Topic: Attack Charts a False sense of Protection.

[Warl]

So if there is one thing I hope to see change in RMU, it is making ALL Amour protect better than your own skin.

One thing I have disliked about the attack charts for weapons (For most of the weapons but not all and not as much for animal/natural attacks) was that you were more likely to take a Crit/Injury.

For Me, At least, Any "At" that is taking Crits Earlier than Wearing no Armor at all (unless it is really poor quality armor) seems make it little point to wearing the armor at all.

Also seems your being double penalized for certain Armor types.... Not only are you taking damage earlier and Crits Earlier, But you may also be taking a DB penalty for wearing it, whcih means your going to take Damage EVEN SOONER than wearing no armor at all.

Now let me caveat. I I don't have as much problem with the taking of Concussion hits earlier..... Though this Ought to be a result of a Lower DB due to restrictions of the armor. But The whole Point of wearing armor is not to make you harder to hit, But to help prevent Injuries Which I see as being crits.

So that is what i would Like to see "fixed" in a New edition. Make armor Actually protect and Not double Penalize you for wearing it and make you more likely to be Incapacitated by an injury than No armor at all.

I deal with this in my game by giving  DB bonus to anyone wearing amour. In a sense removing some of the Quickness penalties. 

[Cory Magel]

Unless there's a specific really bad one you can point us to most the attack charts are setup so that at the low end you might get hit more often but at some point the balance shifts, meaning higher up the chart you are better off with the armor.

There has to be a reason to not wear armor.  If all you took was a few extra hits here and there everyone would be wearing armor.  "Light" fighters would essentially become obsolete due to the disadvantage they would have.

I almost always play "light" fighters.  I rarely use heavier than AT12 on characters unless they are a Knight, Paladin, or something of that nature.  Even playing a straight Fighter/Armsman I'll usually go the quick/nimble path rather than the heavy/defensive path.  If anything I believe that things are already weighted in AT1's favor.  The reason for this is because, from a pure damage taken standpoint, I am often about on par with the heavy fighters.  They will usually have 'moderate' damage in a fight that I will usually come out of unscathed or beat to snot.  However, I can maneuver far better.  Jump, climb, run, etc.  So, from my perspective, I'm better off.

[yammahoper]

The easy answer is to ignore the QU penalty.  The mnv mods and missile penalty or enough to stress the disadds from better AT's.

Rather than a QU penalty, increasing rate of ext pt loss is the best way to track the effects of heavy armor, and perhaps maximum movement rate. 

[markc]

 On the heavy armor front, I can say that most groups need one or more to make the whole group jel. But there are also occasions when you do not need one and the party works out great.
MDC


BTW, Warl make sure that VladD see's this topic if he does not post into it as he is the author of the RMU Arms Law.
MDC

[VladD]

I have been reading this post, but to clarify: I have just assisted Matt and Dan, who are the authors of the core rules, together with Marc R, in making the attack tables a little more realistic.

I am trying to tackle Creature Law, though.

As on armor: Warl asks for more protection than AT 1 for higher ATs, I think that it has been implemented. There is no more Qu penalty for armor anymore, too. But things have been modified and I'm not up to speed with the changes, except Matt told in the forums that the maximum for the tables has been moved; up to 200 or 250 (I'm not sure) and that the differences between certain armor types have been exaggerated, so the tables will be less uniform and one can really see which weapon to use against which armor. Also large (2 handed) weapons will be more powerful than before, because they were lacking.

[markc]

Thanks VladD,
 For the information and letting us know that things are working away behind the ICE Forums (so to speak). 
MDC

[Warl]

Cory asked for some examples. So here is what I am talking about.
This will state at What "result" Certain Crits start at.

Dagger
At1: A=95 B=106 C=115 D=125 E=135
At2: A=85 B=097 C=108 D=121 E=133 (note no one ever wears robes. it is to risky)
At5: A=80 B=098 C=115 D=128 E=140 (AT5 you start taking crits even earlier than robes... RIsky)
At6: A=85 B=102 C=118 D=132 E=142 (about the same as robes but over all more risky than wearing no armor)
At7: A=90 B=104 C=118 D=133 E=143 (here is still slightly worse than no armor and your taking a maneuvering penalties)
At8: A=95 B=109 C=123 D=137 E=144 (again here, barely better than No armor but your taking maneuvering penalties)
At9: A=95 B=109 C=122 D=136 E=144 (nearly the same as AT 8 except no maneuvering penalties.  which doesn't make it all that much better than AT1.

And that is just a dagger,  Other charts are worse in that AT9 is Worse than at5 such as the hand axe and war Hammer. But in pretty much all cases of weapons, you are going to take Crits, not just hits, Earlier than not wearing armor at all with these armor types.... which for me runs Contrary to wearing the armor in the first place.

[Cory Magel]

The comments I've seen from Matt seem to just be stating a desire to increase the top number on the charts, I have not read anything that states they actually have been.  Has that actually been done?  (I guess we'll find out soon).

[Ynglaur]

I have been reading this post, but to clarify: I have just assisted Matt and Dan, who are the authors of the core rules, together with Marc R, in making the attack tables a little more realistic.

I am trying to tackle Creature Law, though.

