Topic: RMC Questions

[Majyk]

Edited above.

I see the confusion.  They put the cart before the horse thinking you’d know about the -10(Min. Man. Armour mod. In Pg 144 example) on top of the “up to 3x weight penalty of -20” being a total of -30 that way.

[Cpt Tiberius J. Krik]

Then the key factor is they’re supposing you know about the Breastplate Min. maneuver Penalty of -10 in the example on Pg 144.

I think my resolution lies in reading the rule about the above. Do you know where that armour minimum maneuver rule is located?

[Majyk]

Not a worry, aye.
Minimum Maneuver Mods are on the armour table - of course in another book, Arms Law.
Pg 11. if you aren’t still in ChL pg 77.

Again, this is the reducible mod from developing Soft/Rigid/Chain/Plate Maneuvering in Armour skill.
If someone doesn’t have enough ranks(always at a +5/rank developed vs being reduced like normal for 1-10 ranks, then 11-20, etc) including their Agility total mod to bring the Max Maneuver Mod penalty down to the Minimum, one then would take whatever penalty is leftover from doing so.

[Cpt Tiberius J. Krik]

Page 141: "Bandring is fleeing from the dreaded Malevolent Moose. He has a Base Movement Rate of 60’/rnd..."

Page 143: "An unencumbered Bandring travels 50’ per round (i.e. his Base Movement Rate is 50) when walking"

Page 144: "So his [Bandring's] Base Movement Rate is 55"

Errata? I think it should be 55' a round, but not sure.

Page 77 the armour table says Breastplate has:

Min. Man. -15
Max. Man. -90
Qu. Pen. -10

So a fully trained Branding would still have a minimum penalty of -15 to contend with?

55' a round -15 = 40' a round - 10 (enc. pen.) = 30' a round.

If I apply the Qu penalty of -10 (page 77), that gets me to -30, which is 25' per round not 20' per round as the rules say?

[Majyk]

Yup, again a bad example from multiple places to garner the info from, as they’re including the Strength bonus to reduce the negative encumbrance mod.
That and they aren’t including other mods for Qu. in that example, just the BMR.

That is found in the example on Pg 144 also.

Otherwise, you’d be correct in using all mods as per pg. 144 = 55’ -30 = 25’, not 20’.

[Cpt Tiberius J. Krik]

Yup, again a bad example from multiple places to garner the info from, as they’re including the Strength bonus to reduce the negative encumbrance mod.
That and they aren’t including other mods for Qu. in that example, just the BMR.

That is found in the example on Pg 144 also.

Otherwise, you’d be correct in using all mods as per pg. 144 = 55’ -30 = 25’, not 20’.

Thanks Majyk

[Majyk]

Keep up the questions, if anything it’s nice to relearn what many of us have forgotten or haven’t thought about in awhile - seeing the shortcomings of the old editing that used to squeak by from copy/pasting older editions that were also prone to previous editing issues.

[Cpt Tiberius J. Krik]

Page 135: "If this maneuver had been to throw a rope around a rock on the other side of the chasm and the same result had been obtained, then a second dice roll would have been required. If the second roll (unmodified) was 80 or less, then the rope throw would be successful; otherwise, it would fail"

There are two rolls to lasso the rope over the rock. I'd like to house rule this so it becomes one roll with partial successes but I'm not sure how to word it. RM is a great game but has a lot of moving parts, so eliminating the need for two dice rolls where one could work is almost a necessity.

Has anyone house ruled this, how did you write it up?

Thanks all.

BTW, I've finished reading ChL and I'm now on AL. All very good!

[MisterK]

I would use a static manoeuver resolution in this cas (as for all all-or-nothing rolls).

An alternative way of considering a moving manoeuver "partial" result is to have the manoeuver succeed, but with a limitation - such as, for instance, the lasso or hook not grappling the rock that was aimed for, but one slightly lower - how much lower depending on the % result. Or having it grapple the rock, but not securely, and prone to falling off if it is not handled carefully - and you don't need to tell the players that at once. In this case, the % result would be the actual amount of effort the rope will support before falling off - which means that someone could get in a very precarious situation. Just don't kill a character that way - let them catch themselves at the last moment when the lasso eventually fails, and watch how the characters solve this new problem.

