Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Warl on August 28, 2014, 08:14:35 PM
-
So firstly... My players have been seeking ways to be more "involved" in their own defense.
Secondly, it has always bother some of them, and ME, that shields effectively Jsut reduce the damage you take. When their real purpose was to take the Blow.
Now I have done some SCA fighting, and really, That is what a Shield does, Blocks the blow. If it DOESN'T Block the Blow, It in No way has an effect on how hard or badly you were hit.
So were discussing a Possible House rule to alter this, and I am presenting it here to see what other RM players think and which method you think might work best.
The Idea is that, When an Attacker makes an attack against an opponent that is defending with a shield, the Shield wielder makes an RR (Resistance Roll) against the attack to try and block it.
The Shield Wielder gets a Bonus to the RR based on the Size/Type/Quality of the shield.
The Attackers Level and the Defenders Level are determined by the Number of Ranks in each combatants skill (weapon skill ranks = attacker level, Shield Skill Ranks = Defenders Level)
The other option would be to make it strictly Skill vs Skill opposed rolls, Highest value wins. Might be simpler this way. Anyone with a shield, even with no skill, gets a Base roll with the Shields Bonus value added in.
I am still working on how to determine breakage and Damage, But Thinking basically that I would just use the Standard Breakage rules using the Blocked attack roll as the breakage check for both shield and weapon.
Another option is to base it upon the Attack rolls Damage dealt and crits.
1% chance of breakage per point of Damage dealt by the base hit, +5% for an A crit, +10 =B, +20=D, +50=E. Minus the material rating and Quality bonus of the shield (to be determined ). I actually Like this Idea better... but Again.. Putting the Ideas out there.
-
Now I have done some SCA fighting, and really, That is what a Shield does, Blocks the blow. If it DOESN'T Block the Blow, It in No way has an effect on how hard or badly you were hit.
I'm not sure I agree. In SCA terms, there are two kinds of hits. Hard enough to count, and not hard enough. If the blow is hard enough, it takes out that location. If it's not hard enough, it does nothing. So if you, say, catch the blow on the edge of the shield to slow it down a bit, it may be transformed from the first type to the second. In SCA terms, it was blocked. But that weapon may still have actually struck you.
In RM terms, and I think real life as well, there is a continuum of hits. That blow that you slowed down a bit can still do damage, just less damage than it would have done otherwise.
-
I would agree with jdales interpretation in this.
-
The RM shield ties in with new views of shields as weapons. You can deal hard blows with them and you might parry with it and it would block a weapon better than an axe or sword because of its size.
I am not familiar with SCA tactics and rules, but large shields went out of style in the real world because the shieldwall proved to be less effective against new weapons and tactics and the shield was weaponized. Wading into melee against a line of Halberd soldiers with a hoplon or a scutem and it gets hooked out of the way and you'll get skewered by another.
That is why, in RM, you should rely on superior numbers, defensive spells or on parrying. And although DB does reduce damage, actually it is making the enemy less effective, since RM catches all offensive capability in a single number. Shield gives DB 20+ but effectively it is hampering the enemy. If you parry enough, it is blocking the enemy.
As a GM I advice you to start using parrying for all your adversaries. Just do a 50/ 50 split. Make sure there are about equal level, equal numbers, so party fighters are a little overwhelmed and when the party targets one enemy (usually the leader or strongest) have that one parry 100% and let the others take advantage of all the player characters focussing on that guy. I'm sure the next fight, your players will decide on a parry split as well.
-
As VladD pointed out defense can rule until a weapon comes along to make it obsolete. So a Wall Shield is great until a weapon is designed to "hook" it away from you.
IMHO, the above is where weapon styles would have a huge impact on the combat game.
For the future I hope I see some new type of armor (in real life (IRL)) that is like kinetic armor from SM:P, yes there is Dragon Scale and other such armor but I do not think it is quite there yet in terms of how it is portrayed in SM:P.
Then again SM, SM2 and SM:P energy shields would be very cool to see in action also. ;D [size=78%] [/size]
[/size][size=78%]MDC[/size]
-
Firstly, Though I appreciate The responses... I didn't come posting to have the game system explained to me, (I am a veteran GM of Rolemaster since the Mid 80s) Nor to have attempts to talk me out of the change or why it should be this way. We have decided We want it changed.
