Official ICE Forums

Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: allchemist on January 20, 2009, 12:00:38 AM

Title: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: allchemist on January 20, 2009, 12:00:38 AM

Hi, I'm a Rolemaster-Player from Switzerland.

Does anyone ever wrote an extension for the Revised Weapon Attack Tables from the Guild Companion? I would like to have more weapons... Or is there a similar project.

http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2002/may/revisedweapontables.html
 (http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2002/may/revisedweapontables.html)

Basically I am with the same things not happy as the author of this tables (I quotate the article):

This article attempts to address two common complaints with the original weapon attack tables. The first is the double penalty associated with heavy armour types. Quickness penalties are used in Rolemaster to reflect the encumbrance and restrictiveness of armour. This penalty limits the wearer in their ability to avoid attacks. The tables themselves also penalise heavier armour types in that they receive concussion damage earlier than lighter types much for the same reasons the quickness penalty is employed. The second complaint is the ineffectiveness of lighter armour types. These armour types tend to hinder the wearer rather than protect them in most situations, and as such earlier concussion damage and criticals are the norm.

Thanx volks for any kind of help!

;)

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Arioch on January 20, 2009, 03:00:29 AM

I suggest you to give a look to RMC Combat Companion, rules for armor and attack tables there imho solve the problems you have with "standard" Arms Law attack tables   ;)


PS: Welcome to the forums!

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on January 20, 2009, 02:47:38 PM

Allchemist,
 Welcome to the forums.

 There are quite a few threads in the archives that talk about this topic. One think I do is have AT2 be the standard AT for humans and AT 1 is for fast creatures. This has worked very well for my RMSS game as well as SM:P game.
 Some of the sticky points I have found are Adrenal Defense and RM2 higher bonuses. Adrenal defense because if a GM does not keep a close eye on players with the skill and when and when not they can use it does cause the skill to be a problem. Also as I said I ahve foudn that RM2 with its possibility of higher stat bonuses and racial bonuses it can skew the chart a little more than in RMSS. You are going to have others say that it is not a problem or not that big or a problem and it was probably not a big problem in there game but I am just giving my oponin as to my experience.

 There are also as as said above a new look at combat and combat tables in the Combat Companion that may work well for your game.

 MDC 

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on January 29, 2009, 10:46:56 AM

Another intersting option could be generalising the critical tables.

Critical could be reduced to a smaller range for every type, and location could be removed, leaving only the real injury.
This will leave the road downward for locational hits.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on January 29, 2009, 03:42:58 PM

Quote from: giulio.trimarco on January 29, 2009, 10:46:56 AM

Another intersting option could be generalising the critical tables.

Critical could be reduced to a smaller range for every type, and location could be removed, leaving only the real injury.
This will leave the road downward for locational hits.

 Can you say this in another way as I do not follow what you are trying to say.
MDC

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on January 30, 2009, 04:55:26 AM

Ok,

for example critical tables have say 25 (I've not counted them) results for  the "A" colum, the "B" column, etc.

Every result give us nice information of what is happened to "do" the injury, and details about the injury itself.

Example (no taken from the table): "Lucky break allow you to hit ribcage. 4 Ribs cracked*. -20 and must parry for 3 rnds".

Ok, nice. But, after reading this for 35 times, it's add nothing to game. In addition "limit" the GM in some way.


Ok, now imagine to reduce from the 25 result (as said above) to a more restricted range of 10 or 15 for column "A", "B", etc.

The example above could be "rewrited" in a more generic way:
Example: "Bone crack*. -20 until healed, must purry for 3 rnds".

Now, the wounds is there, the GM can elabore much more, and it's more fast to read.
In addition the table are more easily created and can be more "smooth" in injury progression.

*I don't know the exact word in english sorry, but I mean a bone not "totally broken", but dented or damaged, in italian I would write "incrinato".

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Arioch on January 30, 2009, 05:51:09 AM

It's not a bad idea, it will surely save space and make writing crit charts easier. Flavor text is handy if used as a suggestion on how to describe crits effects, but OTOH having it in the charts is a little misleading, as it seems to be the only possible way that the crit effect could be described.
Making "neutral" crit tables, and adding a small chapter with suggestions on how describe crits effects would probably be a good idea.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on January 30, 2009, 07:30:29 AM

You can go further with this type of chart.

