Topic: Fixing "suicidal" ATs

[Arioch]

Since on the "what's wrong with RM" thread someone mentioned "suicidal" ATs (i.e. AT2 and AT5), I'd like to hear how you have dealt with them in your games.
As a way of making them more palatable without having to rewrite all the attack charts, I often ended up using them as ATs for specialized clothing, made to survive in particular enviroments and such. Like heavy winter clothing gives you AT5, but while you are wearing it you don't suffer penalties/damage for extreme cold and you get let's say a +15 bonus to all Survival maneuvers in artic conditions.
Or, the traditional cloack of the desert nomads will give you AT2, but will also protect you from sunburn and sandstorms, giving you a bonus to all outdoor maneuvers in the desert.

[markc]

I use AT2 and my base AT for normal people AT1 is for fast creatures only.
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

A loincloth is AT 1.

Any kind of clothing that is strong enough so, when it binds, it limits your movement rather than immediately tearing the clothing, is AT 2. In other words, blue jeans and a denim shirt is AT 2.

In short, if it's too constrictive for an acrobat to wear it during their routine, it's AT 2.

[Usdrothek]

A loincloth is AT 1.

Any kind of clothing that is strong enough so, when it binds, it limits your movement rather than immediately tearing the clothing, is AT 2. In other words, blue jeans and a denim shirt is AT 2.

In short, if it's too constrictive for an acrobat to wear it during their routine, it's AT 2.

Love it.

It makes rocking a loincloth, Conan style, to be a beneficial choice.

[GrumpyOldFart]

The flaw in it is for that rationale to make sense, AT 2 needs to not only give a relative minus to DB, it also needs to give a penalty to things like Climbing and Acrobatics. After all, AT 2 is something that when you move wrong it doesn't split, it binds and limits your movement.

Not only would monks refuse to wear AT 2, dancers and mountaineers would refuse to wear it as well, for precisely the same reasons.

But at the same time, if you decide AT 2 has both a maximum and minimum maneuver penalty of, say, -5 (so that Armor skill isn't really germane to the question of whether you want to wear it), then that leaves you having to rethink all the armors with penalties that can be reduced to -5, or even zero.

A Cuir Bouilli breastplate is no more restrictive than jeans and a denim shirt? Really?

[jdale]

Well, I do think all the maneuver penalties need a rethink.

And as for jeans and "After all, AT 2 is something that when you move wrong it doesn't split, it binds and limits your movement." I have to say that jeans split... 

Personally, I would:
* Raise everyone's DB. No negative DBs. DB of 0 would be considered not able to dodge at all -- not merely bad at it.
* DB of 0 would also apply in surprise/unaware circumstances (including missile and bolt attacks). No additional modifier for surprise (but keep the flank and rear modifiers).
* Reduce the number of armor types. I think 12 is enough. Collapsing AT 1-12 into 4. An argument could be made for 16 (keeping the rigid leather set). You could go down to 10 (a nicer number) but it would make it harder to go from other RM versions. Still might be worth it. If you went to 10 you could print the charts 2/page.
* Completely eliminate all the mobility assumptions from the combat tables. This removes most of the distinctions between many armor types, which is why you can reduce the number of types so much.
* Apply modifiers to DB instead, reducing your DB to a minimum of 0. Strength and/or your maneuvering in armor skill (either use the maneuver bonus, or use strength plus the maneuver number of ranks) would partially mitigate this.
* Additional variation between different types of armor (e.g. lamellar vs chain vs scale) could be handled by differences in weight, maneuver penalties, and DB modifiers, not just AT.

I think this would make a system that is more realistic and also much easier to understand. Two separate and distinct factors: AT is how well you are protected from blows that hit you, DB is how well you get out of the way.


In practice what we currently do is not use AT 2 or AT 5 at all.

[Nortti]

My players just never use AT2. Never. You see, they want to live.

Non-combatant NPCs can wear heavy clothing that suits the environment. That could be AT2 or 5. Crazy cultists have worn AT2 occasionally too, to the amusement of players. They see it as an easy kill and happily charge. Maybe I should create a trap out of this...

We treat normal clothing as non-restrictive AT1. Characters of my players arent exactly ballerinas so we dont bother to count nickers and handkerchiefs to see if it all comes up to AT2 already. For us AT2 means heavy robes or heavy winter clothing etc that hinders your movement so much that it slows you down in combat and makes you easier target. 

OTH im sure the players character not wearing armor would make their PCs to walk around in loincloths just to stay clearly on AT1-side. 

[pastaav]

In my game AT2 is base armor. Makes everything work so much better.

[Arioch]

A loincloth is AT 1.

Any kind of clothing that is strong enough so, when it binds, it limits your movement rather than immediately tearing the clothing, is AT 2. In other words, blue jeans and a denim shirt is AT 2.

