
Still using the non book logic above, with disarm being a -20 OB.
You could say then that Trained Disarm is -10, and disarm mastery is no penalty. (Sound a lot like Talents)
This would cover say "Police Officer Training" (They are trained to disarm unarmed and with a nightstick) and allow for some high end crouching tiger disarming. . .
That could allow for variations in style and still allow the goon with a bat to disarm.
Not to say that any maneuver should be open to any style, but taking a step back from the rules logic to just common sense. . .
Joe the Bartender has a baseball bat behind the bar. Joe has 5 ranks in Brawling and a 40 OB, no training at all, just a rough and tumble life in the school of hard knocks.
A patron pulls a knife on him.
Is his only option deadly attacks? The variations between all out swinging to tentative stabbing with the bat are covered by OB-DB splits, but perhaps more can be done. Could he try to strike to disarm? Could he attempt a low attack for a takedown/sweep? Any more? How many choices should "basic brawling with a bat in my hands" cover?
GM has to decide what works for them, if it makes sense that things like that are just generic aspects of "fighting" or specific learned maneuvers limited to trained specialists.
In my opinion, RM rounds are rather lengthy, each round's declaration is less a maneuver than it is a tactical posture over 10 seconds. . . ."I'm being careful, keep backing up so he can't stab me, and ready to swing at his arm/hand the moment he tries to cut or stab me." seems to me to be a fairly logical choice, and within the possibilities for someone without formal combat training. I wouldn't suggest trying it on a Navy SEAL, but against your average drunken idiot in a bar who carries a knife to open boxes at work, it likely will work, and is less likely to end with you facing attempted murder charges for bending the bat around the drunk's head.
Arioch seems to think any sort of fighting ability includes a bit more than just lethal attacks, that the most basic level of combat ability includes a broader range of options. . .It makes common sense to me, but I suspect rules wise it's going to have to be a call a GM makes. I think common sense is on your side, but common sense sometimes conflicts with game mechanics.
(Disarm has seen a lot of creative uses in my games, as a player and a GM. . .knock the wand out of someone's hand, break a potion before it can be used. . . .the lack of proper location targeting in RM almost begs for the usage of Disarms for knocking around anything someone has in hand.)
-
Lord Miller;
It does sound like Talents or specific abilities gained through training packages like in SM:P.
Our group has started another game to give us some variety. And when I was reading the material I thought of RM and said well using this system you could just give the PC's the option to by abilities every 30 points of OB. And maybe you keep it simple DP cost of 4 DP per Talent Rank "X" but they can only gain the talent by training for YY days with ZZZ instructor. Even if they do not get a chance to go back to train with ZZZ they can still advance in the styles basic abilities.
MDC