Topic: Fixing "suicidal" ATs

[rafmeister]

Have none of you ever faced animals in an encounter? AT2 and AT5 have advantages against most of the natural attacks. Claws and bites definitely have difficulty penetrating the extra defense offered by AT5, and AT5 affects essence spells (usually improving your chance of RR). While robes (AT2) do not affect spells, they still protect against a few animal attacks. In addition, the absolutely worst critical hits (D and E) tend to hit earlier against AT1 than against either AT2 or AT5.

Neither AT5 nor AT2 are cumbersome, and the armors are fairly cheap. In my campaigns, I have allowed players to purchase higher quality armor (e.g. +5 or +10) with little difficulty. Certainly +10 robes for 20 sp are a reasonable investment. No enhancements for AT1 from "thicker clothing", just a shift from AT1 to AT2.

[jdale]

I don't think the meager benefit against some animal attacks (not all) balances out the penalties against weapons, which are probably more common. Although there are deeper issues with the animal attack tables, which are hidden by formatting them completely differently than the weapon tables (a usability issue of its own). It's easier to get a critical with claws than with a broadsword -- even against AT 20. Why? It's easier to get a critical with a martial arts strike than with a broadsword -- again, even against AT 20.

+10 DB robes for 20 sp do turn things around. But if you have to make magic items common to fix the tables, it seems like maybe something should be done about the tables themselves.

[Rei Malebario]

AT2 is described as "full length robes". That's easy to see being worse for fighting in than regular clothes without being necessarily cumbersome, just less sturdy and more likely to get caught in things.

And, again, AT5 and AT6 are described as specialist clothing, not armour, so there's no reason it should be very good for fighting in - that isn't what it's meant for.

Now, why would anyone choose to wear those robes? Who knows, but people have been known to wear clothes poorly suited for fighting in in the real world for all sorts or reasons so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine people doing so in a fantasy world as well.
Much of the fashion marketed to women seems designed explicitly for impracticality. And ties? A severely impractical piece of attire that, nevertheless, you're practically required to wear in some situations.
So maybe there's a "No purple, hooded robe, no service" sign outside cult headquarters.

[yammahoper]

The obvious answer as to why anyone would wear AT 2 is they don't expect violence or battle.  I have no problem with AT 2.  Fancy dresses, ballroom wear, the heavy robes of priest and monks, heavy winter clothing; it has its uses.

AT 5 I do have problems with.  It makes no sense that wearing a leather jacket results in less protection than wearing a tee shirt.  The fix in my game is to purchase the AT with a bonus for superior construction.  A poor fix imo.

[markc]

AT2 is described as "full length robes". That's easy to see being worse for fighting in than regular clothes without being necessarily cumbersome, just less sturdy and more likely to get caught in things.

And, again, AT5 and AT6 are described as specialist clothing, not armour, so there's no reason it should be very good for fighting in - that isn't what it's meant for.

Now, why would anyone choose to wear those robes? Who knows, but people have been known to wear clothes poorly suited for fighting in in the real world for all sorts or reasons so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine people doing so in a fantasy world as well.
Much of the fashion marketed to women seems designed explicitly for impracticality. And ties? A severely impractical piece of attire that, nevertheless, you're practically required to wear in some situations.
So maybe there's a "No purple, hooded robe, no service" sign outside cult headquarters.

 I agree.
  And as I have said before my worlds human as a base AT is AT2 with animals and other fast critters being AT1. I assume that AT2 is normal clothing and if you are in fact naked then I think I might give the attacker x1.5 hits and +10 on the crit.


 I think I might have someone who can make that sign. And they might just do it as a joke for someone. I think it might be  "No purple hooded robe, saddles required or no service" Portland Cthulhu Cult Headquarters. I will send this to her and see what she says.


MDC   

[rafmeister]

I have been in campaigns where roughly 90% of the encounters are against animals in the wilderness (wolves, bears, dragons, etc.). Even so, the armor types are not all that common.

