Topic: Attack Charts a False sense of Protection.

[Cory Magel]

If you learn just the basics of a few styles (Kendo, Fencing and Broadsword for example) you'll take apart a good majority of the SCA fighters.  So a typical fight between a heavy and a light fighter in the SCA (which does not happen often - they usually only spar with their own group) will be misleading in more than one way.  Some of it would also come down to who the aggressor was.  While it seems like a good way to compare two single foes fighting each other for RPG purposes, it's just not how it would actually play out.

The heavy fighters in the SCA are not fighting in a realistic manner.  If they tried to swing a broad/long sword in the manner most of them do in the SCA you'd sprain or break your wrist.  Many of the heavy fighters flail about like a little kid throwing a tantrum... it's unusual to see a GOOD heavy fighter in the SCA.  I'm not saying they are fools or anything, t's the rules that drive their fighting style.  The light fighters, while most of them have no more formal training, fight more true to how they would have in real life.  They still have to be careful, but there are less rules getting in the way resulting in them fighting in a more realistic manner than the heavies.

I'm not trying to make them look bad, but most of are there for fun and have little real swordplay training.  Most will have only learned from other people in the SCA and you'll eventually trace that back to someone who knows a little about real swordplay and only taught them the basics of one style, and you'll eventually trace that back to someone who knows their stuff, and that guy will probably wipe the field with the rest of them with one hand tied behind his back.  Very few of them won't exaggerate their knowledge of the 'sport'.

Ask around about a guy named "Tora Taka" in the SCA.  He's someone who learned fencing early on (high school or so), moved on to Saber and Epee, studied a little Kendo later on, then learned some heavier sword play.  He's a DAMN good fencer/light fighter, but he has very little experience in heavier fighting - yet he rips pretty much everyone he's come up against apart on the heavy fighter side, often against multiple foes.  But that's fighting light to light and heavy to heavy.  I'll have to ask him what he things about light to heavy, but keep in mind he doesn't REALLY know how it would have played out in history either... he's making an educated guess based on comparatively unrealistic SCA style fighting.

[Merkir]

- Charts go to 175

Firstly, great news that the max has increased. Glad to see that it was accepted as an issue, but does the fix go far enough? I'm a bit doubtful, and I know I should wait patiently until the next RMU beta comes out, but can't help myself...

Here's what I've observed, which I'll illustrate with an example:

• A 12th Lvl Fighter in RMU will have an OB of about 160 = 88 skill + 12 prof + 40 stat + 20 magic (not unreasonable? could be even higher in fact)
• Median DB across all creatures in C&T is about 30(ish) & many/most can't parry.
• Net = +130 to the attack dice roll

Basically, this gives a BINARY result. That is, with max 150 tables the attacker either fumbles, or gets an E crit. On most tables & ATs there will be zero possibility of getting an A, B or C crit, and probably not even D.

Ok so I've assumed zero attacker parry, but now consider that the above +130 net attack could be an archery attack, say a longbow at 100' range. The binary result seems even more unrealistic for archery considering a running defender at 100' range ALWAYS takes an E crit - or the attacker fumbles - the same binary result.

So this was the issue that has been accepted by the designers (thank you), but again I ask is max 175 enough? I fear it will still seem like a binary result, with a few more D's thrown in.

Now for lower level chars in RMU, I think the fact that temp stats (and therefore stat bonuses) have been severely curtailed at lower levels is a GOOD thing, esp. compared to RMC/2 chars.  (Some of our 3rd lvl RMC chars have OB>80 due to stat bonuses, thus the high frequency of E crits - not good IMO). RMU might have this solved. It means that E crits for low level chars might be far less prevalent, and the table max less relevant. This seems like good reason to leave the A crit thresholds at around the same place as they are now on the weapon tables, but stretch the crits over a much larger range to cater for higher level chars, even up to 250 as I've said in previous posts.

