Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: Cpt Tiberius J. Krik on September 23, 2018, 06:29:18 PM
-
Character Law
On Page 75: Normal Skill Development
It says...
“Many skills may not (at any cost) be developed at a rate faster than one skill rank per character level. For a given profession, these skills have a single cost number in Table 07-03.”
Ok, this seems to be saying, if a skill has a cost of (for example) 1/*, it cannot be raised more than once.
Then on Page 76: Primary Skill Development Costs
It says...
“Only if a notation such as “2/7” appears, may a skill be improved two skill ranks during one experience level. The cost before the slash (in development points) is paid to raise the skill the first rank and the cost after the slash is paid (in addition) to raise it the second rank (if desired).“
That makes sense.
But then, again on Page 76:
It says...
“A notation of 1/*, 2/*, 3/*, etc, indicates that an infinite number of skill ranks in this area may be developed at one time at the listed cost for each.“
Aren't the red rules contradicting each other? One seems to say you cannot increase a skill rank beyond 1, the other seems to say you can increase a skill rank as much as you like.
-
It does seem to be errata because
Page 75:
"If the slash is followed by an * instead of a number, that area may be developed as much as desired during any experience level and each rank of development has the same cost."
-
Doh! It makes sense now
There's a difference between skills having a single cost number (1) and skills having a single number (1/*)
Sorry :/
-
You got it now, Captain. "Single Cost Skills" don't have a slash ("/"), so costs like "9" or "20" can only be developed at a rate of one rank per level. Whereas a cost of say 2/* means you could develop as many ranks (at a cost of 2 DP per rank) as you have DPs to spend each level.
Nightblade ->--
-
Page 79: Skill for Weapons Within a Category
"A character’s skill with each weapon (and each way of using it) is considered a separate area for development purposes."
So, if I have 1 Handed-Edged OB +30 and Broadsword +55 and I pick up a Longsword, I use that at +30 (unless I use option rules)?
Page 79
"Note that because skills with different weapons are considered separate, two weapons of the same type may be developed simultaneously without penalty, provided that the development cost of each is paid."
I don't understand this second part.
-
You would not develop 1 handed edged as a skill. You could develop Shortsword(melee) and Shortsword(thrown) as an example of two aspects of the same weapon.
The second case is if you learned broadsword and dagger they are both 1 handed edged weapons so they have the same cost.
-
Page 98: Example
"Clu wants the sword to have two properties: + 2 spell adder (cost: 200 gp, since a sword is “rod sized) and “Elf-slaying”
(cost: 500 gp)"
Where does the +500gp Elf Slaying come from?
-
Also...
Page 100: Tables?
"The cost for a spell bonus property is equal to the cost given in the table below times the sum of any applicable spell bonus cost multipliers"
Should that read "to the cost given in the table above" (on page 99)?
Also, the above paragraph mentions the 'Spell Bonus Cost Multipliers' table. But there are two tables with 'Multipliers' in their names (on page 100 and 101). I assume you use both, if applicable?
-
Page 98: Example
"Clu wants the sword to have two properties: + 2 spell adder (cost: 200 gp, since a sword is “rod sized) and “Elf-slaying”
(cost: 500 gp)"
Where does the +500gp Elf Slaying come from?
p.20 ChL&CaL (1989 RM2 Red Border version) or p.102 RMC ChL&CaL:
Cost = 10xlvl - Slays Type Of Creature - "Treat all races as 50th Level (e.g., a sword of Elf Slaying has a cost of +500gp)"
Hope that helps.
Nightblade ->--
-
Also...
Page 100: Tables?
"The cost for a spell bonus property is equal to the cost given in the table below times the sum of any applicable spell bonus cost multipliers"
Should that read "to the cost given in the table above" (on page 99)?
Also, the above paragraph mentions the 'Spell Bonus Cost Multipliers' table. But there are two tables with 'Multipliers' in their names (on page 100 and 101). I assume you use both, if applicable?
I couldn't find the section you quote in the RMC Version of ChL&CaL, but I did find this that might help you (on p. 100 as well):
"These multipliers are cumulative in that they are summed before they modify the base cost."
So you pick all the multipliers that apply to the properties you have decided the item to have, sum them & then multiply this result by the base cost. And yes, you can pick properties from the variety of tables available in ChL&CaL as well as other RM sources (Alchemy Companion & RoCoI come to mind).
Again, I hope this helps.
Nightblade ->--
-
Thanks for the clarifying Nighblade - that does help.
Re: Page 100: Tables?
I've only got RMC the core rulebook (the one with the female elf fighter on the cover). The specific part I'm quoting is on page 100, top left column, second bullet point.
There it says "table below" but I think it means "table above", i.e. the table on page 99. But I'm unsure.
EDIT: Is ChL&CL, Character & Campaign Law?
-
"These multipliers are cumulative in that they are summed before they modify the base cost."
So you pick all the multipliers that apply to the properties you have decided the item to have, sum them & then multiply this result by the base cost. And yes, you can pick properties from the variety of tables available in ChL&CaL as well as other RM sources (Alchemy Companion & RoCoI come to mind).
Again, I hope this helps.
Nightblade ->--
Ok, so, you do use both tables with 'Multipliers' in their names, specifically, the tables on page 100 and 101?
-
EDIT: Is ChL&CL, Character & Campaign Law?