I came Asking for opinions and Help in what would be the best resolution method for what we want to do. Aid in tweaking said method and what other "changes" might need to be made to help keep the balance. Please help with that.
Were not talking about weapons making defenses obsolete or vice-verse.
Nor are we talking about the occasional glancing off the shield affecting the direct hit.
My experience with Sword and Board in the SCA was that Most blows hit the shield, Those that didn't hit the shield were either Parried or connected (whether solidly or not). Rare was the Time that a Blow "Glanced" off a shield and connected in any effective way with the opponent.
The Shield Did what it was meant to do, Block Blows so that they DON'T hit you.
This isn't what happens in Rolemaster, even when you do have players that Parry, Mostly it just makes the hit less severe rather than actually making the Hit a Miss.
ARMOUR is what Makes you take less damage from a Blow.... this is not the intent of a Shield.
This is Our belief and experience and what we wish to more correctly simulate in our game.
I come to you not to be argued out of it because you feel that the game system as is can't be wrong and shouldn't be changed, But instead come to you as Fellow Gamers with a Love for the same game to aid in a Change I and My players Want to make.
After all... One of the BEST parts of Rolemaster.... one of it's Iconic standards, has been the plethora of Optional rules presented not just int he companions, but in even may of the core books.
So please... Let us stick to and address the OP ;D
-
I have long thought the same way as you guys, but I kinda enjoy the serenity of a simple bonus to DB...
I did once have thought about making Attacks vs parrying an OPPOSED skill roll. So A attacks B. B decides to parry 50 OB, and he has 15 DB. He ROLLS d100 (OE or not, you decide) and A must overcome that number. (A totals 150 and B totals 115 for a result of 45) Then lookup the result on the correct AT while subtracting 50 from the table results (or add to total OB of course) to compensate for the roll. So A looks up 95 on the attack table vs AT.
-
I have long thought the same way as you guys, but I kinda enjoy the serenity of a simple bonus to DB...
I did once have thought about making Attacks vs parrying an OPPOSED skill roll. So A attacks B. B decides to parry 50 OB, and he has 15 DB. He ROLLS d100 (OE or not, you decide) and A must overcome that number. (A totals 150 and B totals 115 for a result of 45) Then lookup the result on the correct AT while subtracting 50 from the table results (or add to total OB of course) to compensate for the roll. So A looks up 95 on the attack table vs AT.
This is something we are looking at eventually as well. One step at a time.
I know I hear a lot of people say "Whu? Extra rolls? This will slow down the game even more!"
But actually.. We play another game called "Hackmaster" which actually uses opposed rolls for Combat resolution, and since both attacker and defender roll at the same, it really doesn't slow things down.
And the Plus side is that the Players Feel more involved in the game and spend less time twiddling thumbs waiting for "their turn" to roll dice again to come around.
So Vlad?
If you were to go with one of the two Methods of shield blocking above? would it be the skill vs skill one then? and if so... Would you tweak it any from the method I have posted?
-
There is an optional rule that allows for when (and I am paraphrasing here) "... a blow is enough to strike an opponent and yields 0 points of damage on the attack table." That was to represent the shield or blocking/parrying item taking the entire blow i.e.: you struck, but never connected to the body/vital area to deliver damage. In that case, the weapon was "blocked" and the GM could enforce the breakage rules implying that the two weapons took the entirety of the blow or the weapon/shield took the entirety of the blow and either of the two would receive the damage that was intended for the person. The "winning" object of the RR delivers damage to the "losing" object and that losing object takes the damage/breakage chance. Thus making it possible to hack away at a shield or weapon and eventually rendering it ineffective. You would have to give hit points to the weapons and shields (for which I believe there is a chart) and you or the PC would have to track HP for the items too.
If I have time this weekend, I will try to find the specifics for that optional rule.
-
No worries no bother Spectre
I am well versed in said rule.
If Anything can slow a game down as much or more than an additional die roll, it is Calculating whether it was a shield or parry that took the blow.