Robes are included primarily for traditional wizards and such. They well represent medieval women's clothing, which might weigh 20 pounds or so. Rolemaster is a roleplaying game: not everyone min-maxes every action for their character.

Another thing to consider is the critical hit tables. You can treat robes as armor covering arms, legs, chest, etc. This provides a bit of protection against, "if foe wears armor, +5 hits. If foe has no armor, +3 hits and bleeding 3 per round."

[pastaav]

AT2 is described as "full length robes". That's easy to see being worse for fighting in than regular clothes without being necessarily cumbersome, just less sturdy and more likely to get caught in things.

And, again, AT5 and AT6 are described as specialist clothing, not armour, so there's no reason it should be very good for fighting in - that isn't what it's meant for.

What is the benefit at the gaming table of those then? If it really is specialist clothing then I don't think they deserve to be an AT, but should be handled in some better way that don't waste so many pages for little benefit at the game table.

Much of the fashion marketed to women seems designed explicitly for impracticality. And ties? A severely impractical piece of attire that, nevertheless, you're practically required to wear in some situations.

Indeed there are very impractical clothes, in the real world these kind of clothes will tear if the wielder try to do gymnastics in them. In the game these clothes will not limit you movement while climbing without no ill effects on the clothes, but if you dare to use them in combat you takes loads of more hits and criticals...sorry but I don't think it makes sense.

[Kristen Mork]

I agree that, as written, AT 2 and AT 5 are suicidal.  My fixes are twofold:

• The default AT is 2, to get AT 1 you have to be wearing light clothing and carrying almost nothing.
• Any armor (5 or higher) has a (10 + AT) x 2 % chance of negating a hit.

When armor absorbs a blow, I apply armor damage (per Arms Law optional rules, 50 x AT hits, where a crit is severity x 10 hits, IIRC).  When the armor has lost 20% of its hits, it can no longer stop E criticals, etc.

For example, AT 5 has a 30% chance of stopping a blow, and it has 250 hits.  After stopping a 17E (for 67 armor damage), it can no longer stop E criticals.

As a result, even mages tend to throw on a leather vest.  Yes, they will get hit more often, but 30% hit negation seems to be worth it.

[VladD]

I don't have a fix for the bad AT's.

I make Essence and Channeling pure and hybrid users wear AT 2 if they want to cast spells above level 5. Also Robes are like a business suit in modern times, so spell casters get the attention from officials and such, like they should.

As for AT 5-8: There is a factual SLOUGH of armors that actually did nothing for your protection (Bezanted armor, knot armor, button stitch armor, rod and slat armor). And AT 8 is not so bad, just the penalties are worse.

Then there is the way armor works against certain materials. Although it is not modeled in RM Attack tables, but a padded or heavy cloth with leather coat clothing stops a mace better than a maille shirt. Fact is AT 5-8 was worn beneath the other ATs as a base.

Another fact of armoring is that cuir bouille is no defense against punctures, no matter how much padding you wore under it. (So AT 5-8 didn't either)

The metal types begin to address the puncture issues. Scale, maille and lamellar were fairly good at stopping most types of damage.
Maille was around already in 500 BC and plate even earlier: 1200 BC: Mycenean Panoply, but since weapons and armor had an arms race pattern of development, armor tried to stay ahead of the weapons of the time, then the weapons tried to catch up, resulting in reasonably balanced armor vs weapons.

Example:
The lorica hamata was a roman maille armor. It protected roman soldiers vs barbarian and roman weapons with some distinction, but against an 8th century viking, the lorica was probably inadequate. The viking's hauberk was stronger and could stop a broadsword, but not for certain. However the viking broadsword was probably warded off easily by 11th century Normandic maille worn with padding. The normans had even better swords than an early viking, able to do some damage on knights wearing their own armor.
I'm trying to illustrate that you don't need specialized tables per period and weapon type. A typical sword will cut your arm off if unarmored and will break bones beneath maille, even though it can't cut it. Coupled with minor advances (such as mantled riveting, baidana spring steel rings or even lamellae added to maille) maille will hold up against period weapons.