Correct.
Check out Notations at the beginning(first few pages) of most RM2 books for other shorthand reference abbrevs. of the plethora of RM Rulebooks for more.
-
Page: 141
"A super character with racial adds to his +25 bonuses for Quickness and Strength may move quite far walking even while burdened with armor and a heavy load."
I'm not sure what the highlighted means
-
It just reflects that a character with +25 bonuses to Qu and Str is way above average. No technical meaning.
-
Note that it also says "racial adds", for which +25 would be very high. I'm pretty sure no PC race gets +25 to both Qu and St (those with high St tend to have bad Qu)... checking my RM2 C&T, +25 racial St is in the Giant range of bonuses. Even trolls don't go that high. Only a few fey folk reach +25 or better Qu. To get +25 to Qu and St as racial adds would require use of some homebrewed race. But 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. But the bonuses listed as racial adds are "super" because they are near the extremes for such mods individually for two stats that rarely have bonuses together (and certainly not at those extremes)... the example exceeds actual game limits.
-
Ok thanks both
-
... 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.
-
... 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.
That's an interesting way of looking at things Majyk. I kind of like that. It makes a lot of sense (if you use that particular option from RoCoIII (as I do)).
Nightblade ->--
-
"These multipliers are cumulative in that they are summed before they modify the base cost."
So you pick all the multipliers that apply to the properties you have decided the item to have, sum them & then multiply this result by the base cost. And yes, you can pick properties from the variety of tables available in ChL&CaL as well as other RM sources (Alchemy Companion & RoCoI come to mind).
Again, I hope this helps.
Nightblade ->--
Ok, so, you do use both tables with 'Multipliers' in their names, specifically, the tables on page 100 and 101?
That's right.
Nightblade ->--
-
Thanks for the clarifying Nighblade - that does help.
Re: Page 100: Tables?
I've only got RMC the core rulebook (the one with the female elf fighter on the cover). The specific part I'm quoting is on page 100, top left column, second bullet point.
There it says "table below" but I think it means "table above", i.e. the table on page 99. But I'm unsure.
Yes, now I see it. You are right. It seems to be referring to Table 08-05 which is on the bottom of page 99.
EDIT: Is ChL&CL, Character & Campaign Law?
Yes, RM2's Character Law & Campaign Law.
As an aside, I still find myself referring to the Rolemaster Companions (I-VII) as RMCs & have to change that notation to the "modern accepted notation" of RoCo (which I find cumbersome - but I understand the possible mix up one could have with Rolemaster Classic). Though, I guess we never have that problem with SM2's companions ;D (i.e. SMC (SM1's Companion); SMCI & SMCII)
Nightblade ->--
-
Page 51: Height & Weight
"Example: High Men with an average height of 6'6" would roll on the ‘Common Men’ column and add 8".
I'm lost. Where does the High Men average height of 6'6" come from, and where does the "+8" come from?
-
The average height for Common Men is mentioned at the bottom of Table 04-03, p. 50 (being 5'10" tall).
The height for High Men is deduced from the racial description on p. 43 (being 6'-7' tall, or an average of 6'6").
Thus, +8" = 6'6" - 5'10".
It'd be nice if there was one comprehensive reference for heights on the races in RMC, but, sadly, that's not possible since it was a direct copy from the original ChL and that info was never included there.
-
The average height for Common Men is mentioned at the bottom of Table 04-03, p. 50 (being 5'10" tall).
The height for High Men is deduced from the racial description on p. 43 (being 6'-7' tall, or an average of 6'6").
Thus, +8" = 6'6" - 5'10".
It'd be nice if there was one comprehensive reference for heights on the races in RMC, but, sadly, that's not possible since it was a direct copy from the original ChL and that info was never included there.
Brilliant. Thank you
-
Page 76: Skill Development
So a Bard could spend their 6 pts in any weapon category, for example, One-Handed Edged, but all 6 pts have to go into that weapon category (1HE), and the same is true with the 3/9, 7, and 15 DPs?
Also, you can only increase a weapon category with one of the six DPs?
-
Page 135 "If a manoeuvre can be partially successful, then the original percentage result is the degree of success."
So, wanting to throw a rope so it entangles an outcropping of rock, you roll dice, get a percentage, then you have to roll a second time against that percentage. Am I reading that right? Two rolls to resolve one action is a bit much.
-
Page 135 "If a manoeuvre can be partially successful, then the original percentage result is the degree of success."
So, wanting to throw a rope so it entangles an outcropping of rock, you roll dice, get a percentage, then you have to roll a second time against that percentage. Am I reading that right? Two rolls to resolve one action is a bit much.
That's not what it says. It says *if a manoeuver can be partially successful*. Your example manoeuver cannot be, it's a yes/no proposition.
However, a climbing manoeuver, for instance, can be : if you want to climb 30' of cliff and get a 60% result, you've climbed 18' in the allocated time. You are slightly above mid-cliff and can continue (next time period).
Yes/no propositions are not resolved that way, since there are only two possible results : success, or failure.
-
Page 135 "If a manoeuvre can be partially successful, then the original percentage result is the degree of success."
So, wanting to throw a rope so it entangles an outcropping of rock, you roll dice, get a percentage, then you have to roll a second time against that percentage. Am I reading that right? Two rolls to resolve one action is a bit much.