-
You could have a defense roll representing any allocated parry, use of a shield, etc. If it beats the attack roll, the attack is canceled. The question is how to resolve the result of the attack if the defense is not successful. You could use the difference between the attack and defense rolls, but then the tables aren't designed for the right range. Maybe the difference +100? That eliminates a lot of light hits, but if you don't add enough you'll have attacks where the defense failed to block and yet there is no damage.
You could also just look up the attack roll's actual value if it succeeded. The defense either works and the attack is blocked, or the defense does nothing. In that case, you will have very few light hits. You will normally either see the attack is blocked or a really hard hit. Even more extreme than the other option.
-
For a roll vs roll resolution, is We have the shield block on it's own...
If that fails, What we are starting with is just Parry and Base defense taken from the attack roll. This gives more incentive to use Parry.... and at this time, since few people Use shields, Since shields add so little to defense compared parry, Part of this Idea is to make shields more "desirable".
Most players that are melee Oriented have gone with two handed weapons or two weapon combo. thinking that they can defended nearly as well with two weapons as they can with a shield, and at the same time get attacks off faster with a better chance of getting a disabling/kill shot in.
-
So what is the actual roll you are using for the shield block?
-
Warl,
Was that rant directed at me, my post, or both?
MDC
-
Warl,
Was that rant directed at me, my post, or both?
MDC
hmm? Not you specifically no Mark. It was directed at all responses right after the initial post.. which all seemed more directed to saying why I Shouldn't be bothering to make a rule change at all or how the current rule is implied to work.
Rather than Addressing my OP which is.... Which of these methods might work best and how would you tweak them to work better.
My OP never asked... Why is it done this way instead of that way.
No worries MarkC I wasn't upset.. I as jsut trying to get everyone focused on responses for what I was wanting rather than arguments/Explanations of why/how RM does it :D
-
So what is the actual roll you are using for the shield block?
That is what I am working out. This isn't something we have implemented yet, but are working out to implement..
The Options are to have a shield Block work as an RR vs the attack with the Skill ranks of Shield on the Defendes side and Skill ranks of the attackers skill determining the Attacker and defender levels...
Or having it be a Skill vs Skill opposed Check.
In either case
The defender using the shield would add the "Defense" modifier of the shield to his "block" roll plus any skill From his Shield if he has developed any.
IF the Defender uses His Shield at all offensively to attack with, then, Like weapons, he has to decide how much of his skill goes to OB and DB and he doesn't get the Shield bonus to block like he would just using it defensively.
-
You asked what we thought, we told you what we thought. I'm also perfectly willing to discuss "if we did this, how should it work", but that wasn't clear in your original post. Anyway....
If you use resistance rolls, how do you take into account stat mods, equipment mods, etc? Also, how do you handle the attacker's parry reducing their offensive total?
Personally I prefer a skill vs skill opposed check because it handles those mods in a way that is consistent with the rest of combat, and because it doesn't require a table lookup. It does require a skill, because otherwise defense doesn't scale with tougher opponents' increasing OB. In the long term (i.e. higher levels) it will be of very limited use to characters who are not practically able to develop shield skill, which you could take as good or bad.
-
In my experience shields are still very much in use today. Police doing crowd control still use them and the re-enactment community are still using them. I get into real world sword fights every week normally with sabre or epee but I have also get a chance to use broadsword/longsword and shield occaisionally.
When you take a blow on a shield the energy of that blow does not just vanish leaving you standing there ready to reposte. A huge chunk of that energy goes into you, the defender. The shield comes back at you and it feels like you are running into a brick wall with just your arm out to stop you. Most commonly the shield does not stop the entire blow but it robs the strike of most of its force but the blow rides across the shield hitting you either on the side of the head or down on the hip, thigh or knee.
When we are fencing it takes just 500g of force to register a hit and our protective equipment can withstand over 1000Kg of force so there is a hugh safety margin in there but just a single 15 minute bout with sword and shield will leave your shield arm, shoulder and elbow very bruised and almost useless with exhaustion.
I would say that the existing addition to DB reducing the severity of any resulting wound is more realistic of actual combat than a successful shield roll making a blow just 'go away'.