Not only you can apply this type of injueries wherever you want, but players could gives some information of what would be the intended location.

On another thread has been said that you can't pinpoint the specific location, but I'd disagree. But this is another issues.

On the rules:

a location table could be created. This tables gives rules on how the injuries is applyed against the specific location.

Example (continued from the preceeding post):

"Bone crack*. -20 until healed, must purry for 3 rnds".

Now, applied to a Neck location that could say:

Example:
Neck: any bone damage over cracked to this location will slip foe in coma.
Any hits x rounds on this location are doubled.
Any amputation is lethal.


This is an example of what that could be worked out.
Of course the effect could be refined and revised. But it's not a big work.
I've done a system that uses the some basic mechanis.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on February 13, 2009, 05:02:29 AM

Hi, I've decide to move my idea of revised tables/combat in this section, that is perhaps more appropriate:

From my last post:

Quote

Hi,

I've nearly completed my table prototype, I'll post a PDF with an table example, say about a Broadsword.
The table is done with a simple OpenOffice Calc sheet, so whatever weapon could be implemented in minutes  ;D

Meanwhile I'd like to know how you fell about this type of approch.

The table will resemble the one from Arms Law.
Armor on the top, scored attack number on the side, and a table for every weapon.

Now, first of all the AT(Armor Types) aren't really Types, but AM(Armor Material).
In essence the table will tell you that IF you make contact with whatever location (more later) covered with a specific AM, you will score that damage.

Example: Glasc attack a poor peasant covered from head to toe by clothing (light-medium) (AM2). His attack hit with a 87 to torso, so we check AM2. The damage is 12AS.
If the pesant has a chainmail on torso (how lucky) whe should check AM7.

Now I've implemented a "penetration" concept.
This boils down to this:
Every weapon has up to three critical types. In essence the aspect witch can cause a injury. For a sword their essentially slash and point.
In addition to this a non-penetrating crit type is added, Krush or Stun.
For example even if a sword will still wound a plate protected location (an "A" crit), the damage could be only a "blunt" damage, for now we will use Krush, but I plan to implement a "Blunt" crit table (could resemble stun).

This way we will retaining RM weapon charts, you'll have the possibility to totally customize armor (by location), eliminate the double quick penalties, and every armor material will improve the protection.

More will follow.

The prototype is done. I must only find a way to post a PDF.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on May 14, 2009, 01:55:33 AM

Hi!

Here it is my idea of weapon table:

http://www.divshare.com/download/7380245-151 (http://www.divshare.com/download/7380245-151)

Now, I'm a little short on time, but I'll explain better later.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on May 14, 2009, 11:40:10 AM

Some explanations:

1) The table is a beta. The OpenOffice sheet I've created is in beta, so the overall quality (and functionality) can be improved a lot.

2) The idea is to potentially create whatever weapon table within minutes and based on comparision of weapons effectiveness against materials.

3) A Bec de Corbin is more efficient against plate armor than flesh. The values tries to take account of this.

4) The "K" criticals are all at the beginning (at least for piercing and slashing weapon). This is because once the armor has been penetrated the wound is of the appropriate type.

5) Removed the double-quickness penalty.

6) Concussion and criticals aren't necessary tied to each other.

7) AT is from 1-15. In the system I'm trying to create armor is in discreet pieces. The AT is the sum of all AT (pieces) worn on a location. Or a more "Generic" armor can be used. A global AT always composed from various ATs. Of course the table can be expanded to AT 20 or higher.

8 ) A location roll is made before consulting the table (if discreet armor is used).

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on May 14, 2009, 12:23:13 PM

giulio.trimarco;
 It looks interesting and great if you can tie it to a front end and do all the rolling for the GM. I also think your conclusion about crit types and hits is right on. After you are done I would think about submitting it to ICE and see if they want to sell it. I know many GM's would love a product like that. The only problem I have is the roll for location as it adds dice to be rolled. No big deal if players like rolling 2 sets of dice at once. I went the other way and tied the crit roll to a location, but I got side tracked and have not gotten back to working on it.