That's not what it says. It says *if a manoeuver can be partially successful*. Your example manoeuver cannot be, it's a yes/no proposition.
However, a climbing manoeuver, for instance, can be : if you want to climb 30' of cliff and get a 60% result, you've climbed 18' in the allocated time. You are slightly above mid-cliff and can continue (next time period).
Yes/no propositions are not resolved that way, since there are only two possible results : success, or failure.
Ah, I see it now. Thanks for the help.
EDIT:
But then I read this
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"
Definitely sounds as if there are two rolls to lasso the rope over the rock.
-
Post deleted
-
Yes, there are two rolls if the maneuver is an all-or-nothing one.
-
Yes, there are two rolls if the maneuver is an all-or-nothing one.
Thanks for clarifying. I have to ask though, why not just say, if you get 111+ you succeed, else you fail?
-
Yes, there are two rolls if the maneuver is an all-or-nothing one.
Thanks for clarifying. I have to ask though, why not just say, if you get 111+ you succeed, else you fail?
Good question. I think it is because doing it this way allowed for a more parabolic difficulty curve for harder maneuvers. For example, if you just said 101+ or 111+ is success, you could succeed at an absurd (-70) maneuver at 171. However, if you look on the chart, you need a lot more to get a 100% success on absurd: You don't get 100% success till 226.
But if I were redesigning this, then yes, you can just say 101+ is success, anything less is failure. This for example is what RMU does (though it also admits of partial success at 76-100, if partial success is possible; otherwise, failure).
-
Good question. I think it is because doing it this way allowed for a more parabolic difficulty curve for harder maneuvers. For example, if you just said 101+ or 111+ is success, you could succeed at an absurd (-70) maneuver at 171. However, if you look on the chart, you need a lot more to get a 100% success on absurd: You don't get 100% success till 226.
But if I were redesigning this, then yes, you can just say 101+ is success, anything less is failure. This for example is what RMU does (though it also admits of partial success at 76-100, if partial success is possible; otherwise, failure).
That's how I always did it - all-or nothing actions use the static manoeuver resolution, actions that can (or require) partial success measurement use the moving manoeuver resolution (and, seriously, those tables should have been renamed).
-
Thanks, both for the feedback.
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 would suffice, is a good move in my book. How would I write out this house rule?
-
Basically, I want to change it but I don't want to risk messing up some other rule somewhere along the line due to my inexperience with RM.
-
Page 143 encumbrance. I'm confused.
Bandrig weighs 220lbs so his weight allowance is 22lbs and he's moving in breastplate (20-30lbs). His deadweight is 27lbs.
1. How do you get a 3x weight allowance?
2. How is his Movement Rate reduced by 30 pts to 20' per round? -30 is (on the 10-10 Encumbrance Table) equal to 4x / 5x. Why isn't it a -10 reduction at 1x / 2x?
3. On page 144 it says Branding is carrying a deadweight of 27lbs, it goes on to say his encumbrance penalty is -10 since 27lbs is between 1x and 2x his weight allowance of 22lbs.
Honestly, I'm so confused I'm not even sure I'm asking the right questions :o
And I haven't even begun to configure in Strength affecting things.
I really hope RMU simplifies this because I'm about ready to give up on RMC and go with that.
-
As drug pushers like to say, “The first one is free”, so anything up to 1x encumbrance has no mod.
10% of someone’s weight is carry-able without penalty.
For Maneuver Penalties from encumbrance, although dead weight - armour is wearable, redistributing the weight.
I’d have to re-look, but I thought there was a rule that armour weight didn’t count towards encumbrance = not to confuse you more!
EDIT: Confirmed in RMC ChL pg. 142:
“ Here we are dealing with “dead weight,” that which one carries rather than wears.”
-
As drug pushers like to say, “The first one is free”, so anything up to 1x encumbrance has no mod.
10% of someone’s weight is carry-able without penalty.
For Maneuver Penalties from encumbrance, although dead weight - armour is wearable, redistributing the weight.
I’d have to re-look, but I thought there was a rule that armour weight didn’t count towards encumbrance = not to confuse you more!
EDIT: Confirmed in RMC ChL pg. 142:
“ Here we are dealing with “dead weight,” that which one carries rather than wears.”
Thanks Majyk, slowly getting to grips with it now. Still unsure though, how Brandig's Movement penalty is -30.
Page 143: "If Bandring was moving in a breastplate and with a 3x weight allowance load (0lbs to 66lbs with a 22lbs weight allowance?) his Base Movement Rate would be reduced to 20’ per round."
Looking at the table on page 142 it says...
2x to 3x = -20
3x to 4x = -25
Whereas -30 is...4x to 5x
-
Ahah, so expanding upon things to get to “total” Movement Penalties vs just Encumbrance ones is where you start adding Minimum Maneuver Penalties from maxing out one’s skill Man. In Armour, “leftover” Strength bonuses, etc.
The example on 144 doesn’t show -30 but -10 for the dead weight Encumbrance penalty.
Are you asking, if it were -30 instead?
Ahah, Pg 143 is the 20’ / round example.
So it looks like they are using the -20 from a 2-3x weight penalty vs a 3-4x one.
This is correct because, as you say, 22lbs. is = to 0x to 1x, up to 44lbs. is 1x to 2x, up to 66lbs. is 2x - 3x.