Obviously anyone can set up any house rules they like but the only part of this that I liked was the bit about people being actively involved in their defence.
-
I have been trying to come up with an easy way but I do not think this is what you are looking for.
First I think I would have the "skill" be declared active or passive at the start of each round, with different things applying to each. In active mode I would provide more reduction to damage and crits but sacrificing more OB and in passive mode having a small penalty to OB and lower reduction in hits and crits.
The main problem I have is the way I see the skill being no over powered requires a lot of extra rolls. 1) A roll to see if you use the skill then a roll for the attack to over come the skill, then a roll to see if you reduce the crit (or ignore the crit), then a possible roll to see if the attacker overcomes your crit negation.
Now some of those rolls probably can be ignored but I think that if the skill is created then there should be ways to by pass it or nullify it. And unless you say ok "X" magic nullifies the skill then it will require a roll sort of like the RM2 Armor ability of "negate a crit 25% of the time".
For a computer than is not a big deal (but maybe it is depending on the game overhead) but for face to face RPing it might be too much for some groups.
MDC
-
One of the strengths of RM is that a well organised 1st level warrior has a fair chance of attacking and killing a 10th level warrior. Pick your place and your moment you can push the odds towards success. It would not be a task undertaken lightly but you could do it.
If you start using another skill allowing the higher level characters to start dodging the bullet then that 'anything can happen' element disappears. Given that the high level character could well have a well developed sense ambush skill they could bring their shield into play even when 'surprised'.
If there was a defensive shield skill I would want it to have an definite fumble chance. I still think that the exisitng rule for shields adding to DB is the best representation of reality.
-
A couple of more thoughts;
1) Does not a flat bonus reduce the damage you would have received if you did not have a shield as well as the crit?
2) Another option might be to introduce an option like helms or armor enchantments of reducing the crit or negating a crit if the shield wielder makes a roll. The % chance would be based on the type of shield, type of damage, creature size, (maybe even weapon) and the crit severity. The problem here might be that it might make shields too powerful.
MDC
-
Option 2 above already exists. I have a character in a party working on the Curse of Kabis and I have a superior quality non magical helm that has a 50% chance of ignoring the effects of a head critical. I am pretty sure that that helm is an official item as described in the adventure rather than a GM creation.
-
For @ above I know of enchantments that provide a negate crit option but I do not know of any just helm abilities ... but I will take a look at Arms Comp to see if it is in there when I have the chance.
Also I think that the 50% number is a bit high for just a non-magic helm, unless the % chance is reduced by the crit severity, IMHO that is. ;D
MDC
-
I agree but I am just wearing it, I didn't make it. If the GM says 50% you take it and walk away smiling.
-
;D I agree 50% crit negation is huge in my book. ;D
MDC
-
Presumably it is only going to work once and require repairing between 'uses'. I don't know as I haven't taken a head crit since getting it. It is not the sort of thing you want to test too often.
If anyone has the curse of kabis module they can check to see if it is in there. There is a side adventure against an evil mentalist and one of his henchmen is wearing it, or he was until he upset the party, now he is no more and I have his helm.
-
Warl,
Another idea is to simply give shields hits and apply the damaged rolled to the shield, as the shields hits degrade there is a chance the shield would break after the hit (almost miss-typed a bad word there).
With this idea shields would break all of the time IMHO with magic shields being no exception. And IMHO this would mean that investing in a magic shield would not be such a good idea as the cost vs longevity factor would be very poor.
If you use a computer to track shield hits this would be a lot easier than having a person do it also as it would reduce bookkeeping.
MDC
-
Right now it's looking like this:
Anyone without Skill can sue a shield to Block.
They get a d100+ shield Bonus ( See below for our modified Shield Bonuses )
Those Who have Developed Skill ( Shield skill Str/AG cost = 1 handed Crushing (debating giving it a separate cost based on profession separate from weapons. )
If the Block roll exceeds the attack roll the Attack roll the The Shield Takes the hit.
The Gm checks the attack Roll on the Chart Normally for results less Defense using X AT ( still deciding on What AT to use though may define this based on Material type).
