Topic: Changing th attack roll for a chart less result

[Warl]

So I am making a macro in a VTT that I use to run my game to determine attack results.... and this is something I have wanted to do for awhile for Weapons results as I have not always been happy with the idea that at High ATs you can't really/easily "Miss" your opponent..., just maybe not crit him.

So I have a 2 part question. (Armor Aside)

#1
IF you were to make an Attack roll need to Break 100 For success, What changes to defense or OB skills do you think would need to be made to make it work, If any.

#2
If you were to Make Combat resolution an Opposed roll (Attack roll Vs Defense Roll), Again what changes to Defense or OBs do you think would need to be made to make it work, If Any.


Consider a Combatant with a stat bonus of +10 and 4 ranks in skill = 30ob and the defenders having a Basic DB of 15 before shifting OB.

By skills as currently Developed, There would be a lot more "Misses" More than likely in either situation.

Though I do have 1 player who has an 87 Ob to begin with.

Once you add in shields, Defenses, at low levels becomes more easily Obtained.

would you have an Issue with more "Wiffs" or would you adjust the skill bonuses/Defense bonuses to compensate.

[VladD]

If you look closely at the attack tables, the basic attack against AT 1 needs to break (approximately) 100 to hit. Some weapons are easier to hit with (2 handed ones, fast ones) and they begin to hit earlier. Armor slows you down and inertia makes avoiding attacks harder so it becomes easier to hit someone in armor and harder to damage someone. RMU will change this adagio a bit, btw, but in theory it should work that way.

So there isn't going to be much change. Characters with 1st lvl OBs of 30 shouldn't be in the forefront of the battle. 50-ish is more likely. DBs, including a shield, are in that order, so a slogging match ensues, but that is common with most RPG systems on the lowest levels.

[Moostik]

For me, the real issue is the double penalty for armor. You lose your qu bonus to db in addition to becoming easier to hit. One of these two mechanics should be enough, don't you think? Why have two?

btw, I'm not house-rule-killing the issue, but the question have arose around the table at times. Also, once youtube vids were used to demonstrate people tumbling in plate without difficulty, these penalties may perhaps be a wee bit harsh?

[Warl]

That is why I would change the chance to hit to be 100+ for all armour types..... Making it chartless.

Heavier armors would be easier to hit, But instead would reduce damage and chance to crit rather than being hit soon on the chart but crit later.

[yammahoper]

Each AT could have an individual "to crit" number.  Start with AT 1 at 80 and work your way up.

Use 100 as the to crit number.  Each AT could have a different "critical spread number."  This number would represent the integrals higher crits are delivered.  A crit at 100, B at 110, etc.  This would be in addition to DB mod and or crit mods.

Critical tables design.  I see a table with a d10 roll determining severity of wound (X axis), with 1d10 rolled per crit level ( A crit 1d10, B crit 2d10, etc, the Y axis).  The top (y axis) has 10 columns.  Each column covers a type of damage; muscle/tendon, bleeding, nerve, organ, bone, special and hits.  the critical severity dice are applied to this axis.  All results are totaled.  Hits delivered could be adding X amount of total dice rolled or set on the table.  Weapons could have a max crit die total to represent limitations.  Weapons would also have a rating for severing, crushing or impaling, with these results determined by rolling xd10 greater than x.  So a dagger is limited to three crit dice, impales if two crit dice are 9 or higher, severs if all three are 9 or higher.  Severity of special result is determined by (X axis) roll and follows normal RM wound definitions; light (finger/toe, nose, ear), medium (hand, foot), severe (arm/leg) , extreme (torso, head).

This was the direction I was developing when RMU was announced.  It seems the RMU team must have met the same problems of design the RMSS team met, because I see a new RM with a new set of optional rules now declared cannon, which, interestingly enough, was the number one complaint about RMSS/FRP I heard from the RM2 crowd.     To each his own.  I am not a programmer, beyond simple G and M codes, but I would enjoy reading what you come up with and how it (basically) works.  Good Luck.

[Turbs]

but all that math is already done for you and represented in a chart..
why change something to the same thing?

[yammahoper]

G

but all that math is already done for you and represented in a chart..
why change something to the same thing?

Greater variety of results and improving how damage is calculated.  Really not much math.

[Warl]

but all that math is already done for you and represented in a chart..
why change something to the same thing?

The simple and quickest Answer?