Then the key factor is they’re supposing you know about the Breastplate Min. maneuver Penalty of -10 in the example on Pg 144.
-
Ahah, so expanding upon things to get to “total” Movement Penalties vs just Encumbrance ones is where you start adding Minimum Maneuver Penalties from maxing out one’s skill Man. In Armour, “leftover” Strength bonuses, etc.
The example on 144 doesn’t show -30 but -10 for the dead weight Encumbrance penalty.
Are you asking, if it were -30 instead?
Sorry, I mean the example on page 143 where it says:
Page: "If Bandring was moving in a breastplate and with a 3x weight allowance load his Base Movement Rate would be reduced to 20’ per round..."
If his base Movement is 50', that's a reduction of -30 but the 3x weight allowances (page 142) correspond to 4x 5x.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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’.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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!
-
... 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
-
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.
-
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…
-
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.
-
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.
-
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+.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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].
-
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.
On the other hand, I wouldn't ask for someone to roll for a "basic function"... As far as I understand the rules, stat rolls should be at most very rare, because the game is calibrated to be skill-based, not stat-based.
Additionally, using the moving manoeuver table, routine actions are a full success at 41+. so even with a +0 bonus you have 60% chance of getting a full success, and 95% chance of getting a 80+ result. I'd say it would work with the lower difficulties.
But all in all, I don't think it's a good idea to use stat rolls in a skill-based system. You could fudge something by using the closest applicable secondary skill, or even adapt Body Development (which is a general physical skill if you think about it) - use the number of ranks as a base for skill bonus, add relevant stat (ST, AG or whatever) and come up with a difficulty.
-
The sorts of rolls I mean by basic rolls are not skill rolls, but the common sorts of rolls that people make for things like remembering a person's name. There's no real skill for that: it's usually just a function of natural ability. But if you say, 'Ok, it's a medium maneuver to remember that guy's name' (and note that players do tend to default to a medium maneuver), and 'You can add your Memory bonus to the roll', the average person is going to fail that most of the time.
An average person rolling an average roll only gets 40% success (roll of 50). Furthermore, a person with an amazing memory of 100 (+25) still only gets a 50% chance of success (50+25 = 75 on medium maneuver). This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. The success rate is simply too low, and even exceptionally high bonuses don't seem to help sufficiently. This contributes to the frustration and sense of the system as too difficult, especially at lower levels.
If, however, you said, 'add your memory stat', the average person would succeed 50% of the time (which I think should be the baseline) and the person with the 100 Memory is going to succeed 95% of the time.
-
For pure Stat rolls, what about, d100 + Stat bonus + Race bonus get 50+ to succeed, else you fail? Apply other modifiers if relevant. Similar to what Majyk said.
For a binary 'yes-no' success-failure, can't you do the same?
-
The sorts of rolls I mean by basic rolls are not skill rolls, but the common sorts of rolls that people make for things like remembering a person's name. There's no real skill for that: it's usually just a function of natural ability. But if you say, 'Ok, it's a medium maneuver to remember that guy's name' (and note that players do tend to default to a medium maneuver), and 'You can add your Memory bonus to the roll', the average person is going to fail that most of the time.
Oh, OK.
I don't ever have players roll for that kind of things. But then again, I tend to reduce the number of rolls as much as I can.
-
For pure Stat rolls, what about, d100 + Stat bonus + Race bonus get 50+ to succeed, else you fail? Apply other modifiers if relevant. Similar to what Majyk said.
Yes, that seems good.
You either have to add 50 to the roll for 101+ success, or you have to reduce the success threshold to 50+, or else you're going to get rates of success that are too low. You're doing the latter (reducing the threshold to 50+), and that would be fine.
For a binary 'yes-no' success-failure, can't you do the same?
Yes, indeed.
-
For pure Stat rolls, what about, d100 + Stat bonus + Race bonus get 50+ to succeed, else you fail? Apply other modifiers if relevant. Similar to what Majyk said.
Yes, that seems good.
You either have to add 50 to the roll for 101+ success, or you have to reduce the success threshold to 50+, or else you're going to get rates of success that are too low. You're doing the latter (reducing the threshold to 50+), and that would be fine.
For a binary 'yes-no' success-failure, can't you do the same?
Yes, indeed.
Great news! Thanks for clarifying.
-
For stat rolls, I consider the stat below 100 divided by 10, round up, added to the number over 100, as a number of ranks, to which one merely add the stat bonus. To sum up:
* if stat <= 100, # of ranks = (stat / 10)+
* if stat > 100, # of ranks = 10 + (stat - 100)
To this, add the bonus as "normally".
So, a stat of 88 with a bonus of +14 grants an equivalent skill of (88/10)+ = 9 ranks = +45 +14 = +59 whereas a stat of 101 with a bonus of +30 grants an equivalent skill of 10 + (101 - 100) = 11 ranks = +52 +30 = +82.
-
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.
If you only have access to RMC, I would use the various advice (advices?) listed above to resolve these scenarios.
If you had access to RM2 and the companions, you could resolve them fairly straightforwardly.
The thin beam problem is simplest, by using the Tightrope Walking skill and its alternative static action modifiers in Companion II (p. 92), which assigns difficulties for widths from 3' wide down to 0.1" wide, as well as environmental considerations.
