Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => RMC/RM2 => Topic started by: LORD LOBO on February 08, 2008, 08:15:52 AM
-
What's the word on Combat Companion?
Is it coming out anytime soon?
-
yes -- It is in pagemaking/proofing right now, and we are still waiting on most of the artwork....
-
Sounds like great progress! Hopefully, it'll all and it itself (wow, nice grammar) will arrive soon.
-
Can't wait!
I wanna get it soon ;D
-
Most of the pagemaking is done and it is in the proofing stage. However, we are also waiting on artwork to come in....
-
Okay, I just jumped on the newly-available CC (is that the right abbreviation?) and ordered the HB+PDF combo. I get no download link for the pdf. Help?
-
Okay, I just jumped on the newly-available CC (is that the right abbreviation?) and ordered the HB+PDF combo. I get no download link for the pdf. Help?
Minor glitch in the software -- Go back and see if you can download it from your "My Account" area now.
-
Nope, still no download link. It's order #747, if that helps.
-
Sorry, I made the presumption that fixing the product entry would fix your order. Because of the glitch (the minor glitch was that the file was not attached to the product properly -- my fault for not double checking it).
I also forgot that without a file attached, when you made your purchase, it didn't attach any file download to the order. I have made a coupon so that you can go purchase the PDF for free and will PM it to you in a moment. Sorry about the problem.
-
Got the download link with the new order. Thanks for the help.
-
So? any thoughts yet? ;D
-
Almost, just give me a chance to read it thru a second time... ::)
-
I have all kinds of thoughts....like for instance: Why is Madonna's new song "Four Minutes" only three minutes and nine seconds long?
Oh, wait....you meant thoughts about the Combat Companion. Never mind. ;D
-
Like what I am seeing so far. Thank you for putting this up now instead of waiting on the art. Still digesting it. The 3 new classes look like a lot of fun, I love their new spell lists.
Noticed one error though, the DP cost per weapon styles does not include values for classes that have a 3/5 base cost, which all 3 of the new classes have.
I really like the look of the armor by the piece and the new combat tables. Hope to see more new material like this in the future, well done!
-
Just use the 3/6, 3/7 row.
-
I have all kinds of thoughts....like for instance: Why is Madonna's new song "Four Minutes" only three minutes and nine seconds long?
Because its Four Minutes to Save the World - she's clearly allowing herself a bit of time to go and do the job after she finishes singing about it ;D
Hawk
-
I have a question about the Divine Champion's "Transcend Armor" spell. (Faith's Shield list)
Does the caster have to be out of his/her/its armor to cast this spell? If so, it kind of defeats the purpose of the spell. I would have made this a class ability or added "transcend armor" as a new secondary skill.
As for the rest of the book, this totally makes up for the Martial Arts Companion being out of print!!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you. The rules make more sense, and combat should go much faster now.
Now, to dig out my copy of "GURPS Martial Arts" and start translating combat styles. Pankration and Chaussons, anyone?
-
I have a question about the Divine Champion's "Transcend Armor" spell. (Faith's Shield list)
Does the caster have to be out of his/her/its armor to cast this spell? If so, it kind of defeats the purpose of the spell. I would have made this a class ability or added "transcend armor" as a new secondary skill.
Short answer is yes.
And no, it doesn't defeat the purpose of the spell. The spell has a varied duration, of up to 24 hours. Is your Champion going to sleep in his armor? The idea is that he gets up, and casts the spell BEFORE donning his armor, and so he is set for the day.
As a skill? Sorry, but NO. The ESF rules regarding armor are an option. To make it a skill, that would mean requiring those rules and/or assuming that they will be used. That is one of the fallacies that plagued the Rolemaster Companions -- they assumed certain rules WOULD be being used.
We are trying to avoid that here.
Class ability? Not sure about that one either. That opens other kettles of fish entirely.
Best to have it as a spell that only needs to be cast once a day normally.
As for the rest of the book, this totally makes up for the Martial Arts Companion being out of print!!!! Thank you, thank you, thank you. The rules make more sense, and combat should go much faster now.
The Martial Arts Companion was a HUGE inspiration for the style rules. However, I wanted something that included specific individual moves and allowed for interesting combats.
Plus it has the added benefits of still allowing basic striking and parrying without requiring any special moves or styles.
Vroomfogle was a huge help in giving feedback and helping me work it out.
Now, I have received a PM by somebody who is unable to figure out where to sign up for Notification so that they receive an email when we update the PDF.
I am attaching a screen shot of the page for the PDF of Combat Companion. The big red arrow points to where you sign up to be Notified.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
All together now...."When do the new CharGen Excel Character sheets for RMC come out?" ::)
-
Hmm, I actually have a Excel sheet for RMC...
I just haven't had the stamina to enter all the racial data as of yet. :P
-
All together now...."When do the new CharGen Excel Character sheets for RMC come out?" ::)
When somebody decides to make one.... ;D
-
So? any thoughts yet? ;D
Really GREAT! :worthy:
I really liked it and I agree that this makes the MAC obsolete. I also love the fact that you can use almost all of the companion with RMFRP...
My players are looking forward to convert their characters to the new combat styles method (the SU of the party were really happy to learn that they can now shoot their bolt with style ;D).
We also liked the armor-by-piece rules, but for now we're staying with the old tables since we love having a different table for each attack...
-
Well, IF those tables in CC become popular, and there is a demand for them, then we can start considering whether or not to make tables for each individual weapon (easy to fit 2 to a page), and expand the critical tables out to full page, 5 column tables.
But we need the feedback from them before we can make such a decision... ;D
-
I like, no love, many of the new rules, especially the new combat styles.
However, I need to do more reading and house ruling around the armour by piece rules because I hate the new combat tables. The fact that all weapons use the same table and there are no AT specific mods means that there is no reason ot just to pick the 'best' weapon (why use a cutlass when it is just a -10 sabre). Under the AL tables, the fact that different weapons had different effectiveness against different armour types meant that there was a real choice.
Also the fact that some weapons cap out at just 90 means that many players will start to hit maximum results over half the time by about level 5, resulting in much less variety.
-
However, I need to do more reading and house ruling around the armour by piece rules because I hate the new combat tables. The fact that all weapons use the same table and there are no AT specific mods means that there is no reason ot just to pick the 'best' weapon (why use a cutlass when it is just a -10 sabre). Under the AL tables, the fact that different weapons had different effectiveness against different armour types meant that there was a real choice.
The new AbtP system is very different from the original armor system and it is something that will take getting used to.
Under the old system, each AT represents a specific suit of armor, and you get weapon variation on how it deals with that specific suit.
Under the AR system, each AR represents an overall level of protectiveness, NOT a specific suit of armor. And between AR and DB, you get a specific rating of protectiveness.
I think that it is important to keep that in mind. It is a major change from the way armor has been used/thought about in the past.
As for "picking the best" weapons. What weapons are available should, ideally, be determined by cultural and location aspects, not by those that do the most damage. Weapons are also often determined by the combat styles available as well.
You use the cutlass because that is what is available to you where you grew up, while the saber wasn't. But this is no different than the current system. In the table on page 23 of RMC Arms Law, more than half of the weapons (25 out of 46 entries) have identical modifiers across the board, making their modifications no different than the ones in the new system.
Additionally, you also get the same sort of choices being made with the Arms Law weapons. Why use a broadsword when you can use a Falchion, it does more damage across the board, and why not use a Dag instead, it does even more with the across the line bonus (to all ATs) that it receives. Maybe it is a little more apparent in the new combat tables, but those types of choices are still made... ;D
This may require a little more work on the part of the GM to set up, but other than that, you still have basically the same choices being made regardless. You have those who will choose weapons based on damage done, and those who will choose them based on character concept. How each system handles weapons makes little difference, other than to make it more noticeable overall. ;D
Also the fact that some weapons cap out at just 90 means that many players will start to hit maximum results over half the time by about level 5, resulting in much less variety.
