Topic: Fixing "suicidal" ATs

[GrumpyOldFart]

I found it much easier to deal with individual cardboard stock that could be passed around than to deal with pages in a book that have to be marked so you can flip back and forth. Either that or copy them, which gets you right back to bunches of loose tables again, only not nearly as sturdy as the cardboard ones.

Different strokes I guess.

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.

I doubt he's alone in it, especially given 5 books, but figuring he's part of that team sounds like a good bet to me.

[GrumpyOldFart]

But then again, it wouldn't have surprised me to find that you were on the rewrite team either.

 

[Usdrothek]

Cults love to enchant AT 2 for their priests and sorcerers.

[Arioch]

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.

That's a nice idea!
And, if combined with AT1 = loincloth, what you get is something like...



 

[jdale]

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.

I guess I can kind of see that, but if that's the intent (and I'm not sure it is), I think it fails because it's not clear until you study the tables. If the intent is to have cumbersome clothing make it easier to hit you, the cumbersome clothing should be listed as such in the equipment tables, with the AT. "Robes" aren't on the equipment tables for RMSS, RMFRP, or the corresponding Gamemaster Law -- much less "Encumbering Robes, AT2."

If it was listed in a more direct and straightforward fashion as "Robes, -10 DB" would anyone use them?

I can see a better argument for heavy winter clothing, but again it would need to be spelled out.

[yammahoper]

But then again, it wouldn't have surprised me to find that you were on the rewrite team either.

 

I most certainly am not.  First and foremost, any revision I particiated in would produce a RM with changes akin to ADnD to 3e DnD.  I have seen no poular support for such a position, nor was I ever recruited.

like everyone else, I'm just watching and waiting.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

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.

Except for the part I addressed every time and to which no one answered that AT2 don't give penalties, neither to QU nor to MM. Everyone who posted here and justify its existence explained they're hindering clothes, cumbersome clothes, etc., except that not only can one perfectly dash with them on, one could do a cartwheel, dance or even walk on a pole, with no more problem than any other "normal" cloth. So they're... not really cumbersome, nor hindering movement. Except, weirdly enough, in combat, despite still not giving a QU penalty (as it's the case for any other "cumbersome" AT). Sorry, but I still don't see how that makes sense at all.

[Nortti]

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.

Except for the part I addressed every time and to which no one answered that AT2 don't give penalties, neither to QU nor to MM. Everyone who posted here and justify its existence explained they're hindering clothes, cumbersome clothes, etc., except that not only can one perfectly dash with them on, one could do a cartwheel, dance or even walk on a pole, with no more problem than any other "normal" cloth. So they're... not really cumbersome, nor hindering movement. Except, weirdly enough, in combat, despite still not giving a QU penalty (as it's the case for any other "cumbersome" AT). Sorry, but I still don't see how that makes sense at all.

I think you are absolutely right on this. AT2 should slow down your pace and it should give penalties to maneuvers and quickness. 

[giulio.trimarco]

I think that RM weapons' tables should be mantained. I love them.

I also think that, after 20+ years, these tables are damnd old and... wrong.
Even in plate armour you can make a cartwheel (man-at-arms tried their armour this way, in effect).

Weapons chart needs a rework.

1) AT shouldn't have armor mobility factored in, nor QP penalty is done right.
2) AT should only represent the protection of the give armour, or armours, if layerd
3) AT shouldn't represent whole armour, but only protection for a specific location
4) AT should, in general, progressive in nature, and not a chaotic nature as we see on today tables.
5) RM could make tables in various ways: tables for every weapons, tables based on weapons effects, tables based on combat techniques

[GrumpyOldFart]

Except for the part I addressed every time and to which no one answered that AT2 don't give penalties, neither to QU nor to MM. Everyone who posted here and justify its existence explained they're hindering clothes, cumbersome clothes, etc., except that not only can one perfectly dash with them on, one could do a cartwheel, dance or even walk on a pole, with no more problem than any other "normal" cloth. So they're... not really cumbersome, nor hindering movement. Except, weirdly enough, in combat, despite still not giving a QU penalty (as it's the case for any other "cumbersome" AT). Sorry, but I still don't see how that makes sense at all.

I never disagreed with this. In fact,

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?

[yammahoper]

So...should AT penalties be uniform or based on prof?

Uniform we know.  Based on prof could reduce the amount of dp needed to master due to inheirent lower penalties for arms users while putting heavy armor even farther out of reach for spell users?

An armor by the peice rule set would probably have set penalties for base AT (Sl, Rl, Chain, Scale, Pl) and additional penilties appropriate for the additions to the armor.  In this case, uniform would probably be best.