Compare the result versus what the shield can take.
Buckler = 10 hits / -1 Crit reduction
Target = 15 Hits / -1 Crit
Normal = 20 hits / -2 Crit
Full Shield = 25 Hits / -2 Crit
Wall Shield = 30 hits / -3 Crit
All Hits that exceed the shields "absorbancy" Transfer into the character +5 hit per crit type exceeded.
Johns Target shield is hit for a 22C, The Shield reduces the the hits by 15 and the crit 1 level, but since it still exceeded the shields absorbancy, John Feels the blow, taking 17 hits of damage. 22-15+10 for 2 crits higher.
Had John been using a Normal shield, he would have only suffered 7 hits of damage from the shock of the blow.
Also, The Gm would check for breakage normally, But the breakage factor of the shield would be permanently reduced by 5 points for each level of crit that exceeds it's value, and -1 point for each crit level it absorbed.
Now of course, Quality Material and even Magic Can increase the Absorbancy levels of a Shield. And Magic Makes it more resilient.
Magic shields Aren't as Easily "beaten" to death. They Only take damage to the Breakage factor at a rate of -1 per crit that exceeded it's value. Crits that are absorbed have no effect of a Magically enchanted shield.
A Shield can Absorb additional hits equal to it's Quality/Magical Bonuses, and it's Crit absorbancy is increased 1 level per 10 points of quality/magic.
-
Is the block roll modified in any way? If not, it's going to usually be successful for combatants with shield skill, since it's opposing an attack roll which has been modified down by DB and parry.
Let's see what happens, looking on the Broadsword table (I'm looking at the RMFRP tables, 1999 printing, but I think it is close enough to the same):
Against AT 1:
* a roll of 90 does 11B. Your full shield reduction brings that down to 0. A +25 shield DB bonus would also bring it to 0.
* a roll of 110 does 18D, your full shield on a block brings that down to 0B. A +25 shield DB would bring it down to 12C.
* a roll of 130 does 24E, yours brings that down to 0C, DB 25 brings it down to 16D.
* a roll of 150 does 30E. Yours: 5C. DB: 22E.
AT 14:
* roll of 90, 7. Yours: 0. DB: 3.
* roll of 110, 11A. Yours: 0. DB: 6.
* roll of 130, 15C. Yours: 0A. DB: 10AS.
* roll of 150, 18E. Yours: 0C. DB: 14C.
AT 20:
* roll of 90, 5. Yours: 0. DB: 3.
* roll of 110, 6. Yours: 0. DB: 4.
* roll of 130, 7A. Yours: 0. DB: 6.
* roll of 150, 8E. Yours: 0C. DB: 7AK.
That's only a sampling, but in general your method blocks all or nearly all the hits, and some of the criticals (when the block roll succeeds). Against AT 14, the criticals are actually fairly similar either way. Against AT 1, the criticals are less severe. Against AT 20, the criticals on harder hits may be more severe than if the shield only gave DB -- also, the harder hits are the ones where you are least likely to block successfully, because the target number is higher. Heavy armor may be losing out here (especially since the block will sometimes fail). But light armor is coming out ahead already, so just giving better benefits for the shield may not be the best answer. An all-or-nothing block would treat all armor types the same, but then you need to adjust the odds of a successful block a little more carefully.
The other thing to think about is that because your method is cancelling most of the hits, but not the crits, fights will more often be decided by a lucky crit roll and less often by attrition. Personally I consider that not advantageous, but opinions vary and it's possible it usually goes that way for you already.
-
* a roll of 90 does 11B. Your full shield reduction brings that down to 0. A +25 shield DB bonus would also bring it to 0.
okay let me clarify that part.
The DB bonus of the shield does not apply as DB anymore.
It only adds to the "Block" roll to see if an attack is successfully blocked.
The only DB that applies against the Attack roll now is Base defense (QU) and parry..
which I forgot to mention, with this rule we have decided that all Parry is as 50% applied ( if you put 10 ob into parry you get 5DB ) when one is employing a shield.
-
Understood. What I'm doing is comparing the result according to your rule (shield block effect, no DB) vs the result according to the rules as written (RAW: no shield block effect, shield grants DB). So where I list the result with DB, what I mean is that is the result without using your house rule.