This is a problem with any sort of condensed combat system... Which is why I said that if there is enough positive feedback... etc.. :D
-
I have been reading through the Spell Lists for the new professions and was wondering why the Champion doesnt have any Instantanious spells. Not even his Stun relief. Is it suppose to be this way? If so then he is the first to have a none instant stun relief spell afaik
-
IMHo, that must be an oversight. (I say that because "Stun Relief II" and "Stun Relief True" on the same spell list are instant spells.)
-
I thought of making a list of RMFRP skills which should be dropped if Combat Companion (CC?) rules for Style Creation are used:
Combat Manuevers
- 2 Weapon Fighting
- Weapon Style
- Reverse Stroke
MA Combat Manuevers
- Martial Arts Style
Special Attacks
- Brawling
- Disarm (Armed/Unarmed)
- Racial Attacks
Specila Defenses
- Adrenal Defense
Plus: all skills in all the Weapon, Martial Arts and Directed Spells categories
Is the list complete? Or have I missed something?
-
I have been reading through the Spell Lists for the new professions and was wondering why the Champion doesnt have any Instantanious spells. Not even his Stun relief. Is it suppose to be this way? If so then he is the first to have a none instant stun relief spell afaik
His stun relief spells are supposed to be instantaneous.... sigh... something else that nobody (including myself) caught during the proofing. It will be corrected for the final version.
-
Arioch -- I think that covers everything.
-
If I choose the Natural Weapon Focus, what's the cost for choosing a Weapon Kata Option? Same as listed in the MA Options?
And what are the manuevers for Natural Weapons?
-
I am confused, to be honest. Where does this leave RMC Arms Law? I like new options as much as anyone, but wasn't Rolemaster Classic supposed to be a re-edited, reorganized version of the classic RM2 line? How does "combat styles" and a "complete change to the way armor works in Rolemaster" fit into that concept?
-
I am confused, to be honest. Where does this leave RMC Arms Law? I like new options as much as anyone, but wasn't Rolemaster Classic supposed to be a re-edited, reorganized version of the classic RM2 line? How does "combat styles" and a "complete change to the way armor works in Rolemaster" fit into that concept?
It almost sounds as if you are expecting ICE to replicate every book from the old RM2 line of products. If that is so, then I am sorry, but you have misunderstood a few things. The RM Classic core books were meant to be a re-editing, and reorganization of the RM2 core books. There was never any plan on redoing every single RM2 book in the RM2 product line, there are too many obstacles in the path to allow for something like that.
However, RM Classic, as a product line, does need to move forward. One of the reasons for RMC was to allow ICE to recapture that portion of its fanbase that never moved to RMSS/FRP. However, just doing the core books isn't enough. We also have expand the product line to continue to keep those individuals.
Eventually, the plan is to do a revision, and doing it in such a manner as to bring together the two fanbases into a single game and product line.
In the meantime, however, you can expect to see more products that eventually expand things, and give us a larger pool of options and rules.
As for RMC Arms Law... Well, there are a number of folks who don't like how it handles things (like the way the attack tables work), but there are also those who do. Combat Companion won't be for everybody. Not everybody will like everything in it. And that is quite okay.
The point is that we need to produce new products and explore new options. Combat Companion is the first book to do so. It was written in such a way to make most of it quite usable for RMSS/FRP as well. And the one section that isn't usable for RMSS/FRP will be made so in a future RMFRP product (currently in the works).
-
If I choose the Natural Weapon Focus, what's the cost for choosing a Weapon Kata Option? Same as listed in the MA Options?
And what are the manuevers for Natural Weapons?
Several different questions there....
Natural Weapon Focus -- this is for creating a Weapon Style based on using a Natural/Innate weapon. This has nothing to do with selecting a Natural/Innate weapon as part of a Martial Arts.
When creating a Martial Arts style, you have the option of adding a weapon kata or a natural weapon kata. When learning a MA style with a kata, the first weapon kata (or combination of weapons in a kata) is free with the style itself.
For example, a character learning the Double Sai style does not have to pay the DP cost for 2 Sai in order to use the style. He would have to pay the DP cost for 2 Jitte or 2 Tonfa if he wanted to add those combinations to his Double Sai style though.
It was expected that a MA style with a Natural/Innate weapon would have that weapon as its core kata weapon.
As for the sats, well the section on Page 70 regarding Innate/Natural Weapons takes care of explaining how to handle that. And this can also be used to determine the DP cost of adding a Natural Weapon to an existing style as an extra kata. It gives an example of how a GM determines that a character's claws should be treated as Daggers for determining kata stats. In addition to setting the required Tier(Rank) requirement, and Bonus Hits and Alternate Crit, it would also set the DP cost (i.e. a Claw would cost 7 DP per claw, require Tier II (rank 5) to use, do +4 Bonus hits with each attack, and do a slash or puncture critical of one severity less than the one rolled instead of the normal MA crit if the player wanted)
The Individual Maneuvers listed apply to the styles, not to the individual weapons, although some weapons may be inappropriate for some moves.
If the Natural Weapon is a kata for an MA style, it uses the MA Style Moves. If the Natural Weapon is the focus of a Weapon style, then it uses the moves for that weapon style (melee, thrown, or missile). It all depends on what is available to the style itself.
-
It almost sounds as if you are expecting ICE to replicate every book from the old RM2 line of products.
No that is not what I meant.
What I did assume, mistakenly it now seems, was that Rolemaster Classic was essentially a cleaned up version of RM2 core, and that any changes or additions made would be minor updates and clarifications to the existing core rules, and that any major changes (of the type that completely changes how armor works in Rolemaster) would be saved for a future revison/new version.
-
If the Natural Weapon is a kata for an MA style, it uses the MA Style Moves. If the Natural Weapon is the focus of a Weapon style, then it uses the moves for that weapon style (melee, thrown, or missile). It all depends on what is available to the style itself.
OK, now it's clear. Thank you! :)
-
What I did assume, mistakenly it now seems, was that Rolemaster Classic was essentially a cleaned up version of RM2 core, and that any changes or additions made would be minor updates and clarifications to the existing core rules, and that any major changes (of the type that completely changes how armor works in Rolemaster) would be saved for a future revison/new version.
The rules in Combat Companion are Optional rules. The core rules still exist. But, by putting options like this into expansion products like Combat Companion, that allows us to see how well they work and how well they are accepted. If they are widely accepted, that lets us know that we are on the right track. If they are not widely accepted, then no major harm because we can decide to not incorporate them into a future revision.
Yes, the AbtP rules change how armor works, and if you want to use AbtP, then you need to use the options, but nobody is forcing those options on anybody else.
;D
-
Yes, the AbtP rules change how armor works, and if you want to use AbtP, then you need to use the options, but nobody is forcing those options on anybody else.
Until maybe after the revision ;) :D ;D 8) :-*
lynn
-
But surely the complete change to combat is now going to make any release of adventures or settings incredibly complicated?
To release a RMC or RMFRP supplement now requires two (or even 3 or 4 if you include the new combat styles with old armour or new armour with old skills) completely different sets of stats.
Surely this will act to limit anything other than rules based releases, and looking at the 'Products I'd like to see' threads, the background material is what people are crying out for?
-
But surely the complete change to combat is now going to make any release of adventures or settings incredibly complicated?
To release a RMC or RMFRP supplement now requires two (or even 3 or 4 if you include the new combat styles with old armour or new armour with old skills) completely different sets of stats.
