Topic: Fixing "suicidal" ATs

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

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.

My point, though, is that, as a matter of fact, historically, swords evolved into thrusting/piercing weapons in order to deal with armours becoming of plate and such plate armours becoming more and more effective so it seems that, not only was it possible "to punch directly through the plate with a sword", it was also the most efficient way to deal with such armours!

[giulio.trimarco]

AT2 isn't fixable without a rework of the attacks tables.
The proposed solutions are the more viable.

In sight of a new RM  release what I'll ask to the developer to care much more attention to armours performance and types.

In my experience I've came to understand that the protection offered by plate armour is effectively ... ridiculous.
Practically no sword could punch, or was designed, to punch through plate, but between plate.
Half-swording is used to aim for eye slit, armpit, under-neck, genitalis or unprotected spot.
Estoc is a renaissance weapon, when plate wasn't anymore designed to fighting with longsword (the longsword is actually two-handed) but with side-swords (the cuirass allow much less arm mobility).
Even early-to-renaissance fire-arms couldn't pierce armours, not to speak of warbow. The only weapon capable were siege crossbows.
The main reasons for firearm development were: ease of use and reduce cost. Crossbow was very expensive.

1) leather, as stand alone armour, weren't an option in medieval times, no one, even to poor, considered leather as armour. Better to have a gambeson.
2) Realistically speaking few weapons could hope of piercing a plate armour (like a Pole-axe). Most of the time you will aim for the face, head, neck, armpit or to throw the adversary on the ground.
3) Plate armour period swords wasn't designed to cut, but thrust.
4) Head/face hits are the more common to accour. Followed by body strikes.
5) In general, an D/E critical against plate or chain should be very, very rare (yes, even chain was very effective).

[markc]

Maybe AT should be defined by era as well as name as this will give a more accurate idea of what the armor protects against.
MDC

[rdanhenry]

No armor other than cloth is stand-alone. Metal armor without proper an arming shirt or the like underneath is probably worse than naked.

The estoc (or tuck, to use the perfectly good English word) was designed to overcome plate armor. It was a rather late development, but so was plate armor. Mail dominated for most of the Middle Ages. For civilian use, such a unarmored dueling, one would use a rapier (or for something more readily carried casually, a small sword).

[intothatdarkness]

Maybe AT should be defined by era as well as name as this will give a more accurate idea of what the armor protects against.
MDC

I think in the end it could/should be done that way, if for no other reason than to deal with games outside of Middle Ages/fantasy settings.

[JimiSue]

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.

Weird thing there being that since AT2 is by and large not as good as AT1, blue jeans became as popular as they did because they were hard wearing, and also provided protection against scratches from thorns and branches when riding a horse. So something designed as a kind of armour is worse than being nekkid. And if I was walking through a patch of thorns or nettles or something and had the choice between jeans or shorts... I know which I'd choose!

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Maybe AT should be defined by era as well as name as this will give a more accurate idea of what the armor protects against.

The problem is that fantasy at large tends to mix all the possible weapons and armours, even if their simultaneous existence and use are anachronistic.

[jdale]

It would be entirely appropriate to have a couple different equipment lists for different cultures / technologies, then let the GM decide which ones are applicable for the setting, and for which regions in the setting.

In our current game, black powder is in use in the world. It just happens to be available only in nations controlled by the bad guys. That's an extreme example but it makes sense to have both full plate and late period weapons like the rapier only available in areas with advanced metallurgy.

You could go further and have different equipment lists for different races as well, that would incorporate other types of superior equipment - dwarven chain and elves bows, for example. That would be great material for a Races and Cultures book.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Good point. As an obvious example, the 7th Cavalry and the Lakota aren't going to have the same equipment list. Neither are the Celts and the Romans. Neither is the American explorer vs. the Amazonian tribesman.

Note that none of the above makes the members of either side safe from the other.

[Arioch]

To tell the truth, I don't care about armor verisimilitude too much.
To me, the problem is that as they are now, ATs 2 and 5 are basically unplayable. None would ever choose to wear them, as they're obviously inferior to any other AT (and it's quite clear, as DfA said, that you cannot fully fix them without completely rewriting the attack tables).

[Nortti]

I guess we RM players love detail. Right now we could make weapon tables for different races and for different historical periods. How many tables that would be? It might be suitable for a specific campaigns to have those different tables but just for fixing the current ones this level of detail surely is not needed. Like OLF pointed out the weapons and armor in games are usually generic. And it is so for a reason I think.

I personally have not had real problems with the 20 ATs of RM2 Arms Law. I quite like them actually. We just dont use some of them. Adventurers and combatant NPCs dont have much use for some of the ATs that are too cumbersome and dont seem to provide much protection against weapons. I can see the reason why they exist though. I accept the fact that heavy clothing makes you easier to hit. Soft leather and "militia ATs" provide better protection from animal attacks but are not very good vs hits from weapons. These could be fine-tuned to make them better.

If RMU/RM4/RM5 is supposed to attract new blood to RM then is it good to lower down the amount of ATs? It might work too, but again, what the potential new players think? Also, will RM be less RM if we ditch so many ATs? Those weapon attack tables can be an intimidating sight for first-timers but i have grown to like them.     

