Topic: Combat skills as "max OB"

[MariusH]

Several of the combat skills works as a maximum OB - when using them, you get the maximum of this skill and your ordinary OB with the weapon(s) you are using. This goes among other things for for 2 Weapon Combo, Mounted combat and Subdual. In an example, using mounted combat, the Book stated that a player with 100 OB, using 20% activity to control his mount, could have attacked with 80, but since his mounted combat skill was only 70, he was only allowed to attack with 70 (OK, I don't recall the exact numbers, but you get the idea). This seems a bit strange to me. Translating this to 2WC, a player using two weapons with ordinary OB of 100 and a 2WC skill of 80 can always use up to 20% activity without any penalty. Any comments on this?

Also, I have the same question for parry with 2H-weapons: You can only parry with 50% against 1H-weapons. If you're stunned, should you only be allowed to parry with 25%? Or 50% - the same as when you're NOT stunned?

[Old Man]

Hmmm. Not sure which order the math is performed.

If you plan 80% activity, then your 100 OB becomes 80 OB. Then take the 80% for the 2nd skill and get 64?

Or do you take the skill first, giving an 80 OB. THen -20 for 80% activity and get 60 OB?

I think you a) modify the OB by the secondary skill then b) modify the OB for the % action involved.

In the 2-hand weapon case, I would guess it is 25% OB w 2H to parry when stunned.

(btw, have always found it a tad confusing as to when you apply a % like 75% or take a -25 instead...)

Happy Holidays,
Old Man

[Marc R]

I think the RM1 to RM2 revise was mostly to do exactly that, so it's always -25, not 75%.

[MariusH]

If only the order was the only problem. It's not. These skills are used as an OB rather than the OB of the weapon you're using. So if you have 100 OB in your weapons and 60 OB in mounted combat - you have 60 OB when fighting from a mount. The problem arises when they, in their example, use some activity in addition. They use 20% activity, thus reducing their "ordinary" OB to 80. Then the example claims that since their mounted OB of 60 is less than 80, their OB for this attack is 60. This means they get no penalty AT ALL for using up to 40% activity for other things! This seems utterly wrong to me. I feel that in this example, their mounted OB of 60 is what should be reduced to an effective OB of 40.

[Marc R]

If your usable OB is 60, and you make an 80% attack, you make it at -20 or 40 OB.

for example, with an 80 OB in sword, 60 OB in mounted combat. . .their OB is 60 at the declaration step. . .they declare a 60 OB / 0 DB attack at 80%. For an 80% attack it's -20 so 60 -20 = 40 OB.

[markc]

 IMHO the riding skill and its ilk provide you with a max value you can use while undertaking the actions you would like to do. It does not replace your OB it simply says you cannot have an OB greater then X if you are doing Y.


 So IMHO you apply all of the mods, compare this to your Riding skill bonus. If it is greater then your Riding skill bonus then reduce it to the Riding skill bonus value. If it is lower than the Riding skill value you do nothing.


 Does that help?
MDC

[yammahoper]

If only the order was the only problem. It's not. These skills are used as an OB rather than the OB of the weapon you're using. So if you have 100 OB in your weapons and 60 OB in mounted combat - you have 60 OB when fighting from a mount. The problem arises when they, in their example, use some activity in addition. They use 20% activity, thus reducing their "ordinary" OB to 80. Then the example claims that since their mounted OB of 60 is less than 80, their OB for this attack is 60. This means they get no penalty AT ALL for using up to 40% activity for other things! This seems utterly wrong to me. I feel that in this example, their mounted OB of 60 is what should be reduced to an effective OB of 40.

LONG LIVE THE MUNCHKINS!!!

Seriously, the lower OB is your effective skill.  All mods apply to it.  It is that simple.

[Marc R]

The reason why, is that the limitation comes into play at the very moment you declare your OB/DB split at the top of the round. . .so before Snap, your OB is 80, not 100, and you must declare how you split that to OB/DB. . .you decide 60/20.

Then, you declare your actions, and declare an 80% attack, which is a -20 OB penalty. . .applied to the 60 as established in your OB/DB declaration, giving an OB of 40.

Even if you endeavored to complicate things, like by mounting or dismounting in snap to attack in normal or deliberate IMO it would go:

Mounting:
Player "OK I take my 100 OB and make the split 80/20"
Player "I mount my horse in Snap"
GM "OK, your mounted combat reduces your effective OB by 20, your OB is now 60/20"
P "I make an 80% attack on Orc 1"
GM "OK, attack at 60-20=40 OB"

Dismounting
Player "OK I take my 80 OB and make the split 60/20"
Player "I dismount my horse in Snap"
GM "OK, your mounted combat reduces your effective OB by 20, your OB rises 20 and is now 80/20"
P "I make an 80% attack on Orc 1"
GM "OK, attack at 80-20=60 OB"

I would generally make the in round change on the OB side, unless said change resulted in a negative number. . .

[MariusH]

I've now done what I should have done in the first place - found the reference. It's in RMSS "Standard Rules" page76, the example under 18.2.8.

Markc: Your statement matches that of the book. In my opinion, however, that is very weird, since you then can use lots of activity without getting any penalty.