Surely this will act to limit anything other than rules based releases, and looking at the 'Products I'd like to see' threads, the background material is what people are crying out for?
I think that perhaps you are reading more into it than we have. Combat Companion is a book of options. It is not replacing the existing rules. Future books will be written to the core rules, not to one or two specific options. Modules will be done to the core rules. Setting related products will be done to whatever rules are established for the setting (i.e. the setting may include the use of some options just like RMX does). Rules expansions will be written to the core rules.
Now, it is possible that we may give some styles through our various periodical PDF products (like RMQ or EA), but those are small products filled with optional, unofficial material anyways, so it won't hurt to give additional material to go along these options, but not in full books.
Trying to support every single option would be quite a silly thing to do. Therefore, we stick to the core (or close to it) for our projects, and use the PDF periodicals to post any additional optional material to go along with those options from other products.
Until maybe after the revision
At which point we will be basically starting over with a new core, and then doing new books with new options, etc. But, that is still a few years away at least.
In the meantime, just enjoy the game.
-
First off, in case I forgot to say it earlier, thank you very much for publishing the beta pdf of Combat Companion.
Now, I have a question. The new combat tables have a section for size adjustments for attacks and it has four items: Medium (Large), Medium (Huge), Large, Huge/Super_Large. What are the first two used for? I don't recall seeing them in AL.
-
Now, I have a question. The new combat tables have a section for size adjustments for attacks and it has four items: Medium (Large), Medium (Huge), Large, Huge/Super_Large. What are the first two used for? I don't recall seeing them in AL.
If you take a look in Creatures & Treasures (6504), there are some creatures who are Medium but take L or SL crits accordingly. That is what those adjustments are for.
-
Those would be listed on the tables as "I" and "II" I beleive.
-
Those would be listed on the tables as "I" and "II" I beleive.
Incorrect, in C&T, there is a Size/Crit column in the monster tables. Those two entries that he is asking about are listed as M/L and M/SL in that column, and that is what Medium (Large) and Medium (Huge) are meant to stand for.
The I and II entries don't have anything to do with size, and are handled normally, as per the C&T instructions. The CC Combat Tables don't have L and SL tables, so there are adjustments for them, and for Medium sized creatures who receive those types of crits.
-
ahh, so a medium/large doesn't take damage the same as a large/large would now. . .interesting.
I can't think of a specific instance off the top of my head, but it's possible to have a small/large or small/superlarge. . . .or for that matter a tiny/large or tiny/superlarge. (Superflea!)
Those addressed?
-
I see the reference now, lower left hand corner of the combat table. . .I'd always considered size/crit to be totally independant factors, other than the optional knockback modifications, this defines them a bit more tightly. . .you've got:
Medium (Large)
Medium (Huge)
Large
Huge/Super Large
but the two factors don't really seem to run in tandem in the CT stats:
Small (Large): Elemental Servants, Swamp Star, Vampire Bunny, Pooka
Huge (Large): Elephant
Small (Super Large): Killer Rabbit
Large (Super Large): Cold Elemental, Strong
Should the first one use the "Medium (Large)"?
Should the second be "Large"?
Should the third be "Medium (Huge)"?
Should the fourth be "Huge (Super Large)"?
-
There are 3 or 4 instances of S/L and/or S/SL (Swamp Star, Killer Rabbit, one type of Elemental, and one or two others that I don't recall offhand). And no, these were missed, so they weren't addressed.
For S/L and S/SL, all you would really need to do is to follow the adjustment pattern that was made from L/SL to M, thus they would get -5 (S/L) and -10 (S/SL) respectively. This will be something to take care of prior to final release.
None for Tiny though, so I don't see a need to address for such as T/L and T/SL would both be just normal crits with no adjustments under this system.
Sigh..... Things like this makes me wish that those individuals who had early access to the document would catch and/or bring up things these before publication.... Everybody who had early access to the doc missed it (ICE, the playtesters, the Global Moderators, the folks that did additional proofing for us, everybody...). At least we can still see about taking care of it before final release. ;D
-
We're all only human. . . .at least nobody is throwing stones. . .
For the life of me, when I read this the first time, I thought the second two lines were for RMC and the first two lines were for HARP compatability. I think it was the "Medium (Huge)" that threw me off, since "Huge" is only a size in RMC and (I could be mistaken) a damage level in HARP.
-
"Huge" being my phrasology (I tend to conflate it with Super Large.) ;D
-
Well as far as I have read so far the Combat Companion (CC?) brings new life or at least options to make RMC seem more flexible. The Armor Piece systems reminds me of games such as TES where you can have a mixmash of different armor on, which seems cool enough. It also allows a GM to slow down the armor acquisition rate a tad by giving the players armor literaly piece by piece.
I havent dug into the Styles area yet, but that is soon to come. All it needs is a bit of getting use too and testing.
All in all I am very positive with the newest edition of the RM family, so gimme more!
-
I concur with PiXeL01, CC is a welcome addition. The rigidity of the AL armor types had never been apparent to me until I started customizing the rules for my current game, and AbtP does exactly what I need. I could have used the styles rules, too, before the game started, but I fear that would be too much of a change now. However, AbtP and Condensed Combat (and SPAR) will land in my players' laps at the next game session.
Thanks again for the beta release.
-
p37, left column: Xena the warrior princess could have AR15...
Isn't AR10 the maximum?
BR
Juergen
-
p37, left column: Xena the warrior princess could have AR15...
Isn't AR10 the maximum?
There were several iterations and trials on the AR system, that reference is a hold-over from an earlier iteration when we basically had the cuirasses and shirts having different ARs. Another item on the list of final corrections to make.
sigh.... We look at the manuscripts so often that sometimes it is hard to see things like that.... The mind says that it says what we expect, not what we actually see.
-
ROFL...this is starting to sound like the Spell Law "Open Beta".
I also have a question. The "Combat Styles" chapter makes a reference to a missile weapon style ability which reduces range penalties. However, the "Condensed Combat System" chapter makes no mention of what those range penalties might be. Do we just use the old "Arms Law" missile weapon range penalties?
-
Range penalties are based on the weapon, yes. And those aren't changed from Arms Law.
-
We just bought the beta pdf, hopefully I will get a chance to read it tomorrow or the next day. Was a book I was really looking forward to.
-
Hi,
Adrenal / Agile Defense use 10% activity. Using it on top of a 100% activity gives a -20.
But a melee attack uses 50%-100% activity. So does using Adrenal / Agile Defense my OB and if yes, by how much (-10 or -20)?
BR
Juergen
-
Hi,
Adrenal / Agile Defense use 10% activity. Using it on top of a 100% activity gives a -20.
But a melee attack uses 50%-100% activity. So does using Adrenal / Agile Defense my OB and if yes, by how much (-10 or -20)?
BR
Juergen
The note in italic on page 57 says:
If the character utilizes a Specific Maneuver that requires 100%, the character has 2 choices; drop their defense for the round that the maneuver is to take place or continue with the defense, but receiving a -20 modifier to the 100% activity maneuver in addition to any other modifiers.
OTOH, if you're attacking normally Adrenal/Agile Defense require 10% of action, so you can use a maximum of 90% of action to attack (which means a -10 penalty to your OB).
-
[The note in italic on page 57 says:
If the character utilizes a Specific Maneuver that requires 100%, the character has 2 choices; drop their defense for the round that the maneuver is to take place or continue with the defense, but receiving a -20 modifier to the 100% activity maneuver in addition to any other modifiers.
OTOH, if you're attacking normally Adrenal/Agile Defense require 10% of action, so you can use a maximum of 90% of action to attack (which means a -10 penalty to your OB).
