Topic: Thoughts on Combat Companion

[Arioch]

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??

[markc]

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]

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).

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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....

[thrud]

I like it 

[Fidoric]

I prefer the way maneuvers are resolved in Harp. The rest of the combat rules in CC are great (styles...).

[vroomfogle]

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.

[Arioch]

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  ).

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.
 

[Arioch]

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?

[markc]

 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

[Dark Schneider]

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.

[Arioch]

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.

[markc]

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

[Arioch]

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.

[markc]

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

[Dark Schneider]

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).

[Marc R]

It would seem to take an awful lot of overpowering to make spell casters start bemoning how powerful arms is.

[Arioch]

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?

[Dark Schneider]

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.

[thrud]

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.