Topic: Rename attack roll?

[markc]

 IMHO the name attack roll can cause some confusion as to what is going on in RM. What do you think of renaming it Damage Roll as you may have more tan once chance to damage an opponent during a round?
  BTW this has no effect what so ever except in my game and maybe yours to help people clear up confusion about an "attack" being a series of offensive maneuvers designed to damage an opponent and not just one roll of the dice. This way if you use the RMC CC rules for combat styles it makes sense to have a damage roll for every 10 ranks in a weapon.


Thoughts?
MDC

[Fornitus]

 Interesting.
 We have noticed this with newbees sometimes. That might resolve it and make learning RM a little more streamlined.

[arakish]

I know that may be more confusing, but I still think Attack Roll is best.  Damage comes about from the Attack Roll.  Then it is followed by a Critical Damage Roll if the Attack Roll was high enough.

IMHO, I would find the second more confusing than the other.

1) Attack Roll followed by a possible Critical Damage Roll

I prefer this since it implies the possibility of hitting, and if hit, possibility of causing additional critical damage.

2) Damage Roll followed by a possible Critical Damage Roll.

This implies you have already hit and are rolling for damage, with possibility of causing critical damage.

Does that make sense?

When I was first learning role playing way back in 1974 with the Basic D&D Boxed Set,

I was never confused about "Attack Roll."  And I was a kid at that time and had no one else to teach me.

If newbies find "Attack Roll" confusing, then perhaps that person is better off not role playing?

JMHO (Just My Humble Opinion)

rmfr

[naphta23]

If it was a Damage Roll, wouldn't it be strange to roll for damage and have a fumble, possibly hurting oneself? 

In my opinion it would not necessarily help, but on the other hand - "potaeto, potahto." 

I already play Rolemaster, it does not really matter what it is called, so my opinion is not that important, I guess.

[GrumpyOldFart]

If it was a Damage Roll, wouldn't it be strange to roll for damage and have a fumble, possibly hurting oneself? 

Hey, it doesn't say it's a damage to the other guy roll. 

[naphta23]

Hey, it doesn't say it's a damage to the other guy roll. 

Alas, I stand corrected. 

[Setorn]

When I was RM taught those decades ago, it was explained to me that the ten second round involved bobbing and weaving and all types of feints and jabs.  The Attack roll merely represented when you hit.  This way all of the special maneuvers, skills etc.... for RM was redundant.   

It is all in how the players and the Game Master described the combat.  So, the higher your Weapon Skill the more detailed and fancy your footwork and that would be represented by having more to place into parry.  Of course that make most of combat in RMFRP and Combat Companion superfluous.  It works for us and it requires a narrative style from both the GM and Players. 

So, to the question asked: 

Yes, it could help but maybe a Weapon Skill roll or Weapon Skill check would be better than Damage roll.   

[Ecthelion]

IMHO the name attack roll can cause some confusion as to what is going on in RM. What do you think of renaming it Damage Roll as you may have more tan once chance to damage an opponent during a round?

Damage Roll for me sounds like the opponent is going to take damage in any case, and the roll only determines how much damage he takes. Therefore I prefer the term Attack Roll over Damage Roll. And I also don't see what problem I solve with changing the term.

[RandalThor]

I think, if anything needs to be changed, that the critical roll should be called the Critical Damage Roll. The original Attack Roll is to determine if you hit at all, and what amount of base damage you do, along with if there is and what type of critical is achieved. The second roll (if any) is the Critical Damage Roll.

But, I don't see any reason to change any of the terminology discussed - it hasn't seemed to cause any confusion to any of the people I have initiated in RM.

[Marc R]

I've had this thought before, though slightly different. . .never had an issue with the term "attack roll" but the fact that your total skill is called "OB" and then the portion you devote to offense is also called "OB" does lead to some confusion, usually relating to "+X to OB" and the question "Is that before or after the split?".

[RandalThor]

I've had this thought before, though slightly different. . .never had an issue with the term "attack roll" but the fact that your total skill is called "OB" and then the portion you devote to offense is also called "OB" does lead to some confusion, usually relating to "+X to OB" and the question "Is that before or after the split?".

I have always called the total number you defend with your DB, no matter where it came from. The OB to add to DB becomes DB for all intents an purposes, as far as I am concerned and I have never had a problem with that. (Except the typical problem of trying to break the average D&D player of their all-or-nothing attitude of combat...... )