For the log scenario, you can use the lifting capacity calculation given in Companion VII (p. 33): Lifting Capacity = Weight/2 + (St/10 x St Stat Modifier). Once you figure out how much the log would weigh (I found a calculator online at https://www.easycalculation.com/other/science/wood-log-weight.php (https://www.easycalculation.com/other/science/wood-log-weight.php)), you ought to be able to determine an appropriate difficulty, taking into consideration the character being able to brace himself sufficiently and any other influences.
-
I'm happy using the '50 or more to succeed' binary pass-fail system above, to conduct Stat checks, but don't Skills start off higher and increase quicker than Stats? If so, I don't think the 50 or more system will work.
I'm still trying to figure out how to use Skills in a binary 'pass or fail' situation.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how to use Skills in a binary 'pass or fail' situation.
For that, I would just use the existing rules for Static Actions, but instead of consulting the MM chart and deriving a % chance of success from it and then rolling for that, just make success at 101+, and everything else failure.
-
I'm still trying to figure out how to use Skills in a binary 'pass or fail' situation.
For that, I would just use the existing rules for Static Actions, but instead of consulting the MM chart and deriving a % chance of success from it and then rolling for that, just make success at 101+, and everything else failure.
Ok, I'll go with your suggestion. Thank you
-
I'm still trying to figure out how to use Skills in a binary 'pass or fail' situation.
For that, I would just use the existing rules for Static Actions, but instead of consulting the MM chart and deriving a % chance of success from it and then rolling for that, just make success at 101+, and everything else failure.
What's the reasoning behind 101+?
-
It is a percentile system. In addition, 51 is the average roll, but you also potentially have skill and stat bonus on top of that. Also, it is a system with open-ended high rolls starting just as you approach 100, so this ensures that most open-ended high rolls succeed. You could make it 111+, as I think RMSS did, but RMSS also gave higher starting skill bonuses (up front bonuses).
My own take is that I also like keeping stat checks, of the sort we were talking about above, at 101+ for all the above reasons. 100 is the highest stat, but you still need to roll at least 1 to succeed.
-
I think its because of the open ended roll mechanic. You roll a 96 or above, you add another roll.
-
if you look at the static action table (10-04 and 10-05) basic mods you will see
Routine +30 upto Absurd -70.
more than "100 + mods" eg. 101+ corresponds directly to this.
-
Sound reasoning. Thanks all for the info.
-
101+ as the success point means that on a roll with no other modifier, you chance of success is a percent equal to your skill (ignoring some edge cases due to open-endedness). If your skill is +40, then you need to add to that a roll of 61+ to exceed 100, and the chance of a roll between 61 and 100 on (fair) d100 is 40%.
The 111+ threshold (which originated on RM2 tables and was carried on into RMSS/FRP along with the more skill-specific tables that started being introduced at the same time) was due to going from a simple pass/fail model to degrees of success.* Partial Success results came as far down as 76-90, so straight Success was driven up a bit from 101 to 111. So slightly harder to reach a full success result, while considerably easier to at least get some success. I assume that the thinking here was to balance the easier/harder. Where there is room to allow for a spectrum of success/failure, this approach provides a more nuanced skill resolution, but if you have a situation where "Do. Or do not." is really the only thing to resolve, stick with the original "success at 101+, failure below" threshold.
* This transition was not a particularly late one, as my RM2 Character Law & Campaign Law contains this in the optional rules sections. It did not wait for the Companion volumes to start coming out.
-
Thank you for the info
-
Yes, good points, and thanks for the corrections, Dan!
-
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.
Assuming you are using Secondary skills, there is almost no 'just a stat' situation that probably isn't covered by a skill. For example, I'm pretty sure balance is a skill, as well as Laborer or something similar.
Against the Darkmaster handles it fairly straightforward: Athletics, Acrobatics, and Lore skills are ALWAYS used for basic attribute rolls. Honestly, if I were playing RMC without RoCo2 skills, I would change 'climbing' to Athletics and Swimming to Acrobatics to handle those sorts of situations. Memory and Reasoning I can't ever imagine forcing a player to roll.
-
RMU also handles it with skills. E.g. you would use Weight Training for those feats of strength, Acrobatics for balance.
-
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.
Assuming you are using Secondary skills, there is almost no 'just a stat' situation that probably isn't covered by a skill. For example, I'm pretty sure balance is a skill, as well as Laborer or something similar.
Against the Darkmaster handles it fairly straightforward: Athletics, Acrobatics, and Lore skills are ALWAYS used for basic attribute rolls. Honestly, if I were playing RMC without RoCo2 skills, I would change 'climbing' to Athletics and Swimming to Acrobatics to handle those sorts of situations. Memory and Reasoning I can't ever imagine forcing a player to roll.
Rolemaster is designed so you can rely on skills instead of just stat rolls. Rolemaster differs from D&D because of this.
-
As a Player, I love roleplaying based off of my characters’ stats.
Reasoning is smarts to me, and for putting two and two together in a timely fashion.
Is it a dump stat for most folks?
- Get them to roll against it to see if they’re following the techno-speak conversation properly and make proper judgements from it.
Intelligent players tend to gave intelligent characters even when they aren’t!
Memory is another great one.
I had(being the key word) an eidetic memory back in the day and miss it the most as a high-functioning insomniac where recent days & decades are now ethereal to me from its poisonous effects!
