Topic: Combat Companion

[twh]

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.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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.

[Marc R]

Those would be listed on the tables as "I" and "II" I beleive.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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.

[Marc R]

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?

[Marc R]

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)"?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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. 

 

[Marc R]

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.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

"Huge" being my phrasology (I tend to conflate it with Super Large.) 

[PiXeL01]

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!

[twh]

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.

[Mungo]

p37, left column: Xena the warrior princess could have AR15...

Isn't AR10 the maximum?

BR
Juergen

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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.

[dutch206]

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?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Range penalties are based on the weapon, yes. And those aren't changed from Arms Law.

[Dark Mistress]

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.

[Mungo]

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

[Arioch]

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).

[Mungo]

[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

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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?