And the main reason for me making this suggestion is not realism but... fun. This is very subjective, but it's much more fun for me as a role player if my low level char has great difficulty achieving really punishing hits. I can therefore strive to gain those skills at med-high level. It shouldn't be too easy to get E crits at low level. They become ho-hum. I'd be very happy if something like a C crit is about the best I could hope for, until higher levels (except for open-ended rolls of course). Likewise, it's no fun if my high level character always achieves an E crit (or fumbles).

I tried the charts to 200, but it was just too spread out - either crits max out vs all AT making armor matter little if someone maxed out the chart, or crits start too high at the higher AT's making armor rather uber. 175 works well, and is consistent with Absolute Success on other maneuvers.

Matt, this concerns me. It almost sounds like the charts have been made to go to 175 (or 200) by simply moving all results up 25 (or 50) places?  I really hope that is not the case and the A crit thresholds were not moved too much. I realise it can't be that simplistic because you've mentioned the introduction of F+ crits. Again, I think stretching the existing A-E crits over a much larger range seems better, and simpler than using F+ crits. Make the chars work for those E crits.  Make them special, not routine. Again, this is very subjective. Would be interested to hear other opinions.

[Warl]

Merkir and RMU design Team.

I have a recommendation that would help to alleviate this issue without the need for extending the tables to higher values. (though I would like to seem them go up to 200 just to cover some of the double crit results)

Instead of having defense be a static always the same "success" value, instead have it be an Attack Vs Defense attack rolls where both sides get to have a "Say" in the outcome through die rolls.

This gives the potential for  higher resulting Dbs on the defense side as well as the possibility for Critical Defense results along with Fumbled defenses.

[Hurin]

Now for lower level chars in RMU, I think the fact that temp stats (and therefore stat bonuses) have been severely curtailed at lower levels is a GOOD thing, esp. compared to RMC/2 chars.  (Some of our 3rd lvl RMC chars have OB>80 due to stat bonuses, thus the high frequency of E crits - not good IMO). RMU might have this solved. It means that E crits for low level chars might be far less prevalent, and the table max less relevant.

Some pros and cons:

One downside to this is that it makes lower level characters weaker than RM2, and higher level characters potentially stronger. In RM2, by some stat generation methods, you could have some stats start the game already at their potential. This made for higher stat bonuses for first level characters. Combined with RMU's limit on skills-- namely, that you can't have more ranks in a skill than 2x your level-- RMU's new system further reduces the maximum skill bonus. RMU can result in players have OBs at first level of 10 or less-- basically making them useless in combat. Some people like this type of game, and see it as gritty and realistic, but others have complained that RMU characters are too weak at lower levels. A single feral dog can result in a TPK.

On the flipside, RMU has higher maximum bonuses for stats, with a +15 equating to a +45 in RM2-- the highest possible for normal characters in RM2 was +30 (if you rolled a 00 for temporary and a 00 for potential). So the potential of the potentials, so to speak, is greater in RMU, with stat bonuses being potentially higher.

Personally, I think lower level characters need a boost rather than a nerf in RMU. I can't imagine starting a campaign with my fighters having an OB of 15; the game would be unplayable. But that's just my 2 cents.

[jdale]

Here's what I've observed, which I'll illustrate with an example:

• A 12th Lvl Fighter in RMU will have an OB of about 160 = 88 skill + 12 prof + 40 stat + 20 magic (not unreasonable? could be even higher in fact)
• Median DB across all creatures in C&T is about 30(ish) & many/most can't parry.
• Net = +130 to the attack dice roll

Basically, this gives a BINARY result. That is, with max 150 tables the attacker either fumbles, or gets an E crit. On most tables & ATs there will be zero possibility of getting an A, B or C crit, and probably not even D.

Ok so I've assumed zero attacker parry, but now consider that the above +130 net attack could be an archery attack, say a longbow at 100' range. The binary result seems even more unrealistic for archery considering a running defender at 100' range ALWAYS takes an E crit - or the attacker fumbles - the same binary result.

This sounds to me like a problem with the stats or tactics. If the defender is parrying, the effective OB should be a lot lower. Even if the defender can't parry, they should be attacking and that means the PC attacker themself should be parrying, so they have less OB available for the attack.