Again, most players dump stat these, relying on their own IRL ones. A quick roll will confirm if they do remember events correctly.
I don’t mean nerfing gameplay, but the best RP happens when one needs to battle through character-Dementia due to poor mental stats and I’m here for those iconic storytelling times of when Fizban forgets that spell that starts with an “F”…
Memory and Reasoning I can't ever imagine forcing a player to roll.
-
As a Player, I love roleplaying based off of my characters’ stats.
But you don't need dice rolls to roleplay based on your character stats...
If someone has a character with low memory, let him roleplay the low memory and "forget" things. If another character has eidetic memory, have the GM take that into account when deciding whether they remember something (the answer most likely being "of course yes").
Rolling against stats for those situations is only useful when people are *not* roleplaying on their own.
And letting players have a say in how they roleplay their character's weaknesses gives them agency, which is a side bonus.
-
The problem I have with a 'use only skills' approach is that, especially in RM2/C, there is too much skill bloat, and consequently characters have too many gaps in their skill repertoire (because there are too many skills).
My character wants to Jump up to a ledge... oops, he only has skill in Acrobatics, Pole-Vaulting, and Climbing, not 'Jumping', so although he is very athletic and should be able to jump rather easily, he is taking a -25 and having a very tough time doing this.
Or he wants to open tightly closed jar of jam. What skill should I use for that? And what if I don't have skill in 'Jar Opening'? It is much easier for me just to make a Strength check. All characters with decent strength should have a reasonable chance to open a jar, even if they don't have any formal training in a specialized skill that covers it. However, due to the limited number of development points and the considerable skill bloat, only a small number of characters will have skill in any particular skill. Thus, if you use a 'skills only' approach, these simple tasks that everyone should be able to do unfortunately get penalized at a rate of -25 and become much harder than they reasonably should.
-
You can change the skill list so that each skill covers more situations. I mean, if some games can cover all possible situations with 20 skills, it must be possible to reach a compromise.
Granted, given that Rolemaster seems to thrive when creating a skill whenever a specific situation occurs, it might be an uphill battle :)
[I also think that skills that are not used in conflict - not necessarily combat, but conflict - situations should be replaced with descriptors / qualifiers / background description, but that's just me].
-
The problem I have with a 'use only skills' approach is that, especially in RM2/C, there is too much skill bloat, and consequently characters have too many gaps in their skill repertoire (because there are too many skills).
My character wants to Jump up to a ledge... oops, he only has skill in Acrobatics, Pole-Vaulting, and Climbing, not 'Jumping', so although he is very athletic and should be able to jump rather easily, he is taking a -25 and having a very tough time doing this.
Or he wants to open tightly closed jar of jam. What skill should I use for that? And what if I don't have skill in 'Jar Opening'? It is much easier for me just to make a Strength check. All characters with decent strength should have a reasonable chance to open a jar, even if they don't have any formal training in a specialized skill that covers it. However, due to the limited number of development points and the considerable skill bloat, only a small number of characters will have skill in any particular skill. Thus, if you use a 'skills only' approach, these simple tasks that everyone should be able to do unfortunately get penalized at a rate of -25 and become much harder than they reasonably should.
Yeah, I totally agree. When I was younger, I'd play with 200+ skills because I didn't know any better. But now? Forget that noise.
I think Against the Darkmaster has resolved the issue quite well with Acrobatics (for Dex rolls), Athletics (for Str rolls), Perception for Wisdom, Charisma for Bearing/Presence roll, etc. Yes there are many more skills for specific things, but those are large enough umbrellas for 'basic skill roll' to live under.
Like, I am happy with an abstract skill system. I don't need Jar Opening or Sense Ambush or Skiing (which I feel has probably never been used other than the GM throwing a player a bone).
-
The problem I have with a 'use only skills' approach is that, especially in RM2/C, there is too much skill bloat, and consequently characters have too many gaps in their skill repertoire (because there are too many skills).
That is assuming that every action is covered by a specific skill, and not skill categories that cover several actions under one skill. Taking one general skill and parsing it into several specific skills does not make a game more playable or realistic; and just becomes a DP soak. As a professional cook, I know that there are skills associated with roasting, frying and steaming foods, and some meats turn out better with a specific form of preparation but in a game, an overall cooking category would generally cover executing a decent meal under normal conditions.
Skills are refined stats, a combinations of mental and physical abilities combined with training that produce more than the sum of their basic qualities. Everybody learns to walk and most people don't have to roll to see if they could walk under normal conditions. Walking doesn't require as much strength as it does balance so in the realm of athletics, walking compares more with gymnastics than weight lifting.
-
That's fine, but it seems to apply more to RMSS/FRP (where as I understand it you can buy skill in a category) than to RM2/C (where you can only buy individual skills).
RM2 simply has too many skills, at least if you add in the new skills in the Companions. Character Law had 28 primary skills (if you treat different weapons and types of armor as separate skills) and 40 secondary skills, but that very manageable number had bloated to 214 by the time of Companion II, and then more were added after. That's just too much. Instead of one Perception skill, you have:
--Detect Traps
--Direction Sense
--General Perception
--Lie Perception
--Locate Secret Opening
--Poison Perception
--Read Tracks (note this is separate from the 'Tracking' skill below!)