As on armor: Warl asks for more protection than AT 1 for higher ATs, I think that it has been implemented. There is no more Qu penalty for armor anymore, too. But things have been modified and I'm not up to speed with the changes, except Matt told in the forums that the maximum for the tables has been moved; up to 200 or 250 (I'm not sure) and that the differences between certain armor types have been exaggerated, so the tables will be less uniform and one can really see which weapon to use against which armor. Also large (2 handed) weapons will be more powerful than before, because they were lacking.

Is there some way I can +1 this post?

[VladD]

I figure it is all based on the (enormous load of) feedback RMU has gotten. I'm betting a great deal of changes have been implemented. The community certainly has put forth lots of awesome ideas and some harsh, but deserved criticism.

So if anyone deserves a +1 it is the fans and second Nicholas, Marc, Dan and Matt, who have been slaving away on making RMU all that it can be.

RMU beta 2 is going to be awesome!

[Merkir]

Cory asked for some examples. So here is what I am talking about.
This will state at What "result" Certain Crits start at.

Dagger
At1: A=95 B=106 C=115 D=125 E=135
At2: A=85 B=097 C=108 D=121 E=133 (note no one ever wears robes. it is to risky)
At5: A=80 B=098 C=115 D=128 E=140 (AT5 you start taking crits even earlier than robes... RIsky)
At6: A=85 B=102 C=118 D=132 E=142 (about the same as robes but over all more risky than wearing no armor)
At7: A=90 B=104 C=118 D=133 E=143 (here is still slightly worse than no armor and your taking a maneuvering penalties)
At8: A=95 B=109 C=123 D=137 E=144 (again here, barely better than No armor but your taking maneuvering penalties)
At9: A=95 B=109 C=122 D=136 E=144 (nearly the same as AT 8 except no maneuvering penalties.  which doesn't make it all that much better than AT1.

Our group is also playing RMC rules and I agree 100% with Warl. Tables like this make me cringe. The RMU beta 1 tables are going in a much better direction, and I'm really looking forward to beta 2 which I hope take the tables to 250 (or at least 200?)

It will be great if our group can convert to RMU (assuming there's general agreement to do so). But that brings up an interesting point. A couple of our players are old RM hacks and were fully aware that armour in RMC is bad so they opted for no armour even though they are fighter types. So if we convert to RMU, I'm wondering how to handle it? I'd probably want to allow them to "alter their past" by assuming that they can back-track and put DPs into armour if they so wish. Our group will need to discuss it at length, if and when the time comes.

Probably too early, but has any thought been put into conversion of RMC/SS/FRP characters to RMU? It has to be considered at some stage, so here's a start.

[markc]

 I can say that I think I was one of the people how was a bit harsh on the criticism of RMU bata 1. I do hope that none of the writers, editors or playtesters have taken it personally in any way.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

I think most of them can handle it.   You've got to learn to deal with harsh criticism personally and professionally if you're going to produce something for the 'masses'.  As odd as it sounds I was actually a little disappointed we didn't hear much criticism at all of the Channeling Companion when it was put out.  That's one of the most important factors in making you a better writer (well, assuming you can handle it).

[VladD]

So if we convert to RMU, I'm wondering how to handle it? I'd probably want to allow them to "alter their past" by assuming that they can back-track and put DPs into armour if they so wish. Our group will need to discuss it at length, if and when the time comes.

Actually they can either choose a light armor type, such as AT 2 or 3 and get the talent Adrenal defense, tier I-III. They just need to avoid taking an encumbrance penalty, which is Load - weight allowance =< 0, where weight allowance is 10% of body weight + 3 x ST. This in conjunction with magic shields, Aura or blur, enchanted gear and parry should provide enough DB to last.

I can say that I think I was one of the people how was a bit harsh on the criticism of RMU bata 1. I do hope that none of the writers, editors or playtesters have taken it personally in any way.
MDC

Speaking for myself: nope!

[Warl]

is access to the Alpha/Beta material for RMU open to everyone? Or do you need to sign up?

[jdale]

It's open, just read the "Rolemaster Arms Law Playtesting Agreement and Playtest File" sticky thread in the Arms Law playtest forum. There are instructions and a download link there.

There's still discussion about how to perfect the tables, but the problem with AT 1 is substantially improved even in the first draft of the RMU rules. I think you'll be pleased if you haven't seen it already.

[vroomfogle]

The comments I've seen from Matt seem to just be stating a desire to increase the top number on the charts, I have not read anything that states they actually have been.  Has that actually been done?  (I guess we'll find out soon).

- Charts go to 175
- Severity of criticals go higher than E (where F = E + A with same roll, etc)
- No more getting hit more often while wearing armor (i.e. the built-in quickness penalty)
- Charts more compressed - hopefully getting 4 to a page. (1 row for each number just was too granular, it's just not needed)

[yammahoper]

Well, if they insist to keep the tables and they are better designed, cool.  How about Small Sword and Large Sword tables with  one each for attacks to slash and attacks to puncture?  It seems that if realistic presentation of armors protective values is the goal, then more tables would allow a more granular result, resulting in better definition.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

There has to be a reason to not wear armor.

There is: cost.

If all you took was a few extra hits here and there everyone would be wearing armor.  "Light" fighters would essentially become obsolete due to the disadvantage they would have.

Well, you know, historically, in the European medieval setting on which RM is foremost based, it's what happened (until the advent of guns, that made armours pretty obsolete). The only reason why one wouldn't wear an armour for a fight would be because one was caught off guard, or couldn't afford an armour anyway.

[jdale]

Wearing heavy armor also isn't appropriate in every circumstance. May attract the concern of the town guard, etc.