Topic: Players always choose AT 4 or AT 12

[Dreven1]

HI all,
I am in a bit of a quandary. All of my players started wearing heavy hides (AT4).  They have surmised that it is the best all around at, it does not restrict, it doesn't cause spell failure, it is the most protection without affecting DB or combat.
Has anyone else noticed this trend? Am I to just accept this and let them all choose this AT? They showed me the chart, it crits less and higher up on the chart EVEN better than AT 9.
Dont even get me started on how pitiful at 5 - 8 are compared to AT4!
and no one...NO ONE chooses to wear AT2.  I dont even know why it is in there if folks can just opt to use AT1.

Thank you for any advice!

[jdale]

AT 3, 4, 11, and 12 are superior to other armor... because they aren't armor. They are natural animal armor, when part of the animal. As such, they assume a degree of mobility that exceeds what a suit of armor made from animal hide would have. And for 11 and 12, also probably a thickness, especially at joints, that is not practical for a person to wear.

RMSR says, page 289:
Note: Armor types 3, 4, 11, and 12 are animal armors, natural body coverings with no normal armor equivalents. One cannot achieve such an AT without acquiring some enchanted and specially designed armor (e.g., magic fell beast skin).

So, generally speaking people shouldn't be buying them, and if you have introduced a way to do so, they should be priced according to their significant value.

[Dreven1]

Hi Jdale,
Great response! Thank you.  I did just that.  I allow for skinning of magical beasts. So, everyone has a +50 skinning knife, a few ranks in skinning and then someone usually has leatherworking to a high degree.
This, I believe, allows for the tanning of hides into bolts/raw hides to then allows someone to craft magical beast armor.  They pay an armor smith 20 to 30 gold (which is a kings ransom in my game) to get those suits made.
Because they run around in the wilderness and we do random encounters (yup its a thing in my game that they absolutely love), they run across beasts with AT4 constantly.
So, I have kinda backed myself in a corner with this.  I'm not sure how to gracefully get out of it while not making them feel they wasted development and time with skills and equipment to do exactly what I let them do.
I appreciate your feedback!

[jdale]

These armors have natural advantages. I guess you could ask what kinds of manufactured advantages they can get in other armors for the same price and trouble (or perhaps for a higher price?), do they need to become better. Might be a bit of an arms race though.

[Jengada]

Hi Jdale,
Great response! Thank you.  I did just that.  I allow for skinning of magical beasts. So, everyone has a +50 skinning knife, a few ranks in skinning and then someone usually has leatherworking to a high degree.
This, I believe, allows for the tanning of hides into bolts/raw hides to then allows someone to craft magical beast armor.  They pay an armor smith 20 to 30 gold (which is a kings ransom in my game) to get those suits made.
Because they run around in the wilderness and we do random encounters (yup its a thing in my game that they absolutely love), they run across beasts with AT4 constantly.
So, I have kinda backed myself in a corner with this.  I'm not sure how to gracefully get out of it while not making them feel they wasted development and time with skills and equipment to do exactly what I let them do.
I appreciate your feedback!

That armor smith could charge them in skins, and then start selling that armor to everyone in town. I agree, it would be unfair to have built a scenario where the players have spent many development points and then make that useless. But either +50 skinning knives are fairly common, and others have them, or a prime target for a thief to go after. And once everyone's running around in AT 4 and AT 12, things even out somewhat.

[PiXeL01]

Even if they skin such animal they should but be able to produce them. The armor produced should be at2, or At5-10 though with bonuses I believe.

Now if you make it to a highly
Proficient  alchemist he might be able to make 4, 11 or 12 at great costs.

[rdanhenry]

Honestly, having allowed to do this, I think it'd be terribly unfair to take it away. Consider it a lesson learned and don't let it happen in future campaigns. And do let them know that you made a mistake and it won't be repeated. Having really good armor should allow them to handle a bit more, but the nice thing about Rolemaster is that even with really good armor, you're still at risk any time you enter combat. And, you can just add a few extra orcs or whatever, knowing that the PCs are hard targets.

