Topic: Revised Weapon Attack Tables

[allchemist]

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


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!

[Arioch]

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!

[markc]

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 

[giulio.trimarco]

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.

[markc]

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

[giulio.trimarco]

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".

[Arioch]

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.

[giulio.trimarco]

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.

[giulio.trimarco]

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

From my last post:

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 

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.

[giulio.trimarco]

Hi!

Here it is my idea of weapon table:

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

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

[giulio.trimarco]

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).

[markc]

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

[markc]

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

[giulio.trimarco]

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!

[markc]

 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

[giulio.trimarco]

Oh nooooo...

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

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.

[giulio.trimarco]

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.

[Arioch]

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?

[giulio.trimarco]

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.

[Arioch]

Interesting thoughts, looking forward to see your solutions