Topic: Combat Companion overview?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

you can mix and match what?
All you get is an AR and a DB.

You CAN do the SOME with the ATs!

If I am understanding you correctly, what you are suggesting is not allowed by, and not supported by the core rules. To allow mixing and matching, you are essentially recreating the AbtP system from the ground up.

 But it won't work for ATs. The basic premise behind the AT system is completely different from the basic premise behind an Armor by the Piece system. The Arms Law tables are built on damage against specific armors, not a general level of protectiveness.

The armor rules from Arms Law, and the AbtP rules from Combat Companion are not the same. They do, however, fill the same niche, and do have a number of similarities because they both fill that same niche, and one of the goals of the AbtP system was to keep it as familiar as possible.

[shnar]

Not by the standard Arm's Law rules. You can NOT have a chain "suit" (AT 16) and then put a BreastPlate on top of it. It's not supported. There is no Armor Type that describes that outfit.

If you are doing something similar, using different armor types within Arm's Law, then it is a house rule that you have enacted and convinced all your players to agree to. I for one am glad to see an *official* ruling that supports different armor types.

As I see it, the Combat Companion offers the following advantages over Arm's Law:
 - "Official" Armor By The Piece Rules
 - Criticals specifically designed for the weapon type (short blade, long blade, bow, etc) instead of the attack type (krush, pierce, etc).
 - Combat Styles (though arguably that's an advantage over Character Law and not necessarily Arm's Law)

But don't get upset by this new suppliment. CC is just that, a supliment. It /adds/ optional rules to make your game more enjoyable. If you find that they don't do so, then don't add them to your game. Most of us feel that these optional rules make the core rules more understandable and just make more sense, and so we will be using them.

I am curious to know if ICE is planning on making these new rules part of the core of an RM3?

-shnar

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

shnar -- by RM3, to what are you referring? When we finally can revise RM (and try to unite the RMFRP and RMC bases), or something else?

And it is always a possibility...

[giulio.trimarco]

Ah... they are "official".

Ok. 

I hope that for RM3 they will discard AbtP as seen in CC and devised something else

About the differences of the tables it's interesting. Perhaps it's the major point in CC.
As soon as my books will arrive I'll check!

[shnar]

I just keep hearing rumors on the boards that there will be another version of Rolemaster, probably in a few years, but a new/revised/merged/whatever you want to call it. So by RM3, I just mean the next "official" incarnation of Rolemaster

-shnar

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Shnar - technically, that would be RM4 as RMSS/FRP would be considered RM3. hehe 

And yes, the plan is, in a few years time, to revise things. RMSS/FRP is 13 years old, RM2/RMC is close to 30 years old.

[thrud]

I'll just go ahead and ask my question here since we're already pretty much ot.
Are there any plans on creating a new Arms Law based on AbtP?
Criticals per weapon type, i.e. short blades, long blades, thrusting blades, ....?
A through E criticals with their own columns?
Individual tables for each weapon?
Will there be 10 or 20 Armour Ratings?
Will there be crush and puncture criticals with the cutting blades? I think there should be especially with the higher AR but I'm not sure on how to solve it in a tidy and neat fashion?

You have an awsome opportunity to make something grand, will you take it?

[giulio.trimarco]

Best of all,

will the starting of the critical progressive, and not "non-linear", like in the actual tables?
will you stop factoring armor mobility in the table, already computed in the quickness bonus?


If you applay these two changes, you'll open the way to "real location-generic" arms tables.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Are there any plans on creating a new Arms Law based on AbtP?

Personally, I would like to. Whether or not ICE proceeds in that direction depends on how well Combat Companion is received and the demand for such a product (there may also be other factors involved as well).

If we did create a full combat book for these tables, we would be looking at 19 pages - 1 for each critical table (A-E, full page per table), and then for the attack tables, there could a minimum of 110 individual tables (55 pages) and a maximum of 186 individual attack tables (93 pages) depending on how the generic tables were handed (these numbers coming from the Weapon Data listed on the CC tables -- 156 different rows of weapon data in total).

In such a product, the Attack tables would remain AR 1-10, there would not be an increase there. And you would basically get 2 Attack tables per page.

And the funny part is that doing the attack tables would be the easy part. Ask any ICE author who has done a critical table (like Nick or Rob) and they will tell you, once you do one or more critical tables, you don't ever really want to do any more if you can help it. 

will the starting of the critical progressive, and not "non-linear", like in the actual tables?
will you stop factoring armor mobility in the table, already computed in the quickness bonus?

Not exactly sure what you are referring to there...

The Combat Companion tables DO follow the basic principle that better armors do slow you down and therefore that means that you will get hit more often, but it also means that criticals start later.

If the top line is crits and the bottom is hits and low AR is on the left and high AR on the right, then looking at where hits and crits start on the CC tables, you get something that very roughly looks like this symbol: <

Not quite as smooth as that, but along those lines.

Now, the armor rules for AbtP also change the mods received from Armor, along with the skill(s) used with them. For example, it makes Armor a single skill and has it follow a standard progression (as opposed to the 5 points per rank for ALL ranks that is in the core rule).

[thrud]

Now, that sounds like a nice book. That one I'd buy without hesitation.

