Topic: Combat Companion

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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.

[Mungo]

yes, thanks

[Dark Mistress]

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.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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. 

[Dark Mistress]

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.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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  ) is what is needed to determine whether or not it would be worthwhile to extend them out to full page crit tables. 

[Dark Mistress]

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. 

[Arioch]

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...).

[Mungo]

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

[twh]

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.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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>

[twh]

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.

[thrud]

Rasyr> Word? There's an easy fix... it's called Frame Maker. Look it up!

[dutch206]

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-Mjolnir]

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.

[twh]

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...

[Dark Mistress]

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/

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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).

[thrud]

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.

[Dark Mistress]

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.