Of, if there is no risk associated with failure (meaning that the character can try several times with no detrimental effect), you can use the % as a guideline to see how long it takes to get a grip on that rock - 100% means that it takes a predictable amount of time, while 50% means that it takes twice as long and uses twice as many resources.

[Majyk]

Threshold away!

RM static maneuvers use a chart based on 111+ as a success with Partial and Near Success happening at 76 and 91 thresholds.
In the later RMFRP books, they attached constant % degrees at each threshold of something like 20% for anything less than 5-75(a failure or 0% completed); 76-90(anywhere from 10-35%, usually 20%); 91-110(80%).

Rolemaster “special” rolls of 66 and 00 give 100% results with 66 having a negative/bane effect tagged to them:
…66 could be “your rope wraps around the rock but half-way through your maneuver to reach the other side, it unravels and falls into the pit as you *just* make it to the rock you lassoed, leaping to it in time!”

…while a 100 unmodified roll on the dice(00) rewards completion with a boon:
100 could be “you swing/climb your rope and find a second rope of some other previous mountain-climber that used this same path but left their better/same gear!”

=====

When I didn’t wanna look things up, and admittedly hated 111+, I used 101+ instead with% completion threshholds for every 25% one achieved.  Easy for players to remember, too!

As you see from replies you’ve received on your different posts, don’t be afraid to finagle a fair reply of whatever rules you do commit to memory.  You’re never wrong if you’re fair.

As MisterK above noted, never not provide a second “saving throw” on a failed skill check(“make an RR/save to see if you can grab the rock, just as the rope gives way!”) for a PC and describe a way less successful conundrum for them! 
The sky is the limit in how players get themselves out of new holes they find themselves in from failures, and a tonne of RP and great player stories abound from later tales of sessions they had with their alter-egos!
That said, RM is a hilarious big boy/girls game of crunch and characters do die from bad decisions/strategy.  Don’t take that away completely or your RM game loses its magic of risk and anxiety for make-it-or-break-it obstacles. 

Enjoy your continued walk through the ruleset, man!

[Tywyll]

... you can pump St and Qu bonuses with background options from Rolemaster Companion (I) and later which can lead to very high bonuses if the base stats and racial mods are good.

Speaking of which, if a player rolled an extra stat bonus for a background option in RoCoI, I would take the total bonus it created minus any race bonus and crossreference the subtotal and apply whatever it amounted to as the new Stat.
I would then allow a Player to select an A/B/C pick from RoCoIII’s super stat abilities if the new stat was 102+.

So a Player Character with a “normal” 100Stat(+25) ends up getting any kind of Stat Bonus background option to it(+15 to +25) would get their Temp and Potential raised to whatever the new total bonus would end up being(+40 to +50) or (a 102 to 104 Stat).
I would then allow the perusal of an A pick, as mentioned.

Wasn't there an option in a later Companion to use those options based on total modifier rather than rolled attribute?

Ah, found it, it's in Companion 6, page 30.
Group A: +35-+45
Group B: +46 to +70
Group C: +71 to +125
Group D: +126 to +175

[Cpt Tiberius J. Krik]

Thank all for the advice. Much to ponder.

Here's another question, what does a player roll when their character wants to:

- lift a (St) heavy log off the road so the coach can continue on

- walk across (Ag) a thin beam without falling off

I can't find any rules for Stat rolls. If you're using just St, or just Ag, that's extremely swingy on d100.

[Majyk]

There y’go, now you’re thinkin’!

For pure stats, I liken a 50+ as success, usually.
Assign Difficulty mods if thinking they’re needed:
-Picking up a log on a solid platform vs in the mud during a stormy downpour.
-Walking along a thin beam vs doing so with multiple swinging bags temporarily barring one’s path due to timing

Have fun with it and make it memorable.

PS: Fans of my Twitch games will often see me make Self Discipline, Reasoning, or even Empathy rolls to check on whether my PCs I play hold back from shenanigans, realize something & putting two and seven hundred together, or feeling like helping or caring about a certain person in need.