Exactly, that's what I mean. With the current text it can be either -10 or -20. And personally I find this confusing, there should be one clear ruling. On the other hand I assume that a penalty to OB would be explicitely mentioned.
So the question remains: when using Adrenal or Agile Defense, do I get 0, -10 or -20 penalty to OB?
BR
Juergen
-
Arioch is correct.
When using Adrenal or Agile defense, it requires 10% of your activity. Which means that you can only attack, normally, with 90% of your activity maximum, thus giving a -10 to OB.
However, there are certain specific maneuvers that require 100% activity to perform.
For example, the Defensive Block, you take a -10 modifier to your init for the round, and for every -1 to OB used in the maneuver, you gain +2 to DB.
However, if you have Adrenal or Agile Defense as part of your style, then you have a choice. Drop the Agile Defense while performing the Defensive Block, OR take a -20 modifier to your OB, prior to moving OB to DB through the Defensive Block. (which still requires 100% activity).
Therefore, if you had an OB of 75 with a style that includes Adrenal/Agile Defense, your actual OB for a basic strike would be 65 with the Defense being used. Your amount of available OB for a Defensive Block would be either 75 (and no Agile/Adrenal Defense bonuses to DB) or 55 (-20 from using Adrenal/Agile Defense with a maneuver that requires 100% activity).
Is that making more sense now?
-
Exactly, that's what I mean. With the current text it can be either -10 or -20. And personally I find this confusing, there should be one clear ruling. On the other hand I assume that a penalty to OB would be explicitely mentioned.
So the question remains: when using Adrenal or Agile Defense, do I get 0, -10 or -20 penalty to OB?
Actually, I thought that the note was pretty clear.
- Adrenal & Agile Defense requires 10% to utilize.
- Adrenal & Agile Defense MAY ALSO be utilized when performing Specific Maneuvers (Section 4.6 is titled "Select Specific Maneuvers") that require 100% (which would normally normally prevent these Defenses from being used) by taking double the normal penalty (-20) to the Specific Maneuver.
This way, those not wearing heavy armors aren't completely defenseless when performing maneuvers that require 100% activity in a given round. And it is left to the player's choice as to whether or not they keep the Defense going.
-
yes, thanks
-
Well I have had a chance to give it a good once over so far. I have only noticed one thing I didn't like but it is a minor thing. I was hoping to see the crit tables expanded a bit and still keep the 5 column A to E crit tables. But I can use the ones in Arms Law so no biggy.
-
Well I have had a chance to give it a good once over so far. I have only noticed one thing I didn't like but it is a minor thing. I was hoping to see the crit tables expanded a bit and still keep the 5 column A to E crit tables. But I can use the ones in Arms Law so no biggy.
And as I stated up above someplace... The idea is to see how well these new combat tables are accepted, and then expand them out further (different attack table for each weapon, and a full page critical table for each attack type).
In case you have realized it yet, the critical tables are specific to the weapon types (i.e. the short blade critical table is different from the long blade critical tables, etc..). Please at least give them a try before changing back to the larger, but more generic crit tables. ;D
-
Oh yes I seen that and liked that. I was only saying I had wished they had been in the 5 column range. But sense I am assuming you are looking for feedback, thought I would give my first impressions. I just know for my group the 5 columns and wide range of crits is on of our fav parts of RM. Something that really helps set it apart from other games. You just get more varity of results with the 5 columns. I will use it as is, but I am fairly certain we will adopt the arms law crit tables back with in a game or two.
I mostly say this cause we played HARP for awhile and that was the first house rule me and my group made. Was to use RM crit tables, for the reasons stated above. *shrug* Just a preference, not saying the new ones are bad. :)
-
I know that. And I also know that folks will find them repetitious in relatively short order. But feedback on them, in use (other than there not being enough crits overall ;D) is what is needed to determine whether or not it would be worthwhile to extend them out to full page crit tables. ;D
-
Well as fate would have it. We are about to start a new RMC game next Tuesday on April 1st of all days. I had hoped to have this book by then and now I do. I will use it as is and give feedback on our experiences. I just know my group well and expect them to start badgering me to bring in the old 5 column crit tables before to long, as that is the one thing that every single person in my group just absolutely loves about RM.
Most of the other stuff the group is spread out all over. Not that any of them dislike RMC but some of them like parts of RMSS/FRP better or HARP better, and of course some like RMC better. Like for example skills, RMC is the most popular but one guy likes HARP better and one likes RMSS/FRP better on how they do skills.
So our RMC game will have a few aspects tossed in as house rules. Training Packages being one of them. But for the most part this will be a fairly close to the book RMC game. Least the closest any of us have ever played. Since we got into ICE stuff threw SM 2nd edition. We was looking for a break from fantasy (aka DnD) at the time, then later played WW WoD stuff after it came out and by the time we came back around to fantasy and decided to give ICE fantasy version of SM, RMSS was out.
Yes to us RM has always been the fantasy version of SM, since thats what we started with. ;D
-
Yesterday we've converted the warriors-type characters of our party to Combat Companion styles... It was far easier than I thought (we use RMFRP), just pick the # of ranks you had in weapon X and put them in the new style with said weapon. We're gonna convert our Spell Users and test the new rules soon (I hope! ::))... For now warriors are quite happy with the rules, since finally it makes sense buying ranks in a weapon after you've reached 30 ranks in it (they are all around level 15 and were beginning to see the limits of a non spell using profession...).
-
Hi,
After reading the Combat Companion I have the following comments, feedback / discussion welcome:
What I like:
- The system is logically designed and beautiful from a theoretical point of view
- With Combat Styles there is now a reason why to get more than 10 or 20 ranks in a weapon
- Combat Styles add a unique flavor to each combat oriented character
- The AR system is more logical than the AT system, combat tables are also easier to read with only 10 columns.
Where I am sceptical:
- The AR system requires a lot of math and its also not intuitive during a session (with AT I can simply say you find an AT9 (+10), now I have to look at increments, materials, location,...)
- Not enough combat tables (understood that this requires more interest from us customers). And I will always use the normal 5 column critical tables from RM/SM.
- The Combat Styles require some work to define and also some work when raising level - even the cost can change when additional maneuvers are bought.
Fazit:
I haven't built a character without an electronic sheet in the last decade. And the stuff from this companion is not included in any electronic character generator available and is also very complicated to implement (undefined and changing costs of Combat Styles). Also the AR system seems to be more suited to a computer game. So although I would like to do it, I most likely won't use the material from this companion :(.
BR
Juergen
-
While reading the AbtP Table 03-04 and building examples in my head I came across some apparent errors. So, I dug deeper into the tables and found a few other anomalies. I looked at all columns except Weight and Production Time, since those two are more subjective. I used the following assumptions:
1. For each AR, the lines between Helm and Boots (inclusive) should add up to the value given on the Full Set line. This applies to each separate column.
2. For each AR, the lines for Pauldrons and Cuirass should add up to the value given on the Shirt line. This applies to each separate column.
Based on these assumptions I see the following issues with AR 3-5 in Table 03-04 on page 34:
Soft Leather (AR 3)
UMxP: The individual pieces add up to a penalty of -21 but the Full Set penalty is -26.
UMnP: Pauldrons/Cuirass penalty is -3 but Shirt penalty is -2. Gauntlets penalty is +1 (should be -1?). Full Set penalty is -6 but, assuming Gauntlets penalty should be -1, the individual pieces add up to -7.
Rigid Leather (AR 4)
UMxP: None of the assumed sums add up here. Also, Bracers penalty is +8. Should this column perhaps look like MxP for AR 7 and 8?
Cost: The individual pieces add up to 29 sp but the Full Set price is shown as 25 sp. Pauldrons/Cuirass cost is 11 sp but Shirt cost is 10 sp.