If the attacker can afford to use all their OB and the defender can't defend at all, the fight is going to be over a lot quicker. Either there should be multiple combatants or the monster should be capable of engaging multiple targets, so this isn't an option at least early in the fight.

In some cases it would make sense if monsters can dodge or partial dodge, which will also increase their defensive capabilities.

The one place this breaks down is ranged attacks. I'm not sure why the rules assume some people can train to dodge melee weapons effectively and are better at it, but everyone is equally good at making themself a hard target vs ranged attacks (Evasion). But if the defender has a shield, they get good at it again. It might be good to have a skill like Protect that allows the user to use their shield to protect both themself and another person against ranged attacks (or just allow Protect to be used this way if you have a shield), if they are basically between the other person and the shooter. Makes it easier to keep a commander or caster alive behind the front enemy line.

Lastly, you say typical monster DBs are around 30. In the sample stats we have, ignoring mundane animals, we've got:
Elemental, Light, Moderate (IV) -- DB 128
Giant, greater, cloud -- DB 18 plus a shield for another 53
Skeleton, minor -- DB 3 plus a shield for another 24
That seems to indicate DBs will go higher than in previous editions. In part because of shield skill.

[VladD]

Shield skill and a shield or adrenal defense, both may increase DB. Lets not forget spells. An easy 20-30 DB can be achieved there. Many of my players get stellar Qu bonuses and use spells to enhance that and usually don't parry at all, unless they get stunned, at which point the PC is virtually unhittable. While I encourage such tactics, it tends to make RM appear a less deadly game, with just fumbles and lucky hits from foes getting through and dealing some damage, especially if the GM is playing things straight (meaning he keeps spell users rare and doesn't invent all lvl 10 town guards and such).

For experienced players RM can be an excellent system. A fighter with a few Mentalism spells, a monk with adrenal moves and spells, magician with the right lists, Cleric going for some armor and weaponry, druid taking his role of protector seriously using animals, rogue/ martial artist with adrenal defense and adrenal speed. Couple some of the spell lists or skills with some fighting ability. The trick is in knowing which skills to develop at 2 rnks per lvl; such as a weapon and perception and get shield skill or adrenal defense.

[Merkir]

Good replies, but nothing so far that sways me greatly.

Warl:
I prefer to think that the attacker's roll takes into account the combination of attack and defense effectiveness - ie. how lucky (effective) the attacker is and how lucky (effective) the defender is for this specific attack. Adding a defense dice roll would have the effect of increasing the variance of the result (from a linear 1-100 to a bell -99 to +99, ignoring OE rolls). I like the idea. It would solve the binary problem, but unfortunately I think rolling an extra set of dice each attack would not go down well with the masses. Love your idea of "fumbled defenses" btw... that defender who dodges just a little too hard, ending up head-butting the turf.

Hurin:
At higher level, it seems to me that RMU chars would still be a little weaker than RMC/2 since professional bonus is x1 instead of x3.
Agree at lower level RMU chars are weaker. I like that, but I'm biased - currently running a RMC campaign where some of the 3rd lvl PCs seem like superheroes.

jdale:
At first I was going to say that I know my example is contrived, but you know what, I really don't think it is. I think it applies to a large number of C&T creatures that don't have shields, can't parry, and would be binary mince-meat to the typical 12th level fighter, where common sense tells me they should instead put up a reasonable fight (eg. I'm looking at the RMC C&T "Composite Monsters", "Elementals and Artificial Beings"). And as you and I both mention, the same example applies in spades for an archer.

Btw, you give some example creatures and DBs. Is there an RMU C&T I'm not aware of? You mention an Elemental with DB=128. The Elementals in RMC C&T all have DBs within the range 10 to 70?

Re the Cloud Giant, yes I agree completely that any one-on-one fight where both combatants have weapons (and optionally shields) is quite fair and doesn't suffer from the binary result issue. But at the risk of introducing another contrived situation, I pity the poor Cloud Giant who has to fight 2 x 12th level fighters. My gut tells me that the Cloud Giant should be able to put up a good fight, but assuming parrying is used intelligently by the first fighter, that 2nd fighter (possible even with a flank or rear attack) is again going to make binary mince meat out of the giant. Thankfully for the giant, the crit will be on the large crit table.