Yamahoper: That's how I'd like it to be, too.

Marc R: I'm not really sure you understood what my problem was. Anyway, your last post was still interresting for other reasons :-)

Any comments on parrying with 2H weapons against 1H weapons while stunned? Should one be able to parry with 50%, or only 50% x 50% = 25%?

[Ecthelion]

I've now done what I should have done in the first place - found the reference. It's in RMSS "Standard Rules" page76, the example under 18.2.8.

Marius, the example listed in the book is incorrect IMHO. I think the OB of 94 given in the example should first be lowered to 68, because the character is using Mounted Combat and only has 68 bonus in that skill, and then the -20 for only using 80% activity for the attack should be applied, for a final OB of 48 (so better dismount and attack the opponent on foot  ).

YMMV

[Marc R]

Yamahoper: That's how I'd like it to be, too.

Marc R: I'm not really sure you understood what my problem was. Anyway, your last post was still interresting for other reasons :-)

Well, considering I said it, then Yamma said it, then Ecth said it again. . .I'm not really sure you understood the replies 

[yammahoper]

War horses typically provide a big bonus to OB, from +20 to +40, so often mounted OB is higher (regular OB 100, Mounted combat OB 84, war horse provides +30, OB when mounted would be 114.  Also recall that riders get +10 for higher ground against foot infantry).

[markc]

Any comments on parrying with 2H weapons against 1H weapons while stunned? Should one be able to parry with 50%, or only 50% x 50% = 25%?

 Yes your math is right and is how I use the rule.
MDC

[markc]

   IMHO the fact that you have a riding OB of X limits your potential use of a weapon on a mount. If you do other actions in a round that does penalize your OB but you always look to the limiting factor. That is IMHO how you would operate on said mount. How comfortable you are on the mount, how easy is it for your to swing, recover, use a shield ect.
   Now if you dis-mount IMHO you would take into account all of the penalties for movement and actions and apply it to the person full OB because they are no longer mounted.




 I guess for an example you could think of a skate board and a person running around doing tricks but when they get on the board they suddenly have all sorts of trouble, But after getting off and getting their balance once again they can do things easily.


MDC

[Dougansf]

On a similar topic, how do magic weapons factor into OB limiter skills like Mounted Combat or 2WC?

The way I read it, +OB items should factor in after 2WC reduces your weapon skills.

[markc]

On a similar topic, how do magic weapons factor into OB limiter skills like Mounted Combat or 2WC?

The way I read it, +OB items should factor in after 2WC reduces your weapon skills.

 It can be played either way and it depends on your GM. For ease of the +OB is generally just add to the skill and then treated normally. The rational depends on how you view the +OB in your game.
  Does the +OB:
    a) simply allow you to use the weapon better (thinner material, better ability to design weapon because of material)
    b) aid in damage only (better edge, magic aids in combat no matter what outside conditions are)
    c) combination of the two above
    d) Mod is treated like a combat bonus do to position, stun, etc
 As I have said I have seen it played both ways, in a long running RM2 game added after other mods as a full bonus (Like a position bonus) and in my RMSS game I used it just as a skill bonus.


Does that help at all?
MDC

[Dougansf]

Thanks...

It's reassuring to know that neither is "wrong" but not as comforting as an official ruling.

I'll just have to keep investing in Airborne Combat skill items to keep up with my OB. 

[markc]

The official ruling for RMSS/FRP is you add the bonus item to the skill and compare values.
MDC

[Dougansf]

The official ruling for RMSS/FRP is you add the bonus item to the skill and compare values.
MDC

Ah well... Thanks for the answer, even if it's not the one I was hoping for. 

[RandalThor]

that is very weird, since you then can use lots of activity without getting any penalty.

And I don't agree. You are paying for the combat skill in addition to the weapon skill already. Why on Earth does RM always have to double penalize PCs? Can't the game, for once, go in the PCs favor?!? Round Down. Use the least favorable. Buy different skills to do one thing. COME ON!

I really hope that this is different in the new edition - but even if it isn't, I will still run it my way: a way that doesn't make everything the absolute, hardest it can possibly be for the PCs.

Plus, could it possibly be the following as to why RM is not a major player in the RPG market? (I think so.)

Mounting:
Player "OK I take my 100 OB and make the split 80/20"
Player "I mount my horse in Snap"
GM "OK, your mounted combat reduces your effective OB by 20, your OB is now 60/20"
P "I make an 80% attack on Orc 1"
GM "OK, attack at 60-20=40 OB"

Dismounting
Player "OK I take my 80 OB and make the split 60/20"
Player "I dismount my horse in Snap"
GM "OK, your mounted combat reduces your effective OB by 20, your OB rises 20 and is now 80/20"
P "I make an 80% attack on Orc 1"
GM "OK, attack at 80-20=60 OB"

Perhaps all the %-this and %-that stacked on top of each other is just too much to bother with at the table. I know I don't, I will eyeball a modifier and say, "Go!" I am all fine with adding and subracting, and even sometimes going for a percentage, but I will not do a full-blown algebraic equation at the game table. Not gonna happen. And as I have heard about 90% of other gamers complain about doing math with 2 or 3 digit numbers, it is fair to say that I am in the majority here.