Reinforced Leather (AR 5)
MnP: Greaves and Boots each show -0.5 penalty which is different from the -1 penalty for the other individual pieces (all other AR have same value for all pieces). Penalty of -0.5 also disagrees with Full Set penalty of -10 (-1 penalty makes everything balance out).
I have not gone thru all tables to this degree, I just noticed this because I'm focusing on the parts of CC that will be of immediate use in my campaign. I do like AbtP a lot (and all of CC), and the extra numbers will be a nonissue once the tables are keyed in to my custom character spreadsheet.
On another note, there is a small typo on page 80. Under the sixth bullet point for character Toril, his AR is shown as 12 instead of 6.
I don't mean to be picky, but as you say now's the time to find and correct such things.
-
I really really really am starting to hate Word... this is the same sort of revision to older data that plagued us before... sigh... It will be corrected prior to final version release. <insert a LOT of mumbling and cursing under one's breath>
-
I really really really am starting to hate Word... this is the same sort of revision to older data that plagued us before... sigh... It will be corrected prior to final version release. <insert a LOT of mumbling and cursing under one's breath>
Starting to hate Word? ??? I've hated Word for a long time. It's not exactly a user-friendly writing tool.
I do appreciate your efforts.
-
Rasyr> Word? There's an easy fix... it's called Frame Maker. Look it up!
-
I'm not really sure who it was now, but some famous writer once said:
"Using Word is like being a slave to a particularly stupid and unimaginative owner."
-
Rasyr> Word? There's an easy fix... it's called Frame Maker. Look it up!
Thrud, we use word to write the manuscripts. Then we transfer the information to Pagemaker for formatting and making the PDFs. The problem lies in the transfer step. Word tends to "copy" old text rather than current text, and that is what cause the "reversion problems" that we occasionally see like this.
It isn't a PDF making application problem. It is that Word screws us over on the copy portion, and then we miss it during proofing.
-
I'm not really sure who it was now, but some famous writer once said:
"Using Word is like being a slave to a particularly stupid and unimaginative owner."
GFW: Are there tools that would suit the very specific art of game writing better than, say, Microsoft Word does?
Orson Scott Card: Microsoft Word doesn't suit any writing purpose. Real writers use software that doesn't dictate to them, they use software that gives them more choices and control. I write novels (in fact, everything except screenplays) in WordPerfect, a true writers' word-processing program. MS Word is for people who enjoy being in slavery to a really dumb overseer.
--Shamoon, Evan. "Why Do Videogame Stories Suck?" Games for Windows: the Official Magazine February 2007: 29.
WordPerfect is great, but someone at Corel needs to get off their butt and start supporting Unicode. It's 2008, for Pete's sake.
I love trashing Word as much as the next guy, but maybe we should get back on topic...
-
Have you guys looked into other programs to use instead of word? personally i use openoffice a open source free program. I have not yet found anything word does better than it and found it does much better than word does. Plus it can directly convert into PDF it's self. I know you said that wasn't a issue but thought I would mention it. The URL if you want to check it out is below.
http://www.openoffice.org/
-
Yes, we have. It is a good program, but there are a few issues with it (mostly trying to figure out how to do some of the things in OO that Word let's us do - and/or trying to find the time to learn how to do them).
-
Frame Maker is totally compatible with Page Maker as far as I know. It's the same company... Adobe.
But twh is right, we should get back on track.
-
I responded to Rasyr in the new topic about that in Off Topic. And agree anyone wanting to discuss it should move over there to keep this on topic.
Back on topic I have given the book a final read and so far my only concern was those other listed already and that I did. Our first play test will still be on Tuesday so hopefully over the next couple of weeks I will have more feedback.
-
Back with a minor question: how should we handle weapons ranks given by adolescence? Just sum up all the ranks and let the palyers ditribute them between culture-related styles?
-
I know it is only an optional rule, but I would also like to see profession bonuses for the new character classes. Right now, I am using the bonuses for Ranger, Bard, and Monk.
-
Back with a minor question: how should we handle weapons ranks given by adolescence? Just sum up all the ranks and let the palyers ditribute them between culture-related styles?
Yes, that sounds pretty fair.
I know it is only an optional rule, but I would also like to see profession bonuses for the new character classes. Right now, I am using the bonuses for Ranger, Bard, and Monk.
What type of level bonuses? Basic? or one of the more extended options? If Basic, then I would actually, give them each 1.5 points per level (rounded down), with a half point to spell casting (and for the other Semis as well - also rounded down).
-
Back with a minor question: how should we handle weapons ranks given by adolescence? Just sum up all the ranks and let the palyers ditribute them between culture-related styles?
Yes, that sounds pretty fair.
Thanks! ;)
-
Something I would love to see is a web enhancement either by fans or ICE of a host of sample styles based on real life styles and fantasy based ones. If I had more free time I would do it. But working and going to school full time just flat sucks.
-
I don't mean to be a bother, but regarding the typos I presented earlier in the AbtP table, I was wondering what the corrections would be. I'm working on a campaign-specific version of the armor chart and I need the proper numbers.
-
I will look and give them to you tomorrow...
-
Soft Leather (AR 3)
UMxP: The individual pieces add up to a penalty of -21 but the Full Set penalty is -26.
UMnP: Pauldrons/Cuirass penalty is -3 but Shirt penalty is -2. Gauntlets penalty is +1 (should be -1?). Full Set penalty is -6 but, assuming Gauntlets penalty should be -1, the individual pieces add up to -7.
It should be -21, not -26 for the full suit.
It should be -1, not 1 for the gauntlets, and the Shirt should be -3, and the total for a full suit should be -7.
Rigid Leather (AR 4)
UMxP: None of the assumed sums add up here. Also, Bracers penalty is +8. Should this column perhaps look like MxP for AR 7 and 8?
Cost: The individual pieces add up to 29 sp but the Full Set price is shown as 25 sp. Pauldrons/Cuirass cost is 11 sp but Shirt cost is 10 sp.
Shirt should be -32
Curiass should be -24
Bracer should be -8
Shirt should be 11 sp
full suit should be 29 sp
Reinforced Leather (AR 5)
MnP: Greaves and Boots each show -0.5 penalty which is different from the -1 penalty for the other individual pieces (all other AR have same value for all pieces). Penalty of -0.5 also disagrees with Full Set penalty of -10 (-1 penalty makes everything balance out).
Greaves and Boots should both be -1.
-
Fantastic, Rasyr, thank you so much for your effort!
-
Just wanted to give some feedback from yesterdays session where we implemented most stuff from Combat Companion (CC) except the Combat Styles (Want to try out one rule at a time). First came the AbtP rules and the new condensed Combat System.
From the players the reaction on the new AbtP rules was very positive, they liked the freedom in how to design their own armors and how easy it is to slowly upgrade their armor to more match their Maneuver in Armor skill. This seems like a keeper.
We didn't have any combats in this session so a more detailed Feedback on the Condensed Combat System will have to wait. So far both me and the players seem to think the new Condensed System is great. Only concern I as a GM has is that the single crit tables is gonna get repetive but that is for the future to show but I do like the idea for the specific ones for each Attack type. And as I understand if the feedback is positive there is possibility to expand these tables later.
Didn't have time to try out the new Combat Styles option, but explanied it to the players to see if there was any interest and to be honest they became fire and flames about it so it's probably gonna be implemented too in the future.
For the new Professions I don't have much to say. I know atleast Champion will be on of the list of favourites from the old D&D players that have been missing a Paladin-like profession to play. Overall they seem like very entertaining professions.