If you also halve the parry DB when people are using a shield, the characters in heavy armor (e.g. AT 20) are going to be disadvantaged even more relative to the rules as written, because the initial modified roll will be higher under your house rule than under RAW, even before you consider that the shield DB would be more beneficial than your block. You previously said you want shields to be more desirable; I would say all told they are less desirable under the rules you listed, for combatants in medium to heavy armor (but maybe more desirable for people with no armor).
-
Understood. What I'm doing is comparing the result according to your rule (shield block effect, no DB) vs the result according to the rules as written (RAW: no shield block effect, shield grants DB). So where I list the result with DB, what I mean is that is the result without using your house rule.
If you also halve the parry DB when people are using a shield, the characters in heavy armor (e.g. AT 20) are going to be disadvantaged even more relative to the rules as written, because the initial modified roll will be higher under your house rule than under RAW, even before you consider that the shield DB would be more beneficial than your block. You previously said you want shields to be more desirable; I would say all told they are less desirable under the rules you listed, for combatants in medium to heavy armor (but maybe more desirable for people with no armor).
ah well, In our game, in order to help re-balance (in our opinion) Armour, I do not apply a Quickness/defense penalty for wearing armour.
(by RAW, it is pretty much impossible not to get hit and take damage in AT20, and In many lower ATs you are more likely to take a crit than wearing no armour at all. I look Forward to the RMU attack tables where this is resolved by having damage start pretty much at the same attack success level)
Also to aid in this, I give a DB (varying depending on AT type) to those who wear armor to offset the oddity we find in this, It works for us. But that bonus would not apply against the Shield block, only against a Strike that is Not successfully Blocked.
-
But light armor is coming out ahead already, so just giving better benefits for the shield may not be the best answer.
I am not seeing where you got that lighters armours came out ahead?
Secondly, let me make it clear that when a Shield Blocks... you don't role a Crit against the wielder, They only suffer concussion hit damage from the blows "shock" value.
So in your examples,
At AT 1, yes by RAW, a 90 roll would have taken no damage at all.. but by blocking, he suffered from 5 point concussion hits damage from the shock of the blow.
but at the 150 level, instead of suffering a 22E crit, he instead only suffers 20 hit damage from the shock of the blow.
with your example of AT20
My rule yielded no damage at all until the 150 roll, which would be 15 hits damage from the shock of the blow... But by the RAW the AT20 wearer to damage at all levels but suffered a possible Crit injury (A) at the 150 roll.
Perhaps what I wrote there wasn't clear that the, on a successful block, the critical only add to hits damage from the shock of the blow. You do not actually roll for a critical Result.
this alo in a way may explain those Blows that Slide off and still glancingly strike the opponent.
-
Perhaps what I wrote there wasn't clear that the, on a successful block, the critical only add to hits damage from the shock of the blow. You do not actually roll for a critical Result.
I don't understand what you mean here. If I've misinterpreted your rule, then my comparison between your rule and the RAW may be off.
-
Squigy and Lenny face off in a fight.
Squigy has is using Broadsword and Normal Shield (1/2 Parry bonuses)
AT9
DB: 15
OB : 80 with 20 points put to DB ( DB = 25)
Shield Block skill = 40+25 giving him a 65 to block.
Lenny is Just using a Broad sword
AT9
DB : 15
OB :80 with 20 points to DB ( DB = 35 )
Lenny Attacks Squigy and Rolls 85+60 for OB = 145 less Squigy's DB of 25 = 120
Squigy rolls to Block the attack with his shield and rolls 74+65 = 139
He succeeds in blocking the blow.
Lenny's Attack of 120 would have yielded a 15DK.
Since Squigy is using a Normal shield, the Shield absorbs the 15 hits of damage. But since the shield can only absorb the shock of 2 levels of crit, (an A or B crit ) there are still 2 levels of crit exceeding it. Squigy Feels the shock of the Blow, taking 10 hits damage through the shield. (5 hits damage per crit level exceeding the shields rating).
He feels good though cause that blow could have seriously hurt him.