Because the current Charts make wearing certain Armors a Dumb Idea and Called shots are not really easily possible in he current chart system, and I want to remove the need for charts. Also, I Want there to be a basic Equal Chance to Miss across the board. If it requires Breaking 100 to "hit" then you remove the Premise that a Guy in full plate is always going to be hit.

I don't have time to give the long answer... Alot of typing and explanation that I find easier o do in vocal conversation...

Though if your ever interested, your welcome to join me on my Raidcall server for such discussion.

[intothatdarkness]

Firearms make the whole thing much easier because you have a common value that can be applied for damage. They also require a called shot mechanism. When I started designing firearms systems for RM (no matter which incarnation we're talking about) I more or less scrapped the existing tables.

[Wolfhound]

One thing to keep in mind is that by adding a roll for defense, this is going to cause the average attack roll to be less important.  As it will add anywhere from 1 to 100+ (if open ended) to the defense, thus making a lot fewer attack rolls actually hit.  It in effect makes major changes to the statistical variability of the results, and as such a lot of things would likely need to be adjusted to compensate for such a statistical shift. 

Regarding the armor, I personally disagree with the comments about wearing some types of armor being dumb.  As VladD mentioned, wearing heavy armor should cause people to be hit more easily (this is one of the most realistic parts of RM combat as opposed to the less realistic systems out there), but at the same time the chance of taking substantial damage are greatly reduced (which is what makes wearing those heavier armor types worth wearing, despite the increased likelihood of being hit, which again simulated real world physics and events much better).  Thus making the system as a whole much more believable.   

[Warl]

there is a distinction that needs to be made.
armor does not make you easier to be hit, it makes it difficult to defend Dodge.
this is in my opinion one of the fallacies of the table.

if to men stand completely still, one wearing armor and the other not, and allow someone to attack them, there should be no difference in how hard it is to hit either of them. the only difference should be in how much damage one or the other takes.

armor should not and does not suddenly make you a magnet for more damage or easier to to be damaged.

this is why I take a stance that regardless of armor and a tech will shoot need to achieve 100 before a successful hit is made.

[yammahoper]

I agree with Warl.  Study after study has shown one thing armor is excellent for, and that is absorbing the incidental strike.  Early hits are over stated on the attack tables.

[rdanhenry]

The tables assume that the target is attempting to not be hit. Motion is built into them. If someone were immobile, the chances of not hitting in a 10 second round are so low as to not even be worth requiring a roll. If you have a paralyzed target and take a round to kill him, it should be automatic. (Note that you don't take more hits in RMU when wearing armor, but most misunderstandings of the RM attack roll come from ignoring that the charts assume an active target, not a static target.)

[Warl]

The tables assume that the target is attempting to not be hit. Motion is built into them. If someone were immobile, the chances of not hitting in a 10 second round are so low as to not even be worth requiring a roll. If you have a paralyzed target and take a round to kill him, it should be automatic. (Note that you don't take more hits in RMU when wearing armor, but most misunderstandings of the RM attack roll come from ignoring that the charts assume an active target, not a static target.)

And that is part of the problem...

The Motion should be in the Characters/Targets/Opponents DB.... not in the attack tables..

THis was Part of the problem with the tables in RMSS and back to the originals.... Only they had a two fold issues... the both penalized your DB for wearing armor and you were hit "earlier" for wearing armor.

They Attempted to fix this in the current version of RMU... but they are still making the same mistake.

Instead of Saying "I hit you and because you are wearing armor you take no damage"
They Say "I hit you AND you Take Damage".

Let me explain what I mean by this.

I will go back to my statement from the previous post.

I Want there to be a basic Equal Chance to Miss across the board.

AS things Stand...(even in RMU)  ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL... If you Wear armor and stand Completely Still, YOu DO nothing to defend yourself, you will take damage Before a Person Completely Unarmored.

If we are to believe what the Rolemaster charts are telling us, If I were to take a fist Sized Rock and Toss it "gently" at my friends Head Why he first wore nothing and then He wore an AT 20 helm, He might take NO damage from the rock while armorless  becuase I would miss...for some odd reason... But with the same attack roll and him wearing an AT 20 helm... And Him Standing again, Comeltetely still, I would Hit him AND do damage.

Let me give you an example From the RMU Tables.