Ohh and almost forgot the Sphere of influence tables for the Champion spell lists is great. Very helpful for me when designing my own Deities and will probably use it for the other pure Channeling users too to expanded their options in picking their extra base lists to more reflect their type of deity.
Overall I was very sceptical at first of the new rules but decided to give em a try, and so far the experience has been very positive. Easy and very playable options.
Good work keep it up!
Edit: Forgot to ask about this, how do you handle Holy and Slaying Weapons in the new Condensed system. Do you use the crit roll and apply it to the Holy/Slaying column on the table in Arms Law (and add it to the normal crit) or do they just get a mod. on the new crit table?
-
Ok we sorta played last night. We had 2 players not show, so instead of starting the game or calling it off. I decided to make a few pregen characters real fast, melee types that use the new rules and let the rest do a series of mock encounters against mobs and each other to test things out. Below was the general over all feeling by the end of the night.(keep in mind we basically did combat non-stop for like 5 hours)
New armor rules where great just all around, especially the piece meal armor rules and how manuvering works with it.
Liked that each weapon group had it's own chart. Though the comments was more they wished they was broken up even more than they was. (questions about some of the weapons having a higher max dmg but a - to OB. they found some of them strange like the Longbow for example)
They liked the style creation over all. A few quirks here and there they disagreed with. But i put that more up to individual tastes than anything, but they all did like the idea of making styles and having options to use in combat.
There was only one real complaint. By the end of the night crits where turning up more and more often being the same as already done. While some said it needed the 5 columns again others just said it needed a bigger list. But they did all think that after a couple of months of playing the short crit list would get repitious.
-
Another question, if you don't mind.
In Table 03-04 the Heavy Cloth MxP entries for the individual pieces are not all the same. On all other armors each individual piece has the same modifier but on AR2 the MxP mod for helm, bracers, and greaves is -2 and the mod for all the other pieces is -1. The numbers add up so maybe this is correct, it's just not consistent with the other armor ratings. Is this correct?
-
yes
-
Thanks again.
-
My gaming brain is running in a million directions at once this week. :o
I am exploring the Bronze age, but I am also left wondering how the Combat Companion rules would affect Space Master.
I hate myself for asking questions like this. The last time I asked something like this, I ended up having to write an article for the vault. *(the GM's Screen)
-
I hate myself for asking questions like this. The last time I asked something like this, I ended up having to write an article for the vault. *(the GM's Screen)
So? I take it you are volunteering again? ;D
-
Fortunately for me, I flunked High School Algebra four times. I couldn't begin to understand how to do the formulas for combat tables. I knew that class would come in handy for something! ;D
-
Translating tables for my group and found another math error in the Armor Table. Rigid Leather Full Set DB is listed as 13 but the sum of the individual pieces rounds to 12.
-
Now that I got my hands on the Final version and skimmed it again, I have one question. It seems that alot of the artwork was changed. I was just curious of the reason for this change. Personally I feel that the "old" art was better, but since that might be "recycled" artwork the editors might have felt the need for some new. Plus I see Mick Jackson is off the list. I really enjoyed him during my time playing Shadowrun 2 and was overjoyed to see him take part in the other game that holds my passion.
-
Yes, all of the art in the beta release was re-use art, and we always try to include at least some new art if possible.
And yes, Mike Jackson is a great artist and we love it whenever we can get new art from him. However, we don't select the artists for each project, our art director, Jeff Laubenstien does that. ;D
-
I just downloaded the guide a couple of days ago. I have to say I'm very pleased. My group probably won't use the armor by the piece rules yet since we like the full charts of Arms Law--but everyone like the idea.
The combat style section is very good. My players are drooling over the possibilities. I do have a question about how the universal style option--"additional attack" stacks with 1) the melee weapon option--shield bash, 2) how it stacks with the optional maneuvers 3) how it stacks with character law's adrenal speed
All in all an excellent product. Keep up the great work.
-
The Additional Attack gives the character one more attack (i.e. roll) for every 10 ranks in the style, but also giving a -20 modifier to all attacks in a round for each attack beyond the first. This -20 to the OB is applied first thing, before any modifiers from specific maneuvers would be applied.
So, if you also had Shield Bash (will presume no Shield Training), and you declared that you were using your Additional Attack and your Shield Bash, then you would have 2 attacks at -20 to each and the Shield Bash, which would use 1/2 of your style OB (after the -20 from the Additional Attack), and another -20 for it being your off-hand. Please note that the "1/2 OB" for the shield bash is determined AFTER making adjustments for any specific maneuvers, but before the -20 offhand penalty is applied.
Thus, if you have an OB of 100 (and more than 10 ranks in the style), and you declare 2 attacks and a shield bash, your OBs would be 80 for each of the 2 attacks (before any adjustment for any specific maneuvers) and 20 for the shield bash (80/2=40 -20 (offhand) = 20). If you declared that your attacks were going to put 20 points into DB, then Your OBs would be 60 for each attack, and 10 for the shield bash.
How Additional Attacks interacts with Additional Attacks is slightly more problematic. The modifiers from the specific maneuvers are intended to be for the whole round. Therefore, if you have/use the Additional Attack, the extra attacks are going to have to be the same specific maneuver for all of the attacks.
The only way that different specific maneuvers should be allowed is IF those maneuvers had the same DB modifiers across the board.
For example, using the same situation as before (2 attacks and a shield bash). Our first attack is a Basic Swing, and our guy is still parrying 20 points into DB. His second attack can be another Basic Swing, or is could be a Riposte (with an OB mod of -20) -- or a Block, Defensive Block, or Defensive Strike (with their other adjustments made to match an adjustment of +20 ti DB -- the character does NOT get to set these adjustments, they are dictated by the first attack).
The point is that the second attack must have the same DB modifier as the first, and the second attack has to be legal for that specific maneuver (i.e. you cannot use 2 different maneuvers if one "requires" 100% activity), if it is different from the first.
Note: If the additional attack includes an initiative modifier, then I would apply that modifier to the following round, since initiative had already been determined for this round.
Adrenal Speed -- This skill gives you extra activity percentage to use. That means that you could make another attack declaration -- again -- the DB shift declaration would remain, and it would constrain your choices of actions, or this extra activity percentage could be used to allow use of one of the specific maneuvers that requires 100% activity, etc..
Note: It is important to remember that the Specific Maneuvers were designed so that only one would be used per round. On page 61 it tells you that no more than one specific maneuver may be used in a given round normally, and that the adjustments do NOT stack. This is why up above it says that the DB adjustments of the first have to be legal for the additional attacks as well. This way you aren't stacking the abilities of the specific maneuvers.
Personally, I would only allow the additional attacks to be used with a Basic Swing and nothing else, treating the Additional Attacks as if it were another type of Specific Maneuver (i.e. no more than one per round)....
-
Thanks Rasyr for that detailed and thorough response. I have to say I'm impressed by how much time designers and ICE professionals spend on these boards and take time answer questions. I love RM's flexibility, but it's always nice to get feedback about handling certain situations.
-
:-[ <--- me....
;D
-
Where is the Feint Maneuver???? It appears in "Whip Fighter Style"
-
It got removed during editing (will likely appear in a future Express Addition, along with one or two others)) and was apparently missed in the Whip Style.
-
After our initial game session using AbtP and Condensed Combat myself and my group have the following observations:
1. Everyone loves AbtP. It's a lot more intuitive, though as GM I am going to have to clarify some gray areas about armor coverage on the arms and legs. No biggie, the given locations just raise questions that need to be answered.
2. The group felt that criticals were more severe with the Condensed Combat tables (tends to happen when someone gets their clock cleaned). Side-by-side comparison of the tables does not bear this out, however; if anything, the new tables are slightly more lenient than the old tables.