MDC

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on May 14, 2009, 12:24:32 PM

Another note that you may want to think about is that SM:P has armor types from I to X for modern and future armor. If you could work that into your system IMO it would be perfect.
MDC

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on May 14, 2009, 01:28:54 PM

Markc,

I've not understood the "front end". Do you mean an automated "combat roller"?

About the SP:P armor types, if I've understood you correctly, it's not a problem. AT 1-15 is only an alias.
You will put the values to each AT. You can call it 1,2,3 or I,II,III, but it will remain balanced.

For example the stopping value against a mace of an AT 3 you decide is 4, of the type III is 5 (more protective).
This way you baypass the issue (at least in Weapons Law: Fireram) in wich an AT 20 is (nearly) more protective than a IV armor type agaist a Desert Eagle.

If you mean of including the I-X armor types in the sheet, not problem! A bigger table is created!

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on May 14, 2009, 01:54:31 PM

 Yes you can create a visual basic front end app to access and use the data base of open office. You push a button and stuff happens, you enter data into a box and stuff happens.

 IMO it would be better to extend the chart from At 1-20, then I-X for modern armor. If you have SM:P Equipment Man I think they have thier charts done that way.
 The other way to do it IMO is to create your own new AT system and fit fantasy and modern armor to the scale. You might also want to think about creature armor when you create the max. So for example maybe a dragon has the top most armor in any age [fantasy, modern. sci-fi] so it is at the top. The figure out the lowest armor, maybe a soap bubble or something. Once you have the high and low you can fit the rest on the scale some where. Once done you could have a chart that could handle any attack against any type of object not just armor.

MDC

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on May 15, 2009, 03:55:53 AM

Oh nooooo...

I do programs all the day at work... I can't do that even at home :D

I can create a sheet to create weapons table and write an "alternative" combat system for RM.
BTW I'de like to create the tables to be used with whatever RM edition.

Title: Tactical Sequence
Post by: giulio.trimarco on May 18, 2009, 10:10:41 AM

The revised tables should be a "portion" of a more radical "revised combat".

RM has many good points. Perhaps the combat has the most "obscure" points that, finally, has driven me to leave this great system.

I'm thinking of revising these sections of the combat:

1) Initiative
2) Tactical Sequence
3) Active Defense
4) Confront Based Fumble
5) Location Wise combat weapon charts/crits
6) Faster and simpler "breakage" rules (in hope of more fun and a small realism gain)
7) Faster and simpler "Exhaustion" rules (in hope of more fun, less bookkeeping and more usability)

All these changes (that I'm planning) aren't meant to create "a super realistic" RM but more "dynamic" combat rules.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Arioch on May 18, 2009, 12:03:43 PM

Quote from: DeathFromAbove on May 18, 2009, 10:10:41 AM

1) Initiative
2) Tactical Sequence
3) Active Defense
4) Confront Based Fumble
5) Location Wise combat weapon charts/crits
6) Faster and simpler "breakage" rules (in hope of more fun and a small realism gain)
7) Faster and simpler "Exhaustion" rules (in hope of more fun, less bookkeeping and more usability)

What are the things you don't like of these points in the current RM rules?

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on May 18, 2009, 02:46:18 PM

It's not a matter of like or dislike.
It's a matter of "believability".

Don't misunderstand me. RM works fine the way it is. But, personally, it has some compromises that I can't accept.
In addition, in all these years and different RM editions, a step or two to change some "abstractions" could have been made.

In addition, while RM's combat system abstract some factors (like armor protection) some other aspects, personally less important and less "fun" are detailed, like facing.

Here a short run:
1) Initiative

Initiative is a "multiple" factor value. Quickness is only one factor and isn't the most important.
Especially during a battle experience, skill, courage are what distinguish a Olympic athlete from a forged soldier.
The so called Veteran Effect.
Fear, indecision, pain, being under fire will immobilize even the faster soccer player.
In short Initiative should be, imho, a skill.

2) Tactical Sequence

The tactical sequence should be streamlined and rendered more "real-time". I've already thinked an alternative tactical sequence, without rigid steps.