But the Blow Also left a good Mark on his shield (BF is now reduced 12 points from 155 to 143)
On the Next Attack
Lenny Rolls a 113+60 = 173 - 25 = 148
Squigy Rolls to Block rolling an 80+65 = 145 Not enough to Block so he suffers a sever Blow.
Taking a 22E
Had Squigy but rolled a few Points Higher the Shield would have reduced the Hits to 2 Points Plus 15 from the Excess crit shock value leaving Lenny suffering 17 hits of damage but relatively Uninjured.
But the, Blow Lenny Delivered also exceeded the shields Currently reduced Breakage Factor. BF 143 vs Attack of 148, checking the BF of the sword shows it to have a BF 160, So Squigy's Shield Would have shattered under Lenny's Blow becoming Useless to defend with.
-
One of my PC's has an easy fix for this question. 2H Battle Axe of Shield Slaying. After the 1st hit, those pesky shields just "go away" LOL
If I could only find more of those weapons! :-[
-
OK, so since you referenced this thread, I figured I read up on what was being discussed.
I do not believe this proposal to be an appropriate fit for Rolemaster in any way...
I see this proposal as a way of creating a system which rewards the high skilled against the non-skilled.
As one poster previously wrote, in Rolemaster a 1st level fighter has a chance of taking out a 10th level fighter.
As a matter of fact, if you are less skilled and fighting a more powerful foe, your best option by far is to just parry 100% so that you still have that 5% chance of OE'ing and maybe get a death blow in.
The proposal that I prefer is any time you (or an NPC) does anything, you get a roll for it.
If you are in combat you get a roll when you are on offense, and you get a roll when you are on defense - so opposing actions get opposing rolls.
As for shields... heck, they are nothing more than specialized tools - just like swords, maces, flails, etc.
As a tool it can receive bonuses (or penalties) on both offense and defense, and in each (offense and defense) the tool can have a bonus/penalty on the ability to hit the target (block the strike on defense) or a bonus/penalty on damage delivered (absorbed).
A sword generally gets bonus on the offense strike and maybe on damage (2-handed sword), but unlikely to get a bonus on defense or absorb any general damage.
A Shield would get the bonus on the defense block and maybe (if spiked or a shield designed for bashing) on the offense damage.
The key is that the shield is developed as a skill, just like the sword is.
Net comparison determines the result and may result in a critical.
A few additional points...
* In this version a low level hero still has the same chance to OE on offense, but now they also have that chance of OE on defense, but otherwise the higher skilled individual will be much more likely to win since on average the rolls will generally balance out.
* Ambush or Sniping.... It now means something... It means that the defender is not defending themselves, therefore the attacker simply rolls against a difficulty level and the net determines their success which is generally much higher
* Armor reduces the net effect after the hit is determined...
* Heavy armor increases your chances of being hit, but then the armor absorbs the damage. (Making touch attacks easier to manage)
OK, enough of my ramblings...
-
I have never really agreed with this idea but I do like the idea of players being more active in their defence. I am going to play test two changes in a new game starting in October.
1) defensive skills such as tumble evade will be rolled during the missile or melee phase if the character is attacked. This gives them a chance to actiely defend.
2) when parrying I will require a fumble check for every blow you attempt to parry but to balance the multiple chances to fumble, if the fumble check is OE up then you will get +10DB against that blow.
I don't like making highly significant changes to the rules or adding too many more dice rolls as that actually slows down the combat round even further which was one of the reasons for making defence active in the first place.
-
GURPS have shield skill.
Shields there give PD to your BLOCK so you use it activly!
-
GURPS have shield skill.
Shields there give PD to your BLOCK so you use it activly!
I have never played GURPS, to me PD stands for Physical Defence (as opposed to ED being Engergy Defence) from playing too much Champions in my mis-spent youth. What is PD in GURPS?
-
It's Passive Defense. On any defense roll in GURPS, you add your Passive Defense for armor including shield to your appropriate Active Defense skill for Block (with a shield), Parry (based on weapon skill), or Dodge -- you only get to apply one of these to each attack. (Actually just half or a third of those, but you get the point.) That's your effective skill you are rolling against for defense. If successful, the attack fails.