--Sense Ambush
--Sense Reality Warp
--Surveillance
--Time Sense
--Tracking
So my Ranger has enough points to be an expert in Tracking, but can't 'Read Tracks' because that is a different skill.
-
The problem was clearly twofold
- skill list bloating all by itself is a pain because, as a player, you have to keep the whole list in mind when developing your character in order to avoid leaving out an important skill for your character concept, and as a GM, you run the risk of focusing on the skills you remember and ignoring the others when asking for skill checks.
- and skill list bloating without a corresponding increase in DP just means that characters are, on average, less and less proficient.
I think the first (and main) question you have to ask yourself as a GM is 'what is important in my game ?', and the second is 'how many skills am I comfortable with ?'. Think about special cases (combat styles, for instance - there might be dozens of different skills, but how many will a character actually develop ?), then make your list, keeping in mind that you might want a bit more detail for skills that are central to your game.
Then, adjust available DPs so that people need to either prioritise or be consistently subpar in everything - keeping in mind that RM integrates diminishing return in skill development, so depending on your game perspective, the 'subpar' statement might be more like 'not brilliant, but still quite good', and that a few skills (notably spell lists) have a different logic.
Everything else can be handled by style variations, skill focus, and background traits for everything you do not want (or do not need) to quantify because it is only for character colour and it will not be used in stress situations.
For instance, if a player says "my character plays the piano really well", then you have two options
- either make it a skill, but if you do that, you have a duty to ensure (as a GM) that this skill will be one of the focus of your game, taking the spotlight in a number of scenes and being key for a number of conflict situations.
- or you consider that this is a "background" skill, and do not need to quantify it beyond a "XXX plays the piano really well". It might be used for a couple if scenes because the character finds themselves in a situation where they can show off, and it might even give them brownie points with an NPC or two in the right circumstances, but it will not be used in a conflict situation.
And basically, you trim the skill list according to that logic.
The problem with a number of games (especially the more or less "generic" systems) is that, since they have no intrinsic focus, they provide you with a default skill list that aims at covering any game style - and they seldom tell you that trimming the skill list becomes your job as a GM, because only you know what kind of game you will be conducting. The additional drawback is that, since they have a default skill list that covers every possible case (and far too many for you, typically), they don't have additional mechanisms to handle the "no skill required" situation - and, as a GM, you have to come up with a mechanism all on your own (or pilfer it from another game system).
-
100% MisterK.
We just converted a few friends over from tabletop to Fantasy Grounds(thanks Dakadin and all who helped!) and our resident Munchkin made a High Warrior Monk(RMC).
Despite extremely cheap M.A. skills, he somehow made a PC without Perception/Climbing/First Aid which while core skills - admittedly First Aid isn’t for everyone but **should** be, LOL! - were missed.
Whether on purpose or design, heh.
Even D&D3e - heavily influenced by his years with ICE, Monte Cook flooded it with skills that every character finally has access to universally - had issues with bloat before they(3.5e) and Paizo(3.75e?) picked up the pieces and combined Move Silently/Hide in Shadows into a Sneak(ing) skill along with Listen/Spot into Perception; Pick Lock/Disable Device into the latter’s purview or scope of skill ability.
I agree a happy medium has reduced skills or a bump of skill points one can spend on Secondary ones(restricting Combat ones as much as y’can, GMs out there: do this or the Munchkins will fill out on Disarm, Subduing, etc.!).
-
For instance, if a player says "my character plays the piano really well", then you have two options
- either make it a skill, but if you do that, you have a duty to ensure (as a GM) that this skill will be one of the focus of your game, taking the spotlight in a number of scenes and being key for a number of conflict situations.
- or you consider that this is a "background" skill, and do not need to quantify it beyond a "XXX plays the piano really well". It might be used for a couple if scenes because the character finds themselves in a situation where they can show off, and it might even give them brownie points with an NPC or two in the right circumstances, but it will not be used in a conflict situation.
Optional specializations (e.g. as appears in RMSS SoHK) give you another option between those two. Then you can have a more general skill like "music" with a specialization bonus in "piano". That lets the player reflect something they think is important about their characterization without actually needing a new skill.
You still need to find a way for music to become relevant in the story, and optimally even the occasional piano, but at least the skill isn't piano-specific. The player should help you find ways for music to become relevant (e.g. instead of diplomacy they may try to ingratiate themselves with their performance skills).
-
You still need to find a way for music to become relevant in the story, and optimally even the occasional piano, but at least the skill isn't piano-specific. The player should help you find ways for music to become relevant (e.g. instead of diplomacy they may try to ingratiate themselves with their performance skills).
Historically, entertainers held a prominent place in societies. Bards like Orpheus, who travelled with Jason and the Argonauts in search of the Golden Fleece, was able to charm animals, plants, and even stones. A "music" skill that allows you to read sheet music could let you transcribe works from piano to other instruments, such as accordion or bagpipes. I know many very good musicians who cannot read music but have a large repertoire of tunes learned by ear. As a teen, I learned to transcribe musical scores from pencil to ink before there were computers to print out scores on paper. Before recorded music hit the market, sheet music publishing was a huge industry in the US and Europe. On union scale, during the 1970s I could make $20 an hour just copying sheet music and more if I could score for individual instruments -a lot more than one of my classmates earned -he taught clumsy old ladies how to dance at an Arthur Murray studio.