In short, if it's too constrictive for an acrobat to wear it during their routine, it's AT 2.

Great for sword & sorcery campaigns!

As for DB (quickness) penalties, we ignore them, as this factor seems to be already calculated into the attack tables.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I just don't use AT2. Ever.
I don't buy the logic that AT2 is supposed to "hinder your movement so much that it slows you down in combat and make you easier target" because such a logic would make AT2 an "armour" that gives DB and MM penalties, which isn't the case. AT2 is some armour that doesn't impede your moves since you benefit from your whole DB and don't get any kind of maneuver penalty, yet has a protectiveness worse than not wearing anything. AT2 doesn't (only) make you easier to hit, it increases the damage you get! (That being said, AT5 is about the same...)

[Lord Garth]

Got rid of ATs 1-4 for players. In doing so, I effectively also removed one Light or Hard leather categories. ATs 5-8 are the baseline for players in my games. It's probably not the most elegant of solutions, but it works for me.

[ToM]

* Reduce the number of armor types. I think 12 is enough. Collapsing AT 1-12 into 4. An argument could be made for 16 (keeping the rigid leather set). You could go down to 10 (a nicer number) but it would make it harder to go from other RM versions. Still might be worth it. If you went to 10 you could print the charts 2/page.

Well this is basically what we do since the beginning of playing Rolemaster.
In our group AT1 is normal "adventuring" clothing, AT2 is very cumbersome colthing like ceremonial vestments, AT3 and 4 are animal only.
AT5 is furs and leathers for harsh environments as per Arioc's suggestion, while AT6 is more of a crude, unexpensive leather armor designed for militia, not intended for duealing and adventuring.
AT7 is... well, uh, never used it, and the same goes for AT8, seldomly used for "very thick animal hide).
AT9 is courboulli/leather breastplate and 10 is breastplate and greaves. 11 and 12 are animal only (but we really seldomly used 11).
ATs 13-16 are fully used altough 16 is more of a NPC armor for its adavantages over 15 are very few and the penalties grow very harsher.
ATs 17-20 are left unchanged, but also there we've seldomly seen AT20 and yet more rarely AT19, which basically is a less powerful version of 20. 17 and 18 are the best preferred choices of characters, with 17 being for rogues and faster skirmishers, and 18 the armor of choice of tanks and knights.

All in all, 12 armor types would be overly sufficient in the "next" Rolemaster, and I really hope in a streamlining of the AT issue, for a more complex and flexible chance to have piecemeal armor and protection instead. Yes, Combat Companion added it, but I feel it's quite unplayable: a book-keeper's worst nightmare.

BTW: played for some time a science-fantasy game using "10 millions ways to die"'s attack tables. They have a streamlined amror code, reducing Rolemaster 20 ATs to 12. They worked sweet.

[yammahoper]

Only need five AT.

Armor Type     First Crit
  None                80
  Sl                     90
  Rl                     100
  Ch                    110
  Pl                      120

Then each weapon has a crit range.  Short Sword(11).  Crit severity is increased for every increment over crit range rolled.  Against no armor, A 80-91, B 92-102, C 103-114, etc.  These numbers could be pre listed on the weapons description in the new arms law.  Move all damage to crit tables, or...

...OR SOMETHING.  Yet I'm guessing it will be the same old attack tables.  Still, attack tables will be better if the AT issues are addressed.

[jdale]

Only need five AT.

Armor Type     First Crit
  None                80
  Sl                     90
  Rl                     100
  Ch                    110
  Pl                      120

If crits had results dependent on e.g. whether you have greaves, whether you have a helm, etc, that actually could still cover a lot of variation in terms of what you are wearing.

The Arms Law manuscript has apparently already been submitted, so I doubt anything so drastic has occurred.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I liked the Combat Companion's "Armor by the piece" and "Condensed combat system" for the matter, with merely 10 ATs that make sense (i.e., no weird progression such as AT2 and AT5), armour's descriptions that make sense, and the possibility to mix different types of armour pieces.
For my part, I'd like to see it replace the normal AL&CL combat rules... though I'd enjoy more tables and, mayhap, a discussion about them (I never agreed with how piercing attacks aren't the best against plate armours whilst it's afaik the case irl).

[GrumpyOldFart]

Hmmm... puncture attacks against plate armors...

Assuming you hit at all, I'd expect 1 of 3 results:

1) The point of the attack hits a plate and skitters along it. Little to no damage.

2) The point of the attack goes between plates. The effect is roughly the same as an attack on a target wearing chain or leather, depending on how the armor is made (what the under-layer is that the plates attach to.) However, the edges of plates being where they are, the attack is guaranteed to be on a "soft target area" such as elbows and knees, neck, waist, etc. Some spot that has to be able to move. Damage is also variable according to whether result #1 above happened first and the point skittered along the plate to its edge, where this result occurred. That's a fair amount of energy loss from the attack to account for.