[JimiSue]

I make Essence and Channeling pure and hybrid users wear AT 2 if they want to cast spells above level 5.

Ahh - so if you want to beat down that level 50 evil mage despot, just catch him in his bedwear and he can only cast level 5 max?

I can understand the logic of it being the magic-user's business suit, but to enforce a penalty like a maximum level possible with no in game basis other than "that's how I want it to be" seems a bit on the strange side.

And I just noticed on the edit - that's pure and hybrid??? So a hybrid arms caster cannot wear any armour other than robes? It would truly suck to be a hybrid with that stipulation. For me, that would be sufficient to make me want to select another GM

[VladD]

Those are called: bed robes   

I've been cracking down on all spell casting anyway. If it is not kept in check, players will get the upper-hand and I don't like dealing with that.
One of the ways of circumventing my rule is getting an armor, wears as AT 2...

And which hybrid arms caster would that be? Hybrids have 2 realms of magic, semi spell users may do as they please, within realm stipulations of course. The edit was about a typing error.

In fact; and it is totally off topic, in my games, most semi spell users don't even use real magic. Most of their spells rely on "smoke and mirror" tricks, or skill-like tricks. Mind you: they use the magic system, except I'm not really counting it as magic, just flashy tricks of the trade: so a bard can start a magical performance without getting lynched and a paladin may start pounding bad guys, without the rescued villagers pointing fingers and calling him a witch...

[GrumpyOldFart]

without the rescued villagers pointing fingers and calling him a witch...

I always considered the risk of being burned at the stake to be part of the fun. 

[dutch206]

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.

They did.  It's called "...and a ten-foot pole." 

[JimiSue]

Well that will teach me to jump in feet first I don't play much RM, I'm a SM GM - forgot that hybrid was 2 realm casting. I was thinking of a semi oopsie

[Ecthelion]

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.

AT1 in our games can never have a bonus due to magic or better material. AT2 in our games can only have a bonus due to magic but not due to improved material. AT5 and the other ATs of normal armor can in our games have a material bonus or a magical bonus. And in our games it is quite common to have material bonus of up to +15 or +20 (for metal, i.e. Black Alloy).

[runequester]

My understanding was always that they were really more "Target Types" than "Armour Types".

So it's fine that some AT's are crap to wear, because people won't wear them if they are going to fight someone.

[Skynet]

Great topic, everyone! If you hunt down my old posts, you'll see half of them are about armor. And now that Rolemaster is getting a re-write, I have to ask :

Are the Attack Tables being re-written (or re-calculated)?

I mean, let's ask ourselves the question : Do we really need ATs for big coats? Really? This is a subject often discussed here. I believe it should be addressed.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I mean, let's ask ourselves the question : Do we really need ATs for big coats? Really?

Depends on what your setting is like. If it's like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selway-Bitterroot_Wilderness

then yeah, you probably do.

[VladD]

More people went to battle wearing padded coats, quilted jacks, arming coats and other non metal, non leather armors than you can comprehend.
Armor was an incredibly expensive affair (comparable to a german sedan) so they wore what the lord issued (and usually he issued orders and nothing else) or what they (and their wives) could cobble together. Not having any knowledge can lead to interesting developments, such as wicker armor, or bark scale armor.

In the mid 1600's the standard armor for a soldier was a buff coat: a quilted, many (yes, I have no idea how many) layered ox hide jacket, or full length coat, that reputedly could stop a sword cut or a bullet. The coat was stuffed rigid with horse hair and the ox hide was kept supple and rain resistant. Soldiers loved the buff coat, because it was warm and comfortable and it might protect you as well, but that last part was never as important as the weather protection, since that was what they dealt with on a daily basis and death and agony only once, perhaps twice. 

[yammahoper]

There is only one rule set I absolutely believe the new edition will address and make some drastic changes to: that is the armor rules.

So, to all you play testers, please pay close attention to the new armor rules...and leak info if at all possible!