3) Active Defense

Well, an active defense. No more a static DB usable only against a single opponent but a more fluid defense system.
Some simplification will impact the speed of the combat.
Removing facing and some other factor with some well-placed penalties.

4) Confront Based Fumble

Fumble will be dependent from the skills of the contenders and not a static number. Be you a master swordsman or a village shepherd will influence the situation.

5) Location Wise combat weapon charts/crits

Well, location-wise system. I want to hit the left shoulder. The system will allow this.

6) Faster and simpler "breakage" rules (in hope of more fun and a small realism gain)

Self explanatory.

7) Faster and simpler "Exhaustion" rules (in hope of more fun, less bookkeeping and more usability)
Too bookkeeping and PCs can keep fighting for hours.
Not so realistic. Not so fun. Too slow.
You can do only 10 seconds of dash and can fight with an AT20 and a two-handed sword for much longer.
Instead of "fatiguing" the player will expend exhaustion to "improve" his skills momentarily.

As I said I was not thinking to the "Ultimate RoleMaster Realism Mod", but to a more dynamic system.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Arioch on May 19, 2009, 01:55:18 PM

Interesting thoughts, looking forward to see your solutions  ;D

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Dark Schneider on May 31, 2009, 03:38:03 AM

Am I the only one that thinks the best tables for combat are the HARP Hack'n Slash?.

I like them very much, and easy to handle, the simple concept of attack size, each one with its own column, all with the complete range (results until 150), and with the associated critical table. So it only needs to determine those concepts (type and size) for any weapon, and then maybe some special modifiers, but is not compulsory.
As addition, we can use the detail option of hit location, or if we want fast combat (usually if there are many combatants) we can simply bypass it. And the option of using direct critical (that many people wants) or the classical second roll for critical (but IMO it'd be better to use the letter in some way, needed for example for some direct results like fire wall or vacuum).

But I'd like some more details, like difference between flail and quarter staff, the 2nd one looks better (lesser fumble) but because it is overpowered not using negative modifiers for large crush table.

My opinion is that HARP Hack'n Slash, and the new RMC tables are pretty good, and that is the way, simple and effective, and only revising those systems a bit we could have a great definitives combat tables systems.

1) HARP Hack'n Slash: only needs to revise the attack types, adding modifers to weapons to balance (if not quarter staff is better than flail, and cheaper).
2) RMC: revise some attacks, like the magical ones (magical bolts and balls have lost very much power).

As we changed RM2 for RMFRP for a newer and better system, maybe it could be time to change the old RM combat tables for a new simpler and versatile system, for example, with the old RM table system it is very hard to insert a new weapon, because is a mystery how the tables has been made, who can create a table for a new weapon?.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on May 31, 2009, 03:12:56 PM

 I am not a fan of the 1 size fits all table and the various levels of attacks.

MDC

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Dark Schneider on June 02, 2009, 03:53:34 AM

Quote from: markc on May 31, 2009, 03:12:56 PM

I am not a fan of the 1 size fits all table and the various levels of attacks.

Me too, for that I say it needs revision, so it can be better and worse wepons in the same size, but adjusting them is an excellent system as it is easy and versatile.

About levels of attack, it is the only way to have all the armor columns (ARs) and allow many weapons in the same table, it can be used too as way to represent the behavior of weapons.
i.e. the dagger, it is not so innocent as in old RM tables, but it has limited power, so it is limited. Look that with the same result it does the same damage than short sword, this is not wrong because a strike with a dagger with some result surely can do the same damage than a short sword with the same result, but the short sword can do more damage as limit.

So for RM is a good system using AR and compacting weapons in the same table.

As I said other times, it is a good system but requires some revision for weapon adjustment (balance for weapon modifiers/price/rarity/etc.) and the more important is for magic (much power loss from old tables with negative modifiers).

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: providence13 on June 02, 2009, 04:47:32 AM

Instead of "fatiguing" the player will expend exhaustion to "improve" his skills momentarily.


This could be promising!

But how would this be used vs. Adrenals? "Adrenals for the common man..."
Fatigue could be spent to improve Crit (hits and bleeding-but not like Ambush) at an OB penalty.?
Fatigue could be used as a bonus Moving Maneuvers ...?
Once all Fatigue is used, -50% activity or even "can only perform Static Maneuvers" maybe with a penalty..?