[Ynglaur]

I seem to recall that earlier editions of Rolemaster did a couple things I liked, which were unfortunately later simplified:
1. Critical progression wasn't always linear.  Sometimes a 134 was better than a 135.  Not often, but little variances add some spice.
2. The critical types weren't the same.  Broadswords tended to do Impact, and then Krush criticals against heavier armor types, before finally getting to Slash.

I think a combination of these, and going back to single-step progression (i.e. 130, 131, 132 instead of 130-131, 132-133, etc.) could add some interesting variation.  Imagine if you went AI, BI, CI, AK, BK, CK, AS, AP, BP, CP, DP, EP.

Above all, though: pull the implied quickness penalty out of the tables, and allow the Armor's Qu penalty to push the Qu DB negative.

[markc]

To tell the truth, I don't care about armor verisimilitude too much.
To me, the problem is that as they are now, ATs 2 and 5 are basically unplayable. None would ever choose to wear them, as they're obviously inferior to any other AT (and it's quite clear, as DfA said, that you cannot fully fix them without completely rewriting the attack tables).

 Maybe the question would be who would wear them? Normal people, IMHO would or might as they are not worrying about combat all of the time or think they are in a safe haven.
  Also what if a person does not have time to done armor and they are stuck at an AT2 or AT5? Then you need some way to have that as an option on the attack charts. Also IMHO some AT should be very bad choices as they would not necessarily protect a person but be a limitation of technology or resources.
MDC

[Arioch]

Well, another option could be using ATs 1 and 5 just for mooks/redshirts style NPCs, but still... 

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

  Also what if a person does not have time to done armor and they are stuck at an AT2 or AT5? Then you need some way to have that as an option on the attack charts.

AT1 is good enough for this. I mean, with the existence of a "no cloth to normal clothes" AT, do we really need a "clothes so abnormal they hinder your movement, but only in combat so that you get not only more easily hit but also more seriously injured than whilst not wearing any cloth, yet don't give you any QU nor MM penalty in any circumstance" AT?

[GrumpyOldFart]

What "we really need" is a decision that will be made by each individual gaming group, and none of us have any real say in it beyond our own.

But that said, so long as professional athletes see justification in special clothing for their primary activity, and so long as there are unarmed martial arts based character concepts in your game system, there is a justification for having "normal" clothing, "cumbersome" clothing and no or "ergonomic" clothing as distinct ATs. Whether that justification is strong enough to overcome the "too fiddly, too much paperwork, it'll drive customers away" risk, I can't tell you. I'm not a market analyst.

From the standpoint of trying to model how people's actions actually work, it's justified. From the standpoint of improving the game, I don't consider myself qualified to say.

[jaranka]

For my part, I'm glad that the option is there.  Yes, AT2 may not be good in combat, but who says its strictly for PC's?  Any Magician with half a brain would surely not go adventuring in such restrictive garb.  Or perhaps they bestow some benefit that he deemed worthy enough to risk it.  More likely, it is the AT worn by the hapless cultists as the PC's invade their sanctum. Or the ceremonial garb of a Priest worn during rituals.  I for one am glad that I can look it up on the charts in case that ritual gets rudely interrupted.

[ToM]

Well, Rolemaster without the individual weapons tables and the armor columns and the crits/hits combination ans critical severity and type, would not be Rolemaster anymore.

There's a lot of good detailed simulationist combat systems out there, like RuneQuest or The Riddle of Steel. They work well and are probably even more "realistic" than Rolemaster. But, Rolemaster is about a open-ended d100 roll + offensive bonus against Armor Types, and then crits, slashes, punctures, crushes, bleeding, stun, no parry, maiming. That's all, basically.

I would personally not drop a penny into a game which calls itself Rolemaster but does not have said things in it, honestly. Rather I'd play a different game, or just Rolemasters as I knew it and played for like 20 years.

[rdanhenry]

I house ruled a SCSM bonus for Channeling and Essence casters in AT-2. Not enough to make it worth wearing if you were specifically planning on being in combat, of course, but enough to motivate wearing in more normal circumstances.

[yammahoper]

I agree with the d100 and crit tables, but I disagree with the need for tables.  There are mechanics that could replace the tables and maintain a target number system.

I don't know how many of you were around for the first edition of RM.  It was a table nightmare because all the charts were individual cardboard stock.  You would have stacks of tables on the table, so to speak.  Flipping through them was a major pain.  Yes, assigning someone to have this or that table...whatever.  Combat took longer, and since combats come between at least some time of roleplaying, that was time for tables to get scattered, set down, left by the phone or fridge, etc).

RM2 was a major improvement because AL and SL became single books.  RMFRP was a major improvement because everything was in one book.  It is at this point I believe most current playeres entered into the world of RM...or some other world using RM since RM doesnt have much in the way of official game worlds.

It was those first box sets that established the reputation RM has been fighting against.  To make matters worse, the flaws in the armor system have been part of the game from the start. 

Since the only person on this board who has not chimmed in even once in any of these discussions, the board member with the highest post total too, I assume Lordmiller is doing the rewrite.  Busy at work is my best hope.  I know he knows the problems with RM's armor rules, so this is one area I am absolutely confident will be addressed in the revision.  I don't see him creating mechanics to get rid of the tables, but certainly he will fix AL and its armor types.

Or I'm wrong...hashappened before.