3. Must Parry is listed as a combat result in the text of CC but so far I have not found it in any of the new critical tables. Is it supposed to be replaced by the Staggered result?
4. What about QU and missile penalties using AbtP?
The overall response was very positive and once I've quelled people's fears about the "killer" critical tables everything should be fine.
Thanks again to ICE for the product and their amazing support of it on these forums.
-
1) Cool... and if you want clarification on this end before you make your rulings as GM, just ask. ;D
2) ;D
3) Must Parry is not replaced, it just worked out that none of THESE tables contain such entries (expanded tables most likely will).
4) There are none, at least none that are separate -- the maneuver penalties apply equally to all MM and OB skills (melee AND missile) and against the BMR as described in Character Law, page 140. That paragraph that says this on page 33 of Combat Companion (left column, about mid-way down, just above "Cost") should also say Qu DB as well (and treated exactly like the mod to Qu DB is treated).
Note: the minimum penalty for Full Plate armor (when fitted) is a -20, as opposed to the -45 given in Arms Law.
-
1) Cool... and if you want clarification on this end before you make your rulings as GM, just ask. ;D
Let me formulate some clear questions...
4) There are none, at least none that are separate -- the maneuver penalties apply equally to all MM and OB skills (melee AND missile) and against the BMR as described in Character Law, page 140. That paragraph that says this on page 33 of Combat Companion (left column, about mid-way down, just above "Cost") should also say Qu DB as well (and treated exactly like the mod to Qu DB is treated).
Thanks. I was thinking that might be the case.
-
1) Cool... and if you want clarification on this end before you make your rulings as GM, just ask. ;D
Let me formulate some clear questions...
4) There are none, at least none that are separate -- the maneuver penalties apply equally to all MM and OB skills (melee AND missile) and against the BMR as described in Character Law, page 140. That paragraph that says this on page 33 of Combat Companion (left column, about mid-way down, just above "Cost") should also say Qu DB as well (and treated exactly like the mod to Qu DB is treated).
Thanks. I was thinking that might be the case.
Okay, I'm not sure how to ask this (regarding armor coverage) so maybe you could just explain the intent regarding how upper arms and upper legs are protected? Or am I injecting too much detail by separating the upper from lower limbs?
Also, regarding the armor MM penalties, is it just to keep things simple that the penalties apply to everything? My group will definitely ask why leg armor affects their bow shots so I better have an answer. You know how players are...:cry2:
-
Too much detail :D -- we are basically trying to keep things simple, while still allowing for customization.
That is what was applied to the penalties as well -- keep things simple. If you want to be more specific, that is quite alright.
But then again, you could also point out that the minimum penalty for wearing a specific full suit of armor is often less than the equivalent adjustment using the normal armor rules
The following Table shows the ATs, thier missile penalties, their minimum maneuver penalties, the equivalent AR (from Combat Companion), and their minimum maneuver penalties -- the ARs are pulled from the table on page 37, and the minimum maneuver penalties are determined by the items of armor listed on that table.
[tabular type=1]
[row] [head]
Armor Type
[head]
Missile Penalty
[/head] [head]
Minimum Maneuver Penalty
[/head] [head]
Armor Rating (CC pg.37)
[/head] [head]
Minimum Maneuver Penalty
[/head] [/row]
[row] [data]
20
[/data] [data]
40
[/data] [data]
-45
[/data] [data]
10 (25)
[/data][data]
-20
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
19
[/data] [data]
30
[/data] [data]
-35
[/data] [data]
9 (12)
[/data] [data]
-13
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
18
[/data] [data]
10
[/data] [data]
-20
[/data] [data]
10 (9)
[/data] [data]
-10
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
17
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [data]
10 (2)
[/data] [data]
-6
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
16
[/data] [data]
20
[/data] [data]
-25
[/data] [data]
8 (19)
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
15
[/data] [data]
20
[/data] [data]
-25
[/data] [data]
8 (19)
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
14
[/data] [data]
10
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [data]
8 (10)
[/data] [data]
-9
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
13
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
-10
[/data] [data]
8 (4)
[/data] [data]
-6
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
12
[/data] [data]
30
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [data]
7 (15)
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
11
[/data] [data]
20
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [data]
6 (15)
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
10
[/data] [data]
10
[/data] [data]
-10
[/data] [data]
4 (7)
[/data] [data]
-3
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
9
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
-5
[/data] [data]
4 (2)
[/data] [data]
-2
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
8
[/data] [data]
15
[/data] [data]
-15
[/data] [data]
5 (6)
[/data] [data]
-6
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
7
[/data] [data]
15
[/data] [data]
-10
[/data] [data]
5 (4)
[/data] [data]
-4
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
6
[/data] [data]
5
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
3 (5)
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
5
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
3 (2)
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
4
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
3 (10)
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
3
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
2 (10)
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
2
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
1 (5)
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [/row]
[row] [data]
1
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [data]
1 (2)
[/data] [data]
0
[/data] [/row]
[/tabular]
As you can see, if the player were wearing the equivalent of the AT armor, in most cases the minimum maneuver penalty is less than either of the mods listed for the regular AT.
Just let them know that it is done that way to keep things simple. But don't forget that the wearing of armor is a draining experience, as the weight and restriction of movement do take their toll, even on actions where you might not immediately think that they apply, and giving a single modifier is a simple way of covering that.
If you want to use more detail, then you could use the mods from pauldrons, bracers and gauntlets. If the character is wearing a shirt (as opposed to a cuirass), then apply the same mod from pauldrons. And if doing this, then you should use ONLY the Maximum Mods, and not allow the maneuver in armor skill to reduce the penalty.
This would give the AT20 equivalent -- AR 10 (25) -- a missile penalty of -30 and then so forth...
-
Wow, you sure know how to answer a question. And that's a purty table you made.
I was thinking along the same lines regarding the penalties--and I have no problem with saying, "because I said so," to my players--but I wanted to cover all the bases (I say I'm thorough, others call me anal--tomato, tomahto, whatever). And I had noticed as well that the AbtP penalties were less than the AL armor types, which helped when converting their maneuvering in armor skill ranks.
Thanks again for your help.
-
And I had noticed as well that the AbtP penalties were less than the AL armor types, which helped when converting their maneuvering in armor skill ranks.
Also notice that the single skill (if using the AbtP system) uses the standard progression as well (5/2/1/0.5) rather than the +5 per rank that is given in the core rules.
-
Yep, I saw that. And forgot to revise those formulas last night when changing everyone's character files to show "MM in AbtP" in the skill list. I still have to add AbtP to the equipment and combat sheets anyway so I'll do it then.
-
When we start our new campain at the end of the summer we will be using the new AR rules in the companion. Any chance that an express additions might have expanded crit. tables? :)
-
Quick question, on pg 58 it lists Defense Ward costing 4 pts. However, on pg 73, under Sword & Dagger style it list the cost as 2 pts? Should it be the 4 pts?
Thx
~T
-
yes 4 pts, and the style total should be 15.
-
Hi,
in CC I was expecting a locational system for armor and injuries.
What I've seen is a more complicated method to crunch ATs from 20 to 10.
The new tables seems to have all the quirks of the old tables, and armor location is not handled at all.
In practice if I don arms and legs armor what I get is a little DB...
I can't mix armor, say plate over chain over padding or simply chain over padding.
The armor value is given by the cuirass (breastplate), like the standard AT.
It was more simple to give various materials and armor pieces an AT, say from 1-10, and than give the possibility of mixing them.
With this you could use the some table from AL.
Three categories of materials can be made, flexible, semi-flexible and rigid. Flexible armor can be donned under semi-flexible and rigid. Semi-flexible can go under rigid. Rigid can't go anywhere.
Only one layer of each can be donned.