Just thinking.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on June 03, 2009, 06:01:34 AM

Quote from: Dark Schneider on June 02, 2009, 03:53:34 AM

i.e. the dagger, it is not so innocent as in old RM tables, but it has limited power, so it is limited. Look that with the same result it does the same damage than short sword, this is not wrong because a strike with a dagger with some result surely can do the same damage than a short sword with the same result, but the short sword can do more damage as limit.

I think this is wrong.
In genreal different weapons should achieve different damages with the some "die result".

I think that a 100 with a dagger should be different than 100 with a mace or spear. In addition weapon size is relative and not descriptive.
A poleaxe is smaller than a two handed sword but is way more dangerous and effective.
Unfortunatly we have many misconceptions of medieval combat as a brutish undisciplined affair were the bigger the weapon the bigger the damage.
Nothing is more untrue.

Quote from: Dark Schneider on June 02, 2009, 03:53:34 AM

As we changed RM2 for RMFRP for a newer and better system, maybe it could be time to change the old RM combat tables for a new simpler and versatile system, for example, with the old RM table system it is very hard to insert a new weapon, because is a mystery how the tables has been made, who can create a table for a new weapon?.

When I'll finish my Openoffice sheet I'll post it. You will create new weapons on minutes. Some guy more "math-oriented" than myself could revise this calc sheet and render it a very stable "Weapon Table Creator".
It's already working and usable.

Quote from: providence13

But how would this be used vs. Adrenals? "Adrenals for the common man..."
Fatigue could be spent to improve Crit (hits and bleeding-but not like Ambush) at an OB penalty.?
Fatigue could be used as a bonus Moving Maneuvers ...?
Once all Fatigue is used, -50% activity or even "can only perform Static Maneuvers" maybe with a penalty..?

The dynamics are more important than results.
Fatiguing is a curcial part of every real combat, armed or unarmed.

So, computing fatigue points as for RM officual rules is a real pain and not so fun.

You could use different options:

1)Every 1FP spent will give you a +2 on OB/DB, chosen at attack/defense time and not at the beginning of the round.
2)FP should be a skill. Untrained peoples should have much less than the standard formula, while trained one could have more. Sure in Athletics-Endurance category.
3)Every 2FP will give +1 on "combat skill", these should be skills that will benefit from a physical boost. For RMFRP/RMSS skill categories could be identified (Athletics Brawn, Athletic Gymnastics, etc.)
4)Simplify the fatigue penalties, like that for HIts:
01%-25% = -0
26%-50% = -25
51%-75% = -50
76%-100% = -100

Combat manouvres or skills that are based on special training (like Adrenal or the likes) should not be allowed to use FP for bonuses.
The rationale is that exerting oneself will not allow a better technique and so expending FP is useless.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on June 03, 2009, 06:58:29 AM

  First I would like to say, that I look forward to to see what you create and how it meshes with the rules.

 IMO you have to be careful with fatigue as you have it above you are barrowing in the beginning of combat to get a better hit and hoping you do not reach a point when the negatives will affect you.
 IMO it might be realistic but how realistic will it be?

1) ie will you take into account different weapons requiring different amounts of fatigue to wield them every round? ie you should be able to wield a dagger longer than a 2H sword or a war ax [weapon from the guild companion article The Weapons of Novi].
2) Will body type be taken into account?
3) The use of adrenals will cost fatigue but should each skill be different?
4) And the big one how do you increase your fatigue levels?
5) Do you need to use another system besides the adrenal skill system?
6) Are you using the combat companion? martial arts companion? or base system?
 

MDC

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: providence13 on June 03, 2009, 07:25:15 AM

DeathFA, as usual,you make some interesting and well thought out points. :)


So, computing fatigue points as for RM officual rules is a real pain and not so fun.
Totally agree.

I would not like to add another "die result" to combat! ;D. Rolemaster rocks(!) IMO, because of less die rolls than other systems.

Your proposed fatigue system does sound realistic; but let me get this straight-- You want to add yet another combat rule!? :D And another skill!? :o
So I can add 2 OB/ Fatigue AND 1 skill Rank/2 Fatigue. That seems to be quite a bonus...

