Topic: Fixing "suicidal" ATs

[intothatdarkness]

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.

If you intend for something like AL to be foundation rules (in other words serve as a basis for settings other than fantasy), the answer is yes. I use core RM rules in a number of different settings, and have found the so-called "suicide" ATs quite useful for combat involving cultures or people that no longer use armor.

[jdale]

Personally I would rather get rid of those ATs, but if they are retained I think they should be addressed directly. E.g. the equipment table and armor description should say this is a heavy, encumbering long coat that is worn for protection against the elements, with little or no protective value. The current implication is that it is armor, and functionally that's just not true.

If you are going to have the system represent a heavy, encumbering long coat, I also think that it should actually have some protective value, or that it should not require Maneuvering In Armor skill.

A much better way to address this in my opinion is to decouple Quickness penalties from the weapon tables entirely, rather than trying to integrate the idea of mobility into both the table and also the DB. Then it's easy to say "this item will slow you down by this much". And "this item provides this much protection." It also handles more complicated situations, e.g. you are wearing a heavy coat (because of weather conditions) over chain mail (because you actually need some protection). Just increase the Qu penalty, and use the best applicable AT.

[Skynet]

For those of you who have used these ATs in some game, I think its great! It's there, so why not try to find some way to use it. But I still think that coats should not be featured in the ATs. If Rolemaster is to conquer new grounds in the RPG market, I believe it should be as streamlined as possible. By that, I mean the developers should remove these "quirky" bits. At the very least, these ATs should be labeled as such in the description, but I think Iron Crown should get rid of them and replace AT5-8 with "real" soft leather armor. Maybe use AT 3 or 4 for that?

[VladD]

I feel RM needs to stay realistic.

All the AT's need to be present and more need to be added for completeness: Leather scale armor, metal scale armor and lamellar armor.

Because you haven't heard of the armor doesn't mean it needs to be erased. I find streamlining a bad word if it means cutting off things that you would need. Simulating melee and ranged combat doesn't mean that everyone should get AT 20's and then start slogging. Besides an obvious element of choice for players, there is also the "set dressing" for the GM's NPCs. Having barbarians all run around in AT 20 is not my idea of good role playing. Not to mention creatures.
Its fun finding out that your weapon is perhaps not so good against plate and maille, but that it cuts that wyvern's leathery scales with ease.
RM has been about choice, house rules and always present danger. Its easy telling your players you've decided to eliminate AT 5-8, but they need to be there for others to use. Its easy not arming your NPC's with low AT's, but in my world, peasants wear AT 5-6 and soldiers off duty AT 7-8. Sometimes someone uses a full length leather coat in the rain to protect his AT 20 from rust ( a wise precaution) and players THINK they have an advantage, but then find out they've overplayed their hand...

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Personally I would rather get rid of those ATs, but if they are retained I think they should be addressed directly. E.g. the equipment table and armor description should say this is a heavy, encumbering long coat that is worn for protection against the elements, with little or no protective value. The current implication is that it is armor, and functionally that's just not true.

Either way, they need to be fixed because, currently, they're not being of "little or no protective value", they're being worse than being naked! To think that wearing a long raincoat protects you less than being naked is a bit... surprising. Getting hit earlier is one thing, getting critical earlier and more important critical most of the time is another! And a huge "huh?" Sure, a heavy raincoat has little protective value but try to stab it with a knife and you'll notice it does have a stopping power... more than being naked in all cases. Little protective value? Probably. No protective value? OK. Worse than being naked? Hell no! Not in that you get worse criticals anyway!

[JimiSue]

Maybe it's because if you're nekkid you have more of a mental awareness of things that can harm your delicate flesh and so more adrenaline is available to help you avoid all those nasty sharp pointy things - reflected in AT1 being better than AT2

[markc]

Maybe it's because if you're nekkid you have more of a mental awareness of things that can harm your delicate flesh and so more adrenaline is available to help you avoid all those nasty sharp pointy things - reflected in AT1 being better than AT2

  Maybe you have to have coffee/caffeine to be AT1 otherwise you are AT2. 
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

Maybe you have to have coffee/caffeine to be AT1 otherwise you are AT2. 
MDC

I have days like that.

But most days, without my caffeine I'm a prone/helpless/unaware target. Take your Ambush bonus and let me go back to sleep.

 

[markc]

Maybe you have to have coffee/caffeine to be AT1 otherwise you are AT2. 
MDC

I have days like that.

But most days, without my caffeine I'm a prone/helpless/unaware target. Take your Ambush bonus and let me go back to sleep.

 

  Take my Ambian Bonus and stay asleep.
MDC

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I guess I should try that next time, indeed.

  Player: "OK, so I'm AT1."
  GM: "Did you just have your coffee?"
  Player: "Uh, no. Why?"
  GM: "Then, you're AT2. OK, here are the damage..."

[markc]

I guess I should try that next time, indeed.

  Player: "OK, so I'm AT1."
  GM: "Did you just have your coffee?"
  Player: "Uh, no. Why?"
  GM: "Then, you're AT2. OK, here are the damage..."

 Also the price of coffee just went up in the game world.
MDC

[Marrethiel]

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.

"Skin (AT 1): Normal clothing, assumed if other covering is not specified.
Robes (AT 2): Full-length robes normally worn by spell users and certain other combatants.
AT 5 and AT 6 are heavy outer garments normally worn only for protection from the weather. AT 7 and AT 8 are worn for combat protection by some militia and irregulars."
Page 5 of RMC arms law (5810P)