The last one for Empathy is due to me as a player always wanting to help, but keeping an updated  relationship scale for interactions with fellow party members during our games.
If a low number for them, I use that number(1-100) as the percentage chance I need to roll *under* in order to help them = taking my stat bonus as a negative mod to this roll to sneak in me actually caring to do so or not.

This helps guide my actions vs being that ever-helpful hero to an @$$hole character that treats me or others like shite…

[Hurin]

In the Rules As Written (at least RM2), it would just be St or St/Ag. You are right, though, that would make even moderate maneuvers very difficult.

But of course this is Rolemaster, so you can make a much better system with optional or houserules. My favorite -- and this comes from a Rolemaster Blog article that Peter wrote a few years ago that I can't seem to find -- would be to simply add the percentile stat for St or AG. It makes such sense in a d100 system with percentile stats and 101+ as the success threshold to just add the stat, that I can't believe no one thought of that before. But Peter did, and it would work far better than the RAW.

[jdale]

If you use the stat and not the stat bonus, it ignores any modifier from race, items, spells, etc. If you want to make up for the stat bonuses being low compared to skills, you can multiply it by 3.

[MisterK]

If you use the stat and not the stat bonus, it ignores any modifier from race, items, spells, etc. If you want to make up for the stat bonuses being low compared to skills, you can multiply it by 3.

That's what I would have done as well. Not that you have many occasions to do that with the number of skills available in RM2 when you use RMC2+.

[Cpt Tiberius J. Krik]

Good house rules here. Two questions...

On which table would you use the Stat bonus x3 rule, SM or MM?

With the binary success / fail rule I still don't know what to do. I'd like to use the SM table and do away with any partial successes so that any result of 76+ is a success, and anything less is a failure. The thing is, I'm not sure how accurate that marker of 76 is when you start adding modifiers for Stat bonuses, race, etc - it might be way off. Any thoughts?

[netbat]

If you use the stat and not the stat bonus, it ignores any modifier from race, items, spells, etc. If you want to make up for the stat bonuses being low compared to skills, you can multiply it by 3.

I just add all those modifiers to the stat as well and use the MM table with appropriate difficulty, but then I am using RMSS so it might not work the same.
Of course this is only for situations where no skill applies. If you allow characters to use stats instead of skills because they don't have them, this method can give results much better than if they had and used a skill unless you adjust the difficulty way up.

[Hurin]

If you use the stat and not the stat bonus, it ignores any modifier from race, items, spells, etc.

Bonuses from items and spells would still work the same, no? It's still a percentile system, after all.

You make a good point about racial bonuses. Perhaps the best way would be to take a page from that section of CompanionVI that Tywyll noted. Instead of using the stat bonus, though, you translate what the bonus would be when it includes racial bonuses, and then use the corresponding stat. E.g. if you had a 90 stat (which inherently provides a +10 bonus) and a +10 racial bonus, you would add 98 to the roll rather than 90 (since 98-99 would normally give a +20 bonus).

If you want to make up for the stat bonuses being low compared to skills, you can multiply it by 3.

You can, but that doesn't help the average person or the person with average stats. The average person, with say 50 in all stats, would get no bonus at all. So you still have the problem of basic functions being too difficult for the average person.
          If on the other hand you add the stat, the average person gets +50, and has a 50/50 shot of succeeding on a task of medium difficulty. That IMHO is a much better baseline.
          Another option would be to add 50 + (stat bonus).

[MisterK]

With the binary success / fail rule I still don't know what to do. I'd like to use the SM table and do away with any partial successes so that any result of 76+ is a success, and anything less is a failure. The thing is, I'm not sure how accurate that marker of 76 is when you start adding modifiers for Stat bonuses, race, etc - it might be way off. Any thoughts?

I wouldn't remove the partial successes. "Yes, but" (91-110) and "No, but" (76-90) results are the key leads to interesting situations. If you ignore what is actually written in the table, I mean, and come up with your own "but"s.

[but if you want to, I'd say that the threshold for success is 90, not 76. 76-90 is a partial failure. 91-110 is a partial success].