The point being that entertainment was very valuable thousands of years ago. Tolkein makes entertainment in songs, stories and riddles key elements in his stories. Before mass media, people found ways to entertain themselves and good entertainers were usually welcome.
-
Optional specializations (e.g. as appears in RMSS SoHK) give you another option between those two. Then you can have a more general skill like "music" with a specialization bonus in "piano". That lets the player reflect something they think is important about their characterization without actually needing a new skill.
Though I never played RMSS/FRP and did not know this was an option till now, nor did I see it in RMU, this is actually how I have been playing skills in RMU. I like it.
-
Optional specializations (e.g. as appears in RMSS SoHK) give you another option between those two. Then you can have a more general skill like "music" with a specialization bonus in "piano". That lets the player reflect something they think is important about their characterization without actually needing a new skill.
That's what I meant by
"Everything else can be handled by style variations, skill focus, and background traits for everything you do not want (or do not need) to quantify because it is only for character colour and it will not be used in stress situations."
However, I stand by what I said - even if piano is a specialisation of "music performance", or even "music", or even "art", it is the GM's decision to have this skill in the skill list (i.e. accepting that this is part of the *reduced* list they want to bother with) and make it meaningful (i.e. offering opportunities to put the spotlight on the skill user in stressful situations).
Taking advantage of said opportunities (reactively or proactively), of course, is the responsibility if the player(s).
My personal preference is for a fairly short skill list (I'd say around 30). I typically push all lore, language, and art/craft proficiencies in the "background talents" bag - the players get the labels as part of their upbringing, education, or declared hobbies, but they know I won't ask them to roll for any of them - I'll use the Amber method.
-
It will be in the Character Companion. But the rule is basically the same as SoHK: to pick an optional specialization, you sacrifice one rank, and then when using the skill in its specialization you are treated as having 50% more ranks. This only applies to skills that do not already require specialization. So for example if you have purchased 7 ranks in Music, you could sacrifice one of those ranks so you only have 6 (which amounts to a very small penalty for things outside your specialization), but you are treated as if you had 9 for purposes of your Piano specialization. You can only have one optional specialization per skill; if you want to switch it costs you another rank.
Because the bonus is to the number of ranks, it is limited by the diminishing returns of rank bonuses. E.g. if you have 10 ranks in the base skill for 15 ranks in your optional specialization, your base rank bonus is +50 (5 per rank) but your specialization's rank bonus is +65 rather than +70 (because ranks 11-20 only get you +3/rank). If it's a professional skill that would be +60 and +80 respectively. That helps keep the bonus in a reasonable range.
In my current game, I have characters with Medicine with a specialization in cauterization (character has hemophilia and is obsessive about bleeding injuries), in Herbalism for herbs from forests (character's area of origin), in Perception for magical scrying (star mage), Traps that are stonework (character uses earth-based magic), etc. So while they give helpful bonuses, they also add some characterization.
I'm not sure if a similar rule exists for RM2 but there's no reason the same thing couldn't work there.
-
I don't remember anything like that in RM2, but I could be wrong (I haven't gone through all the Companions to check). RM2 did of course have similar skills systems, such as giving partial ranks to related skills, but I don't remember anything quite like the SoHK system.
The one thing I dislike about the SoHK system (though as I noted above, I like the general concept of specializations being optional), is that it does require you to compare and adjust skill ranks, which can slow down a game to some extent. What I've been doing in RMU is to say that difficulties of maneuvers/actions are reduced by two steps for rolls in your specialty. E.g. A Very Hard (-20) maneuver would be reduced to a Medium (0) difficulty maneuver if it were in your specialty. This way, I don't have to look up the specific number of ranks a character/NPC/monster has in the skill in order to resolve the maneuver.
-
We just have the specialized and non-specialized bonuses calculated already on the character sheet, so it doesn't slow anything down.
A two step difficulty shift is easy but could give extreme results, e.g. a character with just a couple of ranks could still get an effective bonus of +40 (e.g. Routine to Casual) or +50 (Nigh Impossible to Sheer Folly). You could of course just give a flat +20 bonus, which would be the same for the middle of the scale but not at the extremes.
-
Yes, maybe a flat bonus would be better.
-
It will be in the Character Companion. But the rule is basically the same as SoHK: to pick an optional specialization, you sacrifice one rank, and then when using the skill in its specialization you are treated as having 50% more ranks. This only applies to skills that do not already require specialization. So for example if you have purchased 7 ranks in Music, you could sacrifice one of those ranks so you only have 6 (which amounts to a very small penalty for things outside your specialization), but you are treated as if you had 9 for purposes of your Piano specialization. You can only have one optional specialization per skill; if you want to switch it costs you another rank.
This is maybe off topic to this part of the forum...but the limitation that you can only have one specialization for each skill is needed from the flat costing scheme of one rank to get the specialization. Sacrifice a couple of ranks to get specializations in all major uses of the skill would be very attractive.
On the other hand, in one of my campaigns, I with much success used the scheme that the cost for each specialization is 1 + plus the number of specializations already in the skill. The lure of having more specializations is balanced by using more and more ranks.
In the long run, there were quite a few specializations for all characters since double ranks as a benefit is quite attractive even if the cost is steep. If Character Companion will limit it to +50% ranks then the economy of it might be better so that my costing scheme would work even better. Maybe you could make use of my concept in Character Companion.