Just thinking...

[jdale]

It would seem odd to me to double penalize non-fighters by making the skill cost more DP and then also make the maneuvering in armor penalty higher, which doesn't really model any kind of reality. I think the closest I would want to go to that is giving a profession bonus on the maneuvering in armor skills. That's an existing mechanic that works fine. (In RM2/RMC I think you would get a level bonus instead.)

[yammahoper]

AT penalty by prof, but uniform skill cost?  Better?

[jdale]

AT penalty by prof, but uniform skill cost?  Better?

What's the advantage over the normal system? I think the problem is in the numbers, not in the structure.

Reversing the structure would to an extent change the number of ranks needed, so that non-fighters would need more ranks (and therefore more levels) to reach the same level of competence. The current system allows non-fighters to reach the same level of competence at the same point, but only by spending very large amounts of DP up front. This, of course, is the same as for every other skill, like weapon skills. What you're proposing is like saying a broadsword should get a hit on 70 for a fighter and 100 for a mage, but the cost should be the same.

And in fact it's not really the same number of ranks in the current system, because like other skills there are also stat bonuses, for which the arms classes will already have the advantage. Not to mention the Fighter class does actually get a profession bonus of +10 in the armor group in RMSS/RMFRP (and Rogues get +5), so there is a small class difference as well.

[yammahoper]

Uniform penalties with uniform cost...why should learning to wear something be more difficult?  In addition, spell users already have penaltys casting in armor.

or a simplification: pure arms pay 1/1/1. semi's 2/2/2, hybrids and pures pay 3/3/3. 

how about a talent that allows pure arms to innately wear one type of armor at minimum penalty while a spell user may reduce dev cost by one step.

I have always found the high cost of traning armor rather rediculous.  in fact, i tract time spent in armor by pc's.  every 8 hours in armor equals 3dp that can be applied towards purchasing ranks in mnv in that armor.  nothing teaches like doing.  i have used this rule for all prof but admittedly have not changed skill cost.

[JimiSue]

Which is all fine, but it doesn't change the fact that AT2 is a nonsense AT for anyone to wear. Those cultists are not all stupid - someone along the way will have realised that if you take 0off the jacket and convert your trousers into clamdiggers, they are better for moving in. Which means that rather than have some overarching penalty over and above the one already built in by the tables, you need instead fo have a compelling reason why someone would choose that armour in spite of it's issues. Which could be ...

• Secrecy - in that kind of get up, no one will know who you are.
• Spellcasting - something about that armour makes it easier to cast spells. Could be just a mindset thing, or maybe it's some kind of thread made from a special material that is sewn through the robe and requires that kind of coverage to be effective - different one for each school maybe.
• Ambience - because everyone else does it and you don't want to get picked on in the playground

and so on. I wouldn't be adverse to giving that kind of get up a +10 bonus in spell casting rolls, or allowing effects one level higher, and so on, to encourage people to don that kind of gear. Especially since if you're a pure finger-wiggler/brain-bender/god-botherer and should be trying to avoid getting to the point where someone is swinging a sword at you anyway.

[pastaav]

Actually I think the possibilities if you are rewriting the tables is near endless. The problem comes from the mix of different factors and a effort to keep the tables compatible even thought AT2 has never made any sense.

One possible fix would be to say that normal clothes/cultist clothes and winter clothes all give the same protection against criticals since cloth does not stop a piercing strike, thus criticals start at the same number. The concussion hits could on the other start at different levels.

The heavy winter clothes would give movement penalties but also make you take lesser hits at shallow hits. Possibly they might also give extra protection against elemental attacks and so on.

Cultist robes would mean that you are AT1, but with a penalty for your DB and bonus for your spell casting. 

[kevinmccollum]

Funny. I have never had any problems with the armors as written. the rules even describe the AT 5-8 as pretty worthless. Rewrite what you want, I'll just buy old books. There is no fix required. I think the problem may be some people have character concepts that are  unrealistic. (example: Fighters in half plate doing Errol Flynn Robin Hood acrobatic moves at low levels)

[Arioch]

I think the problem may be some people have character concepts that are  unrealistic. (example: Fighters in half plate doing Errol Flynn Robin Hood acrobatic moves at low levels)

Yeah, or people having an actual reason to wear robes... 

[Lord Garth]

I think the problem may be some people have character concepts that are  unrealistic. (example: Fighters in half plate doing Errol Flynn Robin Hood acrobatic moves at low levels)

Yeah, or people having an actual reason to wear robes... 

Mages in loincloth are pro.