-
Hi,
in CC I was expecting a locational system for armor and injuries.
What I've seen is a more complicated method to crunch ATs from 20 to 10.
The new tables seems to have all the quirks of the old tables, and armor location is not handled at all.
In practice if I don arms and legs armor what I get is a little DB...
I can't mix armor, say plate over chain over padding or simply chain over padding.
The armor value is given by the cuirass (breastplate), like the standard AT.
It was more simple to give various materials and armor pieces an AT, say from 1-10, and than give the possibility of mixing them.
With this you could use the some table from AL.
Three categories of materials can be made, flexible, semi-flexible and rigid. Flexible armor can be donned under semi-flexible and rigid. Semi-flexible can go under rigid. Rigid can't go anywhere.
Only one layer of each can be donned.
We must be reading different books. AbtP breaks down the inflexible Armor Types in AL so that you can mix and match individual pieces. The effects of armor on injuries to a given location is determined by Critical results, same as before. The note on CC page 33 specifically states you can layer armor, with the DB bonuses and MM penalties being cumulative.
Yes, it's a little more complicated--a little. But the increased flexibility is, IMO, definitely worth it.
-
I was wondering when does the hardbounds start to ship (if they havent already) :D
-
I was wondering when does the hardbounds start to ship (if they havent already) :D
Received mine yesterday! It helps that I'm in central NC, just south of ICE HQ.
-
Just got my hard copy (not hardbound) a couple of days ago. I already had the pdf, but there's nothing like putting my feet up and reading a book straight through.
-
What about the falling damages ? I've seen no information about that.
Is it supposed to be =>
Crush table.
1d100 +1 per foot
1-10' = Type I
11-50'= Type II
51-100' = Type III
over 100' = Type IV ?
-
What about the falling damages ? I've seen no information about that.
Crush Attack table - yes.
Anything other than that is identical to the core rules regarding Falls.
-
Nice book, i like it.
It seems that the combat styles are inspired by Hero's combat maneuvers, aren't they ? ;D
-
Yes, Hero/Champions was a big inspiration for the Special Maneuvers.
-
Edit: Forgot to ask about this, how do you handle Holy and Slaying Weapons in the new Condensed system. Do you use the crit roll and apply it to the Holy/Slaying column on the table in Arms Law (and add it to the normal crit) or do they just get a mod. on the new crit table?
I'd ask this question too.
-
You could do it either way.
As a simple mod to the existing crit roll, I would say to give Holy a +25 mod, and Slaying a +50 Mod (and ignore caps due to critical severity). This would be my preferred method of handling it.
Or, just roll on the proper columns of the Arms Law table -- instead of the normal critical (not in addition to).
-
(and ignore caps due to critical severity)
you mean such weapons would be Type IV, whatever normal type they are ?
-
(and ignore caps due to critical severity)
you mean such weapons would be Type IV, whatever normal type they are ?
No, the Weapon Types would remain the same. What I meant was that if a Dagger of slaying does a 14B on the attack table, that you would not stop at 105 (the normal max for a "B" crit) if the critical roll exceeded that. (in fact, a "B" Slaying critical would begin at 56 (+5 for B, +50 for slaying, and at least +1 for crit roll hehe), and then go up from there... ;D)
The +50 would have no effect on the weapon's type or the attack table result, only on the critical rolled.
-
ok, i see.
we may do Holy Electricity, Slaying Fire, etc....that's nice :)
-
yup... ;D
-
(and ignore caps due to critical severity)
you mean such weapons would be Type IV, whatever normal type they are ?
No, the Weapon Types would remain the same. What I meant was that if a Dagger of slaying does a 14B on the attack table, that you would not stop at 105 (the normal max for a "B" crit) if the critical roll exceeded that. (in fact, a "B" Slaying critical would begin at 56 (+5 for B, +50 for slaying, and at least +1 for crit roll hehe), and then go up from there... ;D)
The +50 would have no effect on the weapon's type or the attack table result, only on the critical rolled.
I'm missing something. Where in the Condensed Combat tables does it give max results for different critical severities?
-
I'm missing something. Where in the Condensed Combat tables does it give max results for different critical severities?
It doesn't, but there is a natural built in max.
The crit tables go from 01 to 120, and crit rolls are a non-open-ended roll. Thus, a "B" critical has a natural range of 06-105 on the critical table. That is what I was referring to.
-
Ah, I get it. Thanks.
-
A bit of a necromancy, but...
Just to be sure, the Champion's Faith's Weapon's level 25 spell says: "Caster may freely use all of the spells with an ?I? in their name at the simultaneously e for the duration of the spell."
Aside from the fact there's no spell with an ?I? in its name (but you can deduce them from the spells with an ?II? in their name ;)), I guess it's supposed to be a less powerful version of the level 50 spell, therefore it's supposed to be "Caster may freely use all of the spells with an ?I? in their name, at a rate of 1 spell per round, for the duration of the spell."?
I didn't find a thread for the matter so... I found some typos:
- The Champion's Succor level 2 spell says "The caster ca stop the bleeding on a wound that is bleeding at a rate of 1 hit per round."
- The Elemental Warrior's Warrior's Shield level 10 spell: "As Deflect Bolt, except that 2 magical missiles or bolt may have..."
- The Elemental Warrior's Warrior's Shield level 20 spell is marked as a level 15 spell.
-
For that first part, about the spells with the "I" in them, you can easily figure out which they are because of the ones with the "II" in them. At the last moment, the decision was made to remove the "I" from the spell names... sigh...
-
I've purchased the Combat Co and I think that is a very good book; it offers choices to RM players, more or less like for HARP players.
The new condensed system is like the Hack'N'slash from HARP: a good idea that improves the basic combats from RMC. I'll use it!!
I have a question: how handle damages if a roll exceedes a max result?
For example if You do a result of 280 with a broadsword?
For example if You do a result of 280 with a long axe (type III)?
Tank Iou for answers!
To me I think of a formula very simple:
true result- max result read in the table with the limits of the weapon.
One example with a result of 280 with broad sword versus AR 1:
280-150= 130, thus 34 E + 25 D (130 on the column) (59 hits and two criticals E&D)
One example with a result of 280 with long axe (type III) versus AR 1:
280- 130= 150, thus 25 D + 25 D (2 times the max plus 20 on the column with no more hits)...
-
Exceeding 150 -- I would recommend to use the max result for the weapon size, and then for every 10 points above 150, add +1 to the critical roll. Thus a 280 result for the broadsword would add +13 to the crit roll.
For the Long Axe (type III), that would be +15 to the crit roll (280 - 130 = 150/10 = +15)
-
I did a Mental Fumble: I miss the Option 13 "Wrapping the Attack Charts" ???
I've just read it in my bath ;D
This rule can work with the Condensed Combat System.
But your rule is very good in my sense...I want mix the two: more hits (Opt 13) and more criticals (your suggestion) for a "Hack'N'Slash" flavour! ;)
-
Exceeding 150 -- I would recommend to use the max result for the weapon size, and then for every 10 points above 150, add +1 to the critical roll. Thus a 280 result for the broadsword would add +13 to the crit roll.
For the Long Axe (type III), that would be +15 to the crit roll (280 - 130 = 150/10 = +15)
I was just rereading RMC's ArmsLaw option about exceeding the max, and noted for the first time that there are rules for exceeding max on limited attacks, such as Medium Sized Claw Attacks. The "roll-over" rule is used based on the maximum, so if max for a weapon caps at 120, subtract 120 from the total amount and apply again on the same chart.
I think this would be applicable in the Combat Companion?
-shnar
-
Yes, you could do something similar to that with the CC combat tables. Not what I recommended, but still doable. ;D