2 guys stands completely still and I swing a Long sword at them... I get a total result of 77.
Remember.. they are doing NOTHING to defend themselves Zero DB for both... They might as well be laying ON the Ground Unconscious.

with a 77 I "missed" the guy in no armor.... But the the guy in plate? well for some reason the Magnetic Gravitational forces Drew My sword unerringly to the plate guy and struck him dealing 4 points of damage as well.
So Not only did the armor cause him to Be hit ,where the Armour unconscious guy was some how missed, but the armor ALSO cause him to be hurt when he was Hit OVER the unarmored guy.

All things being equal... Both of them should have either been missed, or hit but if it was a hit, all things being equal, the unarmored guy should have taken more damage.

Now remember, this comes from a Gm who has LOVED RM from the beginning... but I have Seen its flaws over the years and have been willing to admit them, and desire correction.

Rolemaster Makes a Big mistake in "Assuming" defense within the charts Rather than Leaving Defense as a Modifier to the attack roll.

ALL the charts should do is Determine the results AFTER a Hit, Not whether you hit or not. Success should be, Like all other skills.... achieve a Hit on 100%. or 101 and higher.
ARMOR should at that point determine How much Less Damage you took over the Guy who wasn't wearing armour.
The guy in Armor Should have a harder time Dodge yes.... The Defense penalty Should have been LEFT in the game in RMU and instead the attack charts should have been changed so that Everyone Gets "Hit" at the same time.

My idea is of using a simple formula to determine all results... Damage, Stun, Bleeding, Injury penalty and chance to Damage a vital organ or severe/disable a limb.
This is done by applying the formula against  How much the attacker achieved a result over 100 after defense and ll other modifiers to his attack. Each weapon has it's own formula. Crushing weapons tend to do more damage and stun but less likely to cause bleeding. (yes this removes the crit charts as well) Slashing weapons Cause more bleeding , Peircing weapons do less damage than the other 2 types but have a creater chance to cause penalizing injuries and chances to hit vital organs.

Armor? Armor reduces the amount of damage taken, (Soft leather, for instance, might give a 10% reduction in hits taken where plate Might give 60%) it helps prevent bleeding, it reduces injury penalties, it reduces the chances of Critical injuries.

[vroomfogle]

It's a bit of a moot point - the new tables (as in the next beta) don't have lower hit thresholds for wearing armor.

[Warl]

It's a bit of a moot point - the new tables (as in the next beta) don't have lower hit thresholds for wearing armor.

that would be a good thing, But Hardly fair to bring to the table when We don't know this/Have access to it..

But good to know and glad to hear it :-)

Still doesn't change my desire to use this formula to determine results over use of charts as it also gives me the "Critical results" without having to  reference.

[yammahoper]

I'm trying to eliminate the attack tables from my game but keep the feel of RM combat.  I have averaged the first crit for each weapon and armor category along with the average critical spread (and then fudged to create a linear result and I flipped the NA/SL results).  Take the broad sword, probably the most used attack table in my games.

1st crit Target Number (TN)
NA; 78, spread 8. A=78, B=86, C=94, D=102, E=110+
SL; 86, spread 16. A=86, B=102, C=118, D=134, E=150+
RL; 87, spread 18. A=87, B=105, C=123, D=141, E=159+
CH; 101, spread 20. A=101, B=121, C=141, D=161, E=181+
PL; 114, spread 20. A=114, B=134, C=154, D=174, E=194+

To randomize crits, the number on the one's die is referred to;

1-2 = unbalance, 3-7 = slash, 8-9 = puncture, 0 = crush.  This range could even be listed versus each AT category.

Now all the data is easily recorded on the PC's character sheet and the GM needs one, may two pages of data to cover weapon/attack info.

All things considered, I think the breaking 100 as a base makes fir easier design.  Rules for TN adjustment for armor, shields, skills, talents and the like can be added.

[Wolfhound]

The Motion should be in the Characters/Targets/Opponents DB.... not in the attack tables..

Explaining what you mean from that perspective makes more sense to me.  Now I understand what you are getting at. 

It's a bit of a moot point - the new tables (as in the next beta) don't have lower hit thresholds for wearing armor.

This is an intriguing idea.  So the issue mentioned by Warl above has been dealt with in the next iteration of the beta rules?  I'm curious if you can share any insight into how this will work?  Larger DB or a random element added to the DB that can then be modified with skill (similar to the current way of shifting a portion of OB to DB) but with heavier armors reducing this increase, or some other method?  Or make it more of an opposed roll between the two combatants (and if so, how will this be affected when there are multiple combatants all beating on one another in a group (i.e. Bruce Lee or Jacki Chan type fights))?  Or do we need to wait until the new version is released to know what approach is being taken?