[Usdrothek]

Now, that sounds like a nice book. That one I'd buy without hesitation.

A huge me too on that! I would buy three of 'em.. one for the (rule) book shelf, one working copy and one for party use.

A fully compiled Arms law using ABtP is what I feel is currently lacking from Rolemaster.

[giulio.trimarco]

will the starting of the critical progressive, and not "non-linear", like in the actual tables?
will you stop factoring armor mobility in the table, already computed in the quickness bonus?

Not exactly sure what you are referring to there...

I mean that, the biggest problem to use the AL tables as location generic is the assumption that heavier armor impede mobility and get hit more often.
While this is (to some extent) true, this is already factored in the quickness penalties.

The tables should only take into account the "protective" value of the material worn.

A tied problem is that an AT2, effectively, in AL protect less than AT 1. Even if you get some less hits, you get many more criticals.

CC are more "progressive" in Hits and critical, reducing the second problem, but still factoring mobility.

This is not correct, to me.
AR should only factor material protective values. Not mobility that, as already said, is computed in other factors.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

You do realize that the armor rules in Combat Companion does not have a quickness penalty for DB?

The AbtP rules have only Maneuver Modifiers, and those modifiers apply to all MM and OB skills equally. These mods do not apply to DB.

Yes, the tables still have armor slowing speed and maneuverability, but the armor does not reduce Quickness bonus to DB. (it did in earlier versions of the rules, but it was eventually removed).

[giulio.trimarco]

Yeah, I realize.

I'm objecting that this is not correct,to me.
The tables should only compute protective values.

The Qu Penalties were ok.

This is a gripe that I have from earlier RM version.

MM applayed to DB? 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

MM applayed to DB?

No. DB is not a Moving Maneuver. In short, Armor (using the AbtP rules from CC) does not have a negative effect on DB, period. The MM Penalty affects Moving Maneuvers (those skills marked MM in character law, and OB skills).

I'm objecting that this is not correct,to me.
The tables should only compute protective values.

Except that they don't, can't and never have.

Combat in RM is an abstract. 10 seconds of individual attacks, dodges, parries, etc. all combined into a single roll. A single roll CAN encompass a dozen actual hits within that 10 second time span.

Combatant in heavier armors ARE going to be slower, and are going to get hit more often, BUT they are also going to take less damage from those hits.

This is reflected in the fact that damage starts sooner, but it is less, and crits start later. You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

Now, if each roll represented a single attack, then yes, I would agree with you that the quickness factor should be applied to DB.

And in that case, then we would only need a single attack column, and have the armor reduce the damage dealt, as that is essentially what you are advocating. 

[pastaav]

Rasyr...actually I think you should consider expanding your last explanation into some kind of FAQ entry. We have spent ages debating the double quickness penalty "problem", but I have seldom seen such a good explanation of why the RM approach is sane.

You can either design the game to have one single attack column that model single attacks and that armor reduce the delivered damage like AD&D does or you can have armor specific attack columns and gain the ability to differ between armors that takes many hits or armors that takes heavy criticals.

The differences between AT1 and AT2 is a possible problem with Armslaw, but it is a problem of details and not a problem about lack of proper design

Btw my favorite solution is to say AT1 is no backpack and indoor clothes while AT2 is backpack or winter clothes.

[giulio.trimarco]

Thanks  for the explanation Rasyr,

but I know how RM "elaborate" combat.
I play GdR by many, many years, and so RM.

I see that discussing this matter "go" hotter, and so I'll stop here.

I'll only add that you haven't got my point about RM tables. But it's my fault.
English is not my language 

What I've understood is that RM combat, not matter the version, will remain the some.
With all pro and cons.

[shnar]

The CC really feels like the next evolution of Arm's Law. Having weapons based on their type not individuals. Having crits that are specific to weapons, etc. I'd love to see this incorporated into the base rules.

-shnar

[Winterknight]

I agree with shnar, I'm a big fan of the CC.

For me, the one issue I still struggle with is the attack rolls that go off the chart, and balancing that against the weapon rank limitations.  Do you throw out the part of the roll between the top of rank 3, for example, and only start counting the overage above 150, if a rank 3 weapon maxes out and beyond?  I haven't seen or come up with a solution that makes me completely happy yet, but that's a small nit-pick on what is otherwise a great addition to the game.

I think that Rasyr's idea of a next-gen arms law would answer that for me - attack tables based on the 19(?) different attack types, with a full result to 150 for each rank of weaponry in the given type, rather than individual weapon tables.  Thus, a GM could decide that a particular sword used the rank 3 longblade table, and that table would have results to 150.  The 150 result might be the same as the current rank 3 limit, but the progression would be smoothed out to get that value at 150. 

[shnar]

I actually agree. I've never liked that the charts that cap at 150, mainly because of a really good open-ended roll feels like it's penalized compared to just a good roll.

There are systems for calculating above 150, but what about the weapon maximums? And even Claw Law, creature maximums? I like the idea of just subtracting the maximum and reapplying the roll, as though it was 2 or 3 good attacks instead of just 1 in the 10 seconds. Then you don't have to try to do the calculation, you just subtract 150 (or whatever the attack maximum is) and reapply on teh chart.

-shnar