Vlad:
Yes, reinforces my point. When fortify/defensive spells and adrenal moves are also factored in, PCs may not even need to parry, leading to the binary effect more often.

[jdale]

With a shield (cloud giant example), you can at least split your defenses, shield (with shield ranks bonus to your DB) against one foe and parry against the other. There are still going to be issues when foes are outnumbered though. GM needs to take that into account when designing the encounter.

Some people house-rule that Parry is effective against all foes, or all foes in the frontal arc. That would reduce the numerical advantage.

Stats were from this thread: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=12671.msg162489#msg162489

[Hurin]

Warl:
I prefer to think that the attacker's roll takes into account the combination of attack and defense effectiveness - ie. how lucky (effective) the attacker is and how lucky (effective) the defender is for this specific attack. Adding a defense dice roll would have the effect of increasing the variance of the result (from a linear 1-100 to a bell -99 to +99, ignoring OE rolls). I like the idea. It would solve the binary problem, but unfortunately I think rolling an extra set of dice each attack would not go down well with the masses. Love your idea of "fumbled defenses" btw... that defender who dodges just a little too hard, ending up head-butting the turf.

I was going to say basically the same thing. I see the attack roll as both and attack and defense roll. I don't think we need another roll (slows the game down a little).

Hurin:
At higher level, it seems to me that RMU chars would still be a little weaker than RMC/2 since professional bonus is x1 instead of x3.
Agree at lower level RMU chars are weaker. I like that, but I'm biased - currently running a RMC campaign where some of the 3rd lvl PCs seem like superheroes.

Professional bonus would be +2 (if buying 2 ranks/level), and of course the 5/3/2/1 progression of RMU (compared to the 5/2/1 of RM2) will lead ultimately help balance out the bonuses, making RMU classes a little behind RM2 for the classes that had a +3/level bonus, but slightly ahead of RM2 classes that had a +2 bonus and substantially ahead of RM2 classes that had a +1 bonus (hope my math is correct?). I was just talking about stat bonuses, though, as opposed to rank bonuses.

[Thom @ ICE]

Warl:
I prefer to think that the attacker's roll takes into account the combination of attack and defense effectiveness - ie. how lucky (effective) the attacker is and how lucky (effective) the defender is for this specific attack. Adding a defense dice roll would have the effect of increasing the variance of the result (from a linear 1-100 to a bell -99 to +99, ignoring OE rolls). I like the idea. It would solve the binary problem, but unfortunately I think rolling an extra set of dice each attack would not go down well with the masses. Love your idea of "fumbled defenses" btw... that defender who dodges just a little too hard, ending up head-butting the turf.

While the range shifts from 1-100 to -99 to +99, the chance of any individual result in that range is only 1% (approx).
What you may not see is that with the combination of 2 rolls the probabilities shift and the power of the random roll is diminished greatly, however it still exists and if you make each individual roll an open-ended roll you still have that miracle attack and also the possibility of a miracle defense.... 

As for slowing down the game - I disagree.  An extra roll of the dice is not going to slow down the game any when you've got this many modifiers being batted around, and having to decide when and how each piece applies.  Giving defense a separate roll makes strategy and skill levels more important and the roll of the dice less so.  Just my own personal opinion on the matter....

[Merkir]

Warl:
I prefer to think that the attacker's roll takes into account the combination of attack and defense effectiveness - ie. how lucky (effective) the attacker is and how lucky (effective) the defender is for this specific attack. Adding a defense dice roll would have the effect of increasing the variance of the result (from a linear 1-100 to a bell -99 to +99, ignoring OE rolls). I like the idea. It would solve the binary problem, but unfortunately I think rolling an extra set of dice each attack would not go down well with the masses. Love your idea of "fumbled defenses" btw... that defender who dodges just a little too hard, ending up head-butting the turf.

While the range shifts from 1-100 to -99 to +99, the chance of any individual result in that range is only 1% (approx).

