I use the SS/FRP version of the rules but I liked the AT changes. It, along weith the Armor by the Piece rules, makes it much easier to incorporate a variety of armor types into the game; both historical and fantasy based. I didn't like the simplification of the Weapon skills so I just ignored that part. I really have three main problems.
It isn't actually a simplification of the weapon skills, especially not with all of the specific maneuvers and such. The only simplification is in the number of BASE Costs. -- Each specific style (and the GM should be the ones listing the initial styles) will have a different cost per profession based on the number of style points involved.
This means that a Fighter has 3 Base Costs, but along those 3 Base Lines, he has a potential of 10 different costs based on the number of style points used in building the style. This is more complex than the MAC with its 2 types of styles (Basic and Advanced -- where Advanced is a restricted skill). That gives 4 different costs for styles (combat and MA) if you count the restricted as a different cost versus 30 different potential costs from CC.
Were there changes to the weapon rules? Yes, since we were increasing complexity in one area, it made sense to simplify it a bit in another. That is why there are the weapon groups. However, the weapon groups is actually more realistic than the original weapon skills in RM. The basic idea is that when you learn a weapon, your are learning how to use weapons that are all used in a similar manner/style. But, CC also gives you the option of learning each weapon individually as well.
As the GM, you should be the one deciding what the starting styles are, and what styles are available for the player's characters to learn. This does require some work on your part, but it is the same as with the MAC, player's shouldn't have unlimited access to all of the styles listed there.
The first, and least problematic, is that I had to use the simplified armor skill. This isn't much of a problem until you hit a TP that gives ranks in armor. I'm having trouble deciding how much a TP needs to give before allowing skills in the single armor type (which is three times more encompassing). One rank of light armor doesn't seem to justify one rank combined, but I don't know what a good midpoint is.
One rank is one rank. No need to make it overly complicated. If you really want to balance things a little better, then increase the costs of the TPs by a number of DPs equal to the difference between the original cost for 1 rank of the given type of armor, and the new cost from CC>
Example: A Fighter's cost for Soft Leather is 1/1/1. Under the CC rules, his cost for ranks in armor is 3/3/3. If a TP gives 1 rank of Soft Leather, then just increase the cost of the TP by 2 DPs (3-1 = 2). If it had been heavy armor, then the Fighter's cost would have only increased by 1 DP (3-2=1).
A Magician learning the same TP would have its cost increased by 3 DPs (12 - 9 = 3). if it has been a rank of heavy armor, then the Magician's cost for the TP would have only increased by 1 DP (12-11=1).Secondly, I don't know how useful the conversions for monsters given in the back of the CC are as that isn't the version of RM I play and I don't own a copy of the RMC C&M. Are those values still good for the SS/FRP equivalents?
Monsters between RM2/SS and RMFRP barely changed, their AT(DB) being one of the things that didn't. So, yes, those are perfectly good for RMFRP.
Thirdly, the CC Martial Arts tables limit the max effect of the attack based on Tiers I-IV. But that doesn't really exist in SS/FRP and I don't know how to work it in.
Uh.. Yes, it does exist in SS/FRP. In the core SS/FRP rules, unless you have skill in a specific MA Tier, you cannot make attacks on that Tier - Thus you are limited to a maximum for the tier.
In the MAC, it changes MA styles so that they incoporate the tier maximum into the stlye itself, but there are STILL limits to the maximum tier that can be used in a MA attack.
If you are not using tier limits, then that is something that YOU changed.
Also, I use the MAC and I have no idea how to incorporate the new weapons in the CC tables. The Tetsubo's a Polearm but how do I determine what tier to make it and should it have an OB penalty or not? What determines all that?Â
When you want to add a new weapon, the trick is to look at the maximum number of hits that it does at AT 1 and AT 20. Taking the Tetsubo, we look at the damage it does. The max damage ranges from 44 to 22 hits of damage.
Looking at Pole Arm table in CC, we can see that the "135-138" row does 44 to 22 hits of damage. Thus, I would set the Tetsubo as a Type IV with an OB mod of -15. This allows it to have a max of 135 on the attack table.
The same process applies for any other weapons you want to add.
How do I use Locking Holds and Nerve Strikes which don't even have an equivalent Crit table in the CC?Â
On page 30 of the MAC, the description of the Nerve Strikes skill says to use MA Strikes table and the Nerve Strike crits. And it says to use MA Sweeps and the Locking Hold crits for Locking Holds.
The crit tables in CC are condensed. All 5 columns in a single column with adjustments made to the column. If you want to incporate those 2 types of attack, then just follw what page 30 of the MAC says. Use the CC tables for MA Strikes and MA Sweeps and use the Nerve Strike and Locking Holds crit tables as you would normally. An "C" crit is an "C" crit (i.e. no need to adjust the crit roll for severity if using a 5 column crit table).
What about weapons like the Kusari-Gama which can sort of be used like a Kama, a Kama with reach, or an entangling weapon; where do I put it?
This weapon is actually multiple weapons in one. Thus, what table to use it on depends on HOW it is being used. Use the Entangling table for the chain/entangle attack and use the same table as the handaxe for the bladed end since a Kama is essentially treated like a handaxe in Rolemaster.
I like the AT model in CC but the more I try to use it the more problems I run into trying to incorporate it into SS/FRP. At this point, using the CC with SS/ FRP is turning out to be a significantly higher amount of work than I thought it would be. I'm definitely not getting rid of the MAC but I'm beginning to think that the CC is really only compatible with SS/FRP ast the most basic levels.
You are trying to use the book with non-core material. And that is always going to require more work than if you used it with just the core rules.
The thing to remember is that not every option will work well together. And by using BOTH the CC and the MAC, you are using options from two different sources, and there may be conflicts between the two.
IMO, options should ALWAYS be written to the core material whenever possible. If you start writing to other options, it can cause major problems. Both in what people perceive to be core and when somebody wants to use an option but not the option that it was written for.