IMHO, these are already incorporated into combat. Couldn't the tried and true % Activity be somehow used to express Fatigue?
The rationale is that exerting oneself will not allow a better technique and so expending FP is useless.
...............................I'm not spending all of my % Activity thinking about this, but doesn't that counter what you're saying ;)

About crit tables vs. damage...
Has anyone actually graphed the crit tables to see how the lines look?
It might give an interesting comparison :)

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on June 03, 2009, 08:05:07 AM

Quote from: markc on June 03, 2009, 06:58:29 AM

 First I would like to say, that I look forward to to see what you create and how it meshes with the rules.

Probabily bad  :D

Quote

IMO you have to be careful with fatigue as you have it above you are barrowing in the beginning of combat to get a better hit and hoping you do not reach a point when the negatives will affect you.
 IMO it might be realistic but how realistic will it be?

Realism isn't the ultimate goal of this HR. Dynamism and dynamics. That's all.

So you can use up the maximu FP to gain a OB advantage. OK. No problem.
But if someone else will use FP to gain a OB against you (remember that FP can be declared before rolling, a surprise), you will use some FP to increas your DB... and you will start fatiguing... and gain a malus.

Quote

1) ie will you take into account different weapons requiring different amounts of fatigue to wield them every round? ie you should be able to wield a dagger longer than a 2H sword or a war ax [weapon from the guild companion article The Weapons of Novi].

No. Of course not. I don't mind it.

Quote

2) Will body type be taken into account?

Can you explain?

Quote

3) The use of adrenals will cost fatigue but should each skill be different?

No. Even here it's not the goal of the rules to complicate the matter.

Quote

4) And the big one how do you increase your fatigue levels?

If I read you correctly:
You can increase FP like a skill, like Body Development. If you can increase Hits you can sure increase FP.

Quote

5) Do you need to use another system besides the adrenal skill system?

No. Why?

Quote

6) Are you using the combat companion? martial arts companion? or base system?

Base system. Sorry, but the various CC (imho) adds not much to the mechanics. Only various methods to adding OB.

providence13,

I want to simplify combat and removing the % activity round and many others quirks (like facing, etc).
I don't like the round mechanics where actions are declared in advance. I like declaration "on the fly", for various reasons (don't last my short memory  ;D).

You can use whatever method to compute FP. You can even declare that FP are 1/3 (or 1/2) of Body Development and that's fine.
Or you can use the base formula.

The bonus gained by FP (if an higer FP count is used) can be on a 1/+1 base. Not a problem.
If all participants to a combat keep the same FP ratio it's ok.

About the % activity as an expression of fatigue I not agree.
I can stand firm under the sun with my AT20 and using 20FP  ;) (done that in the last battle).

Activity is only an indication of how much you have done, not how you have done it.

A long (tedious) example, to explain what I'm trying to say:

(click to show/hide)

Two boxer (or swordsman or poleaxeman, whatever).

They are sparring, friendly. The blows aren't meant to injure, wound or main.
Fatigue expenditure: Medium

The some two are in a tournament, where the KO wins. Quickness and dodging are fatiguing as are forceful blows. Fatigue conservation is the key.
You can't allow yourself to remain exausted. Any burst of strength must be used in the "sure to hit" blow.
Fatigue expenditure: High

The some two, in a real combat (to death or not). Quickness and dodging are essential. You must win. When you strike you MUST hit.
Different techniques should be used to exhaust opponent before youself.
Fatigue expenditure: Maximum

All this to say that a combat that will last for... 3 rounds, will be very different in Fatigue expenditure based on HOW you will fight.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on June 03, 2009, 11:02:50 AM

2) Body type: The different body types are meso, endo, ecto and normal. They have to do with things such as muscle vs fat vs skinny. So each body type would have different amouts of ExP or FP.

 The big problem that I can see is that as a GM you can have each combatant use thier FP to full effect as there are other monsters behind them to take over. The party on the other hand has to wait until there FP replenish so this leaves them at a disadvantage.
 We are experiencing the same problem in a NWoD game with a GM that can always use the creatures willpower and we the party has only a few chances to gain them back and often it is a long time between chapters. So not auto reset. It is a huge advantage for the GM's NPC's and critters being able to gain 3 extra dice on a roll or any of the other options you can use willpower for.
 Now IMO a good GM will take those things into account and use them against the players. So if you could talk about the abuses of the system then both the players and the GM will know whats up with the rules.