GURPS also gives you a Damage Resistance (DR) value for your armor. So armor helps two ways -- its Passive Defense gives it a chance of deflecting the attack safely, and if that fails the damage done is reduced by the DR. Some armor is better in PD, some in DR, but usually you have at least a little of each.
-
I never played GURPS, I think the name put me off even looking at the system. Merp's good, gurps bad. How shallow can one be?
-
It's a very flexible system, I like it for cross-genre games, it handles a range of magic, technology, and other abilities very smoothly. I also like it for SF. I ran a world-hopping game for a while, then settled down and ran Cthulhupunk. I don't like it as much for fantasy because I prefer stronger archetypes for fantasy (i.e. professions), and because of the various magic systems it includes, the default one doesn't seem very magical and the alternative ones top out too easily. Admittedly I am at least an edition behind the times.
Anyway... GURPS' PD/DR system is a fairly simple attack/defense mechanic which is suited for a streamlined game with low hits (typical PC 10-15, does not increase to any meaningful degree with experience) and without RM's style of hits+criticals. Even with the extra roll, combat is faster than RM because normally there are no table lookups. Attacker rolling only needs to take into account their skill and situational modifiers, they either beat it or not (small chance of a critical). Then defender only needs to take into account their own PD + active defense, the attack is either canceled or not. Then roll damage and subtract DR.
-
GURPS is to me a system where you are not locked down by proffesion, stats, random crit rolls, etc...
IF you good you hit people in the head or neck to chop their head of, if you wanna be a swordsman but also wanna be a engineer you do so, carry more armor you get DR so you take less physical dmg, you get Passive defence so you activly can avoid attacks with dodge, block, parry.
If you want a very flexible combat system that allows fighting while you move drive etc.. play GURPS.
In many ways i like GURPS so much more then any other system because it is so flexible and it dosnt have all the limits that i find in RM sadly.
And it has like.. tons of settings books with very detailed source stuff.
I have played GURPS for about 20 years while also playing RM2 for 25 years.
GURPS can have a future setting and still have swords and shields.. and it works together.
well hurra GURPS :D
I still love RM2 for some reason :)
-
I've played GURPS Supers and GURPS Toons and they were very easy to learn and very free form to play. 3d6 system. It's something I've been thinking of getting my kids started on too. They already love RM2, so they should be able to grasp that system pretty quickly. It does require a lot of on-the-fly thinking for the GM if you play Toons. Anything the player can think up for a cartoon character, or they have seen in any cartoon, they can throw at you in the game. It's a wild, very fast paced game.
-
Just joining this thread, so I apologise if anything I say repeats anyone else's suggestions/comments.
As far as I can tell, the DB that the system already provides shields is based upon the obstacle that it presents the attacker. It's much the same as the target being made smaller because they are standing behind a wall. They get hit less because they are more difficult to hit. This reduces the damage since it makes the attackers roll less than it would have been. Simply that.
The number of opponents are affected is based purely upon the size and it's relative position. It doesn't take into account any active defensive skills that the user may attempt with the shield. Any parry that the defender uses (probably derived from a weapon skill) serves to further increase the difficulty of the attacker to make a telling blow. In order to do that NO skill roll is required...
But... lets say that the defender has ONLY a shield to defend themselves with? They can just passively hide behind it , absorbing blows raining down on them... or if they are competent (and strong enough) attempt to make active attempts to interpose the shield, increasing it's effectiveness. That part, really, is no different to using a weapon to parry, still NO roll, just an application of parry using a shield skill.
Shields do absorb blows (until they fall apart).. but much like plate armour and sloped armour on tanks can also deflect harmlessly. *That's* what an active skill could conceivably be used for.. in that case the skill is rolled. If it succeeds then there is a derived % chance that the attack is deflected harmlessly... However, the user MUST dedicate activity specifically to do so... some GM's might also want to want the skill developed in the same sort of fashion as Two-weapon fighting.
However, the truth of the matter is, if anything hits a Shield hard enough, the concussive effects WILL affect the wielder or perhaps even unbalance them if it isn't deflected.