Ummm, the range approximately doubles, so not sure why you say 1%, and besides it changes from linear to bell curve so it's not an equal probability distribution any more. IMO the bell curve better mimics what might happen in reality, with the upper and lower results far less likely. Of course the tables would need to entirely change to accommodate a shift of the mean by -50, and the doubled range.  There are many other possibilities that could be considered with the introduction of a defender's roll, but I won't go into them (yet).

What you may not see is that with the combination of 2 rolls the probabilities shift and the power of the random roll is diminished greatly, however it still exists and if you make each individual roll an open-ended roll you still have that miracle attack and also the possibility of a miracle defense.... 

With the possibility of more fun?!

As for slowing down the game - I disagree.  An extra roll of the dice is not going to slow down the game any when you've got this many modifiers being batted around, and having to decide when and how each piece applies.  Giving defense a separate roll makes strategy and skill levels more important and the roll of the dice less so.  Just my own personal opinion on the matter....

Great to hear, and knowing this I will be asking the players in our group what they think of the idea. Would it be more fun? Exciting? Enhance the tension?

In passing, and in reference to my other recent posts on combat software, the defender's roll would be even less onerous when handled automatically by combat software.

[Warl]

I have played around in the past with Role-master having an attack roll and a Defense roll. Not that though it wouldn't necessarily Slow Down combat, It may make combats take Longer, as Defense values are pushed up by the die roll and yet Attack rolls remain the same.

Yes it does Add more strategy to the game as a Poor defense roll versus an attack can mean losing your life or a limb...
But it does make the players think twice about NOT shifting some to defense as just having a High OB isn't going to guarantee a  hit/Kill against Low level creatures and Enemies, So you are now at greater risk since they will have possible more opportunities to strike at you.

I haven't just played this way in Rolemaster... I also Play and Run in a System Called hackmaster, and their New system uses a attack vs defense rolls. It doesn't slow the game any more than 1 roll.... and it Involves the players more. Since they are not just waiting around for their turn to roll dice again on their attack, They may need to roll against the attacks as well, not just record the result of the attack and feeling like they had no way to affect it. I find the 2 roll combat system to be refreshing and a Bit more enjoyable.

[Thom @ ICE]

While the range shifts from 1-100 to -99 to +99, the chance of any individual result in that range is only 1% (approx).

Ummm, the range approximately doubles, so not sure why you say 1%, and besides it changes from linear to bell curve so it's not an equal probability distribution any more. IMO the bell curve better mimics what might happen in reality, with the upper and lower results far less likely. Of course the tables would need to entirely change to accommodate a shift of the mean by -50, and the doubled range.  There are many other possibilities that could be considered with the introduction of a defender's roll, but I won't go into them (yet).

The 1% comment was in regards to the OEd100 roll (though not exactly 1% due to the OE nature of the roll).

The 2 roll method is not a bell curve exactly because it doesn't flatten out at the extremes, but it does end up as an isosceles triangle with 45 degree base angles.    It's the same concept as rolling 2 six-sided dice for Craps, but in this case you are subtracting the results and not adding them.  There is only one way to get a -5 (off 1 and def 6) but there are 2 ways of getting a -4 (off 1 and def 5 or off 2 and def 6); continue this with -3 (1/4, 2/5, 3/6); -2 (1/3, 2/4, 3/5, 4/6); etc. There are 6 ways of getting 0 (1/1, 2/2, 3/3, 4/4, 5/5, 6/6).   Your 0 net result is 6 times more likely than your -5 net result.  Now do this with OEd100 and your 0 net result becomes 100 times more likely than your -99 result. As a result, your strategy, skill, and modifiers play a far greater roll in determining the result than the roll of the dice since the combined roll always wants to be neutral - but then again, you can still roll that 45 for your attack and not know if it's good enough until you see whether the other guy rolls a 7 or an 87.

With the possibility of more fun?!

