* Reduce the number of armor types. I think 12 is enough. Collapsing AT 1-12 into 4. An argument could be made for 16 (keeping the rigid leather set). You could go down to 10 (a nicer number) but it would make it harder to go from other RM versions. Still might be worth it. If you went to 10 you could print the charts 2/page.
Well this is basically what we do since the beginning of playing Rolemaster.
In our group AT1 is normal "adventuring" clothing, AT2 is very cumbersome colthing like ceremonial vestments, AT3 and 4 are animal only.
AT5 is furs and leathers for harsh environments as per Arioc's suggestion, while AT6 is more of a crude, unexpensive leather armor designed for militia, not intended for duealing and adventuring.
AT7 is... well, uh, never used it, and the same goes for AT8, seldomly used for "very thick animal hide).
AT9 is courboulli/leather breastplate and 10 is breastplate and greaves. 11 and 12 are animal only (but we really seldomly used 11).
ATs 13-16 are fully used altough 16 is more of a NPC armor for its adavantages over 15 are very few and the penalties grow very harsher.
ATs 17-20 are left unchanged, but also there we've seldomly seen AT20 and yet more rarely AT19, which basically is a less powerful version of 20. 17 and 18 are the best preferred choices of characters, with 17 being for rogues and faster skirmishers, and 18 the armor of choice of tanks and knights.
All in all, 12 armor types would be overly sufficient in the "next" Rolemaster, and I really hope in a streamlining of the AT issue, for a more complex and flexible chance to have piecemeal armor and protection instead. Yes, Combat Companion added it, but I feel it's quite unplayable: a book-keeper's worst nightmare.
BTW: played for some time a science-fantasy game using "10 millions ways to die"'s attack tables. They have a streamlined amror code, reducing Rolemaster 20 ATs to 12. They worked sweet.