3) The energy behind the attack is so strong as to punch through the armor entirely, such as with high velocity firearms. Damage is defined by a) amount of energy loss to get through the plate, b) damage done by the failure of the plate itself, such as caving or carrying bits in with the projectile, and c) possibility of ricochet off the exit plate.

Not sure how I'd go about trying to model that with any degree of believability.

[yammahoper]

Hmmm... puncture attacks against plate armors...

Assuming you hit at all, I'd expect 1 of 3 results:

1) The point of the attack hits a plate and skitters along it. Little to no damage.

2) The point of the attack goes between plates. The effect is roughly the same as an attack on a target wearing chain or leather, depending on how the armor is made (what the under-layer is that the plates attach to.) However, the edges of plates being where they are, the attack is guaranteed to be on a "soft target area" such as elbows and knees, neck, waist, etc. Some spot that has to be able to move. Damage is also variable according to whether result #1 above happened first and the point skittered along the plate to its edge, where this result occurred. That's a fair amount of energy loss from the attack to account for.

3) The energy behind the attack is so strong as to punch through the armor entirely, such as with high velocity firearms. Damage is defined by a) amount of energy loss to get through the plate, b) damage done by the failure of the plate itself, such as caving or carrying bits in with the projectile, and c) possibility of ricochet off the exit plate.

Not sure how I'd go about trying to model that with any degree of believability.

Believe it or not, the sword is designed to stab through the plate. not just find a seam.  Grab the blade in the middle and stab with a powerdul thrust, strong enough to punture plate, padding and flesh.  High quality plate was only a few mm thick, almost impossible to slash open, so stabbing appears to have been a main attack form for swords.

I would model the attack by basing the crit result on one of the d100 d10's used to roll the attack or crit.  So, if 1-7, puncture, 8-0 crush.  TMWTD used this mechanic.

[intothatdarkness]

Believe it or not, the sword is designed to stab through the plate. not just find a seam.  Grab the blade in the middle and stab with a powerdul thrust, strong enough to punture plate, padding and flesh.  High quality plate was only a few mm thick, almost impossible to slash open, so stabbing appears to have been a main attack form for swords.

I would model the attack by basing the crit result on one of the d100 d10's used to roll the attack or crit.  So, if 1-7, puncture, 8-0 crush.  TMWTD used this mechanic.

Depends on the type of sword. The generic broadsword wasn't as much a thrusting weapon as it was cutting, while the longsword did have a good thrusting capability. Things like the estoc were designed as almost pure thrusting weapons designed to punch through armor.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

*shrugs*
As a matter of fact:
1) Swords tended toward the thrusting part as armours peaked their protection performance, only keeping the cutting part to go against those who couldn't afford such armours (the average infantryman), as illustrated by Oakeshott Type XVIII swords.
2) Armours went toward the decline as projectile weapons (that are piercing weapons) became efficient enough to pierce them, culminating with firearms (but before then, bows have became dangerous enough than longbowmen would decimate heavy armoured cavalry, as illustrated by the battle of Azincourt).
3) Thrusting weapons such as pikes, spears and the like have always shown deadly to armoured people.
4) Physically speaking, with the same force applied, a thrusting attack has more chance of piercing through anything (than a slashing attack) since the area through which the force is applied is smaller.
 

Depends on the type of sword. The generic broadsword wasn't as much a thrusting weapon as it was cutting, while the longsword did have a good thrusting capability. Things like the estoc were designed as almost pure thrusting weapons designed to punch through armor.

There's no such thing as the "generic broadsword". Strictly speakling, the sword used in the viking era was a "broadsword" but there wasn't plate armour back then. An Oakeshott Type X sword is a "broadsword" with more of a focus on cutting attacks, but it still wasn't yet from an era where full plate armours really existed. OTOH, the Oakeshott Type XVIII swords, that match the 15th century when armours were at their peak, gave a focus on thrust. Of course, I guess Type XVIII swords would rather be called "longswords" so mayhap we should stop and consider the Oakeshott Type XIV swords that would still be called "broadswords". An analysis would show that the earlier blades, lighter and designed primarily for cutting, were to oppose armours of mail but they developped into blades effective for thrusting, often with reinforced and very acute points, designed to oppose the armours of plate prevalent after 1350. Whilst still being "broadswords", they showed the evolution needed to oppose armours evolving from mail to plate.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I wasn't trying to imply that it's impossible to punch directly through the plate with a sword. I used high velocity firearms as the example because punching straight through the plate is a pretty consistent result. For lower energy attacks, the fact that the metal of the armor is specifically shaped to skip blows means the less energy in the attack, the narrower the angle off of perpendicular at which it will penetrate rather than skipping. High velocity slugs will still penetrate at a pretty broad angle.