AT 2 is heavy robes. Like, full Catholic regalia. Or else arctic weather gear. It restricts more than it protects and, like several ATs, isn't really armor as such. Nobody ought to go into combat so weighed-down and not armored if they can avoid it. Wizard robes, as commonly portrayed, are generally less heavy (more like academic gowns), and I would treat them as AT 1.

[Dreven1]

AT 2 is heavy robes. Like, full Catholic regalia. Or else arctic weather gear. It restricts more than it protects and, like several ATs, isn't really armor as such. Nobody ought to go into combat so weighed-down and not armored if they can avoid it. Wizard robes, as commonly portrayed, are generally less heavy (more like academic gowns), and I would treat them as AT 1.

I also treat being nekked as AT2.  This is the worst armor type for both crit severity and damage. Wearing street clothes at AT1 is almost always better than AT2.  Thus, I have always believed the AT2 column should have been #1 and the AT1 column should be AT#2.

[MisterK]

AT2 is not something you wear for protection. It's something you wear either for comfort, or for ceremony.

As such, it can be worse than street clothes. I wouldn't want to run around (or fight around) in ceremonial robes.

Even though most anime girls seem to be able to do that just right. Which simply proves again that those are worlds with different laws of physics

[Spectre771]

In RM2, AT 12 we joked was "the armour of the gods" because of the bonuses.  However, there is a small blurb in the books that states AT isn't normally found for humans as it is natural armour for creatures and is included for completeness of the listing.  The armour can be obtained but it's extremely difficult to get, so on and so on.  The only way we allowed a PC to start out with it is if they rolled on the Magic Items Background Option and received a "+## magical item of choice."  Then the PC could say it is a family heirloom passed down through the generations and that is how the PC came to have it and therefore a good reason the PC is able to adventure.

The advantages of AT12 are because it is part of the creature and not "additional armour" added to a creature such as a human having additional armour added to their body.  It's like penalizing humans for wearing skin.

* there is a similar thread discussing this, but it's from years ago.

[pastaav]

If speaking about AT in the previous RM editions it might be worth to mention that a common house rule is to eliminate AT1 entirely and have AT2 standard clothes to get much better game balance.

As somebody living in snowy country the idea that winter clothes is a death trap is plain rediculous. My LARP winter gear works in -25 celcius and does not restrict movement in any significant fashion. 

[Dreven1]

If speaking about AT in the previous RM editions it might be worth to mention that a common house rule is to eliminate AT1 entirely and have AT2 standard clothes to get much better game balance.   

Do you think that just reversing AT1 and AT2 (in other words treat AT 1 as AT2 and AT2 as AT1?) would be acceptable? or just eliminating AT1 all together?  It seems that AT1 for animals would be ok because AT2 is the WORST, and I like the idea that AT2 is normal street clothes and Robes.

[pastaav]

If speaking about AT in the previous RM editions it might be worth to mention that a common house rule is to eliminate AT1 entirely and have AT2 standard clothes to get much better game balance.   

Do you think that just reversing AT1 and AT2 (in other words treat AT 1 as AT2 and AT2 as AT1?) would be acceptable? or just eliminating AT1 all together?  It seems that AT1 for animals would be ok because AT2 is the WORST, and I like the idea that AT2 is normal street clothes and Robes.

Switching place on AT1 and AT2 seems very weird to me. I cannot imagine how it would work.

If you want alternatives to eliminate AT1...I have heard reports from some GMs who have allowed AT1 only if you clothed like a athlete/martial artist. Another option I recall GMs reporting was they rule that you are AT2 if you carry adventuring gear, but can opt for AT1 if you carry no gear at all. Players can of course carry a backpack they drop at the beginning of combat to get AT1, but this mean they might end in a hostile area without no food and no means to get new food.

[Cory Magel]

I don't see a problem with AT1 and AT2.