I would think this may add tension and excitement and at the same time increase the likelihood of the expected result occurring but still just as likely to fumble or open-end high (and adds the chance of a defensive fumble or a miracle defensive move).  If that makes it more fun, that's great.  The negative would be that after you add together your attack roll + modifiers and get a 183 and then you determine the defense roll + modifiers and get a 146 you need to subtract them to realize that the end result is 37.   With people unhappy about Rolemaster's OEd100 base being too math-heavy this would add further support for the argument.  The chart's would need to be redone to cover a different range of results unless you want a really drawn out battle, since you just added in an additional defense bonus; and while Warl has played a bit with the concept, I am just commenting off of his information (and some thoughts I had on my own). I'd be hesitant to make that kind of change without significant playtesting to ensure that the end result is indeed more fun without just becoming another number to add into the calculations.

[markc]

 I can say as a GM and having 30 goblins or other small creatures that rolling an extra defense roll for each is like rolling saves for each. Time consuming, now a random number generator would fix this and save me the rolls. But old school vs new school it would take a lot of time for large groups of creatures, IMHO.
 In small scale battles it is no big deal.

MDC

[Thom @ ICE]

I can see that, and if you are running a battle with 30+ combatants then I'm not so sure I would want to use the standard rules even.  That being said, as I consider it more, I don't believe there is any need to even think about adding this into RM unless someone wants to a as a House Rule (and in that case they need to do a revision to crit charts and a whole bunch of other pieces).  It does offer value, but just not for RM at this time (IMO).

[markc]

 I often ran big battles with 4-6 PC's 2-6 NPC's and then the critters they were all fighting. I used a more complex combat system in some ways and easier in others, than in the core and it went fine. But it did take a while and could be draining on me the GM.
MDC   

[Warl]

I will ay this one more thing about the 2 roll combat system. It keeps npcs/creatures from becoming always 1 hit dead opponents, just because you have a High OB. This always ended up with the reasoning why Players would not use the parry option because they could be well assured that they will "crit" the kobold or goblin.
When the goblin Gets to roll an opposed Die for defense, your easy 1 hit kill is not so assured. So it brings a bit more tension and excitement to the die rolls and the game.

[jdale]

I will ay this one more thing about the 2 roll combat system. It keeps npcs/creatures from becoming always 1 hit dead opponents, just because you have a High OB. This always ended up with the reasoning why Players would not use the parry option because they could be well assured that they will "crit" the kobold or goblin.
When the goblin Gets to roll an opposed Die for defense, your easy 1 hit kill is not so assured. So it brings a bit more tension and excitement to the die rolls and the game.

Even an E crit can result in just +1 damage, no stun or other injury. There are no guarantees of a quick kill. I don't find that strategy very safe....

[VladD]

When the goblin Gets to roll an opposed Die for defense, your easy 1 hit kill is not so assured. So it brings a bit more tension and excitement to the die rolls and the game.

It depends on the style of play, but I kinda like the idea of "muppets, minions, muggles". It is like an action flick where a main character will spray and pray some baddies and they all take one in a vital area. If there was one redeeming factor about D&D 4E, it is the 1 hp minion. They do pose a threat, but it is easily removed. Makes for some great scenes, especially with RM's combat system.

Nothing like a bit of tension when the local thief guild comes running around the corner in pursuit and the party turning around and slaughtering the hapless 3rd-5th lvl thieves in a few rounds... and each of those muggles actually has a chance of taking out one party member with a lucky hit!

[intothatdarkness]

Merkir and RMU design Team.

I have a recommendation that would help to alleviate this issue without the need for extending the tables to higher values. (though I would like to seem them go up to 200 just to cover some of the double crit results)

Instead of having defense be a static always the same "success" value, instead have it be an Attack Vs Defense attack rolls where both sides get to have a "Say" in the outcome through die rolls.

This gives the potential for  higher resulting Dbs on the defense side as well as the possibility for Critical Defense results along with Fumbled defenses.

I don't see this as being workable for non-magic settings, or those where missile combat is more common than melee. As it is RMU isn't especially adaptable to those systems, and anything that hinders that adaptability makes expansion difficult. If the idea is to make RMU workable for both genre books and things like Spacemaster, I'd urge people to keep that in mind.