MDC     

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on June 03, 2009, 11:39:38 AM

Quote from: markc on June 03, 2009, 11:02:50 AM

2) Body type: The different body types are meso, endo, ecto and normal. They have to do with things such as muscle vs fat vs skinny. So each body type would have different amouts of ExP or FP.

No Markc, I think you are bringing this to the extreeme. As I've said this isn't meant to be.
This is a peculiarity of a generic system.

Quote

The big problem that I can see is that as a GM you can have each combatant use thier FP to full effect as there are other monsters behind them to take over. The party on the other hand has to wait until there FP replenish so this leaves them at a disadvantage.
 We are experiencing the same problem in a NWoD game with a GM that can always use the creatures willpower and we the party has only a few chances to gain them back and often it is a long time between chapters. So not auto reset. It is a huge advantage for the GM's NPC's and critters being able to gain 3 extra dice on a roll or any of the other options you can use willpower for.
 Now IMO a good GM will take those things into account and use them against the players. So if you could talk about the abuses of the system then both the players and the GM will know whats up with the rules.

MDC     

I hope to bring forth a new, perfect bound  ;), PDF with all the rules in.
Fatigue will recover much faster, in minutes. Exact timing isn't still in my head but I think that 10% of FP every 6 minutes will be ok or, you will regain a full "level" of Fatigue (for example the 76%-100%) in 20 minutes.


Example:

01%-25% = 1-10FP => -0
26%-50% = 11-20FP => -25
51%-75% = 21-30FP => -50
76%-100% = 31-40FP => -100

To go from -100 to -50 you needs 20 minutes.
To go from -50 to -25 you needs 40 minutes.
To go from -25 to -0 you needs 60 minutes.

This will add tactical options but will not put PC in a disadvantage.
I also believe that talking of GM "advantage" is a bit strange. The GM isn't there to beat the PC.

If you PC will battle less than every hour... wow, you are on a battlefield.
In addition if every combat they will become exausted...

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Dark Schneider on June 03, 2009, 12:33:39 PM

Quote

I think this is wrong.
In genreal different weapons should achieve different damages with the some "die result".

I think that a 100 with a dagger should be different than 100 with a mace or spear. In addition weapon size is relative and not descriptive.

Agree, but for that there are different tables, as dagger and short sword are both in short blades, then it is easy to think that with the same result you do similar slash or puncture damage with any in the same category (table used, see new CC), examples are short, long and great blades, polearms, etc.

And the limit, see like this for example using puncture attack, as short sword is longer than dagger, then you do the same damage until the same result, but from that point (dagger limit) you can insert more the short sword (length difference) that is the "over dagger limit", it sounds reasonable, right?.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: giulio.trimarco on June 03, 2009, 01:05:41 PM

Dark Schneider,

sorry, but I don't see it that way.
I don't wont to bog down this thread in a weapon comparison disquisition.

Here we are discussing a RMC/RMSS/RMFRP combat style tables and on how to inject some new elements in this style of system without broking it.

Sure HARP tables are very good but, imho, suffer of many other "shortcomings". Like size, etc.

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: providence13 on June 03, 2009, 09:48:32 PM

I salute you. 8)
Let us know how it plays out!

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: markc on June 04, 2009, 02:19:47 PM

 IMO if you do allow FP to be used this way you should include different costs to wield different weapons. As you have said wielding a dagger is different from wielding a battle axe and both take different amounts of effort to wield.
 Also IMO people would use different weapons based on what could they wield most effectively to end the fight the quickest. Why? Well in combat most of the time your gaol is to kill the opponent as quick as quickly as possible with you taking as least damage as possible.

MDC

Title: Re: Revised Weapon Attack Tables
Post by: Mhairtrym on June 06, 2009, 07:48:51 PM

Also would not a person who is more fit, or used to this sort of activity recover faster?  In other words if you have a skill for total amount of FP, would it not affect the speed at which they recover?