AT1 is unencumbered dexterity defense AT... any random person wearing fairly normal clothes.
AT2 is the ridiculously 'fancy' clothes that priests or royalty wear during ceremonial events.

What's so strange about that?

Of course, then you can have some fun with your players and tell them that evil priest about to sacrifice some virgin they've come to save is 'Just wearing AT2' and they run in and find out it's very magical AT2... then after 'looting the body' have to decide if they wear the crappy AT2 but with great magical bonuses...

[EltonJ]

Of course, then you can have some fun with your players and tell them that evil priest about to sacrifice some virgin they've come to save is 'Just wearing AT2' and they run in and find out it's very magical AT2... then after 'looting the body' have to decide if they wear the crappy AT2 but with great magical bonuses...

Like a +30 to DB?

[Cory Magel]

Of course, then you can have some fun with your players and tell them that evil priest about to sacrifice some virgin they've come to save is 'Just wearing AT2' and they run in and find out it's very magical AT2... then after 'looting the body' have to decide if they wear the crappy AT2 but with great magical bonuses...

Like a +30 to DB?

I'd probably make it a harder choice than that just to be mean.  Like, you still get hit a lot, but have critical reduction or something.

[jdale]

30% critical negation...  so 30% of the time, there is no crit at all, but 70% of the time it is every bit as bad as AT2....

[rdanhenry]

Of course, then you can have some fun with your players and tell them that evil priest about to sacrifice some virgin they've come to save is 'Just wearing AT2' and they run in and find out it's very magical AT2... then after 'looting the body' have to decide if they wear the crappy AT2 but with great magical bonuses...

Like a +30 to DB?

I'd probably make it a harder choice than that just to be mean.  Like, you still get hit a lot, but have critical reduction or something.

Why make it mitigate the AT at all? There's loads of other things it can do. x5 universal PP multiplier. +20 RR bonus. Wearing it counts as having already done one round of spell prep. Spell ranges for the wearer are doubled. Spell durations for the wearer are doubled. RRs against the wearer's spells are made at -20. After all, evil priests generally have plenty of meat shields. Magical robes should be worn for power, not protection.

[Werd]

Hi Jdale,
Great response! Thank you.  I did just that.  I allow for skinning of magical beasts. So, everyone has a +50 skinning knife, a few ranks in skinning and then someone usually has leatherworking to a high degree.
This, I believe, allows for the tanning of hides into bolts/raw hides to then allows someone to craft magical beast armor.  They pay an armor smith 20 to 30 gold (which is a kings ransom in my game) to get those suits made.
Because they run around in the wilderness and we do random encounters (yup its a thing in my game that they absolutely love), they run across beasts with AT4 constantly.
So, I have kinda backed myself in a corner with this.  I'm not sure how to gracefully get out of it while not making them feel they wasted development and time with skills and equipment to do exactly what I let them do.
I appreciate your feedback!

If I were running this game I'd make the armor extremely susceptible to wear and tear. So either they spend a considerable amount of time and teasure maintaining their armor or it gradually becomes tattered and falls apart, degrading its armor value over time. Need to introduce some sort of downside to this clearly superior choice.

[MisterK]

If I were running this game I'd make the armor extremely susceptible to wear and tear. So either they spend a considerable amount of time and teasure maintaining their armor or it gradually becomes tattered and falls apart, degrading its armor value over time. Need to introduce some sort of downside to this clearly superior choice.

An obvious downside is that it is a clearly superior choice. As someone else said, 'worth a king's ransom'. People would kill to get it - would kill the character who currently has it, more specifically. Even the best of armours doesn't protect against poison, neutralising traps, and spells.
You might want to give a fair warning : a high-ranking noble learns that the PC owns such a suit of armour, and offers to buy it. They are fairly generous in their offer... but won't take no for an answer, and locals know that.

IMHO, the default rule is: if you give something to a player character as a reward, don't break it afterwards just because you can. Make it a source of conflict while being faithful to the way the setting works.
Or have a honest talk with the player explaining that you made a mistake and the item is too powerful and will need to be toned down.