Topic: 90%Act attack is full OB??

[providence13]

One or two people in the group have played older versions of RM and sometimes their rules carry over into our game. I've been very blessed to have inherited our group, but sometimes I find they use(d) some odd rules.

We're doing pretty good with %Act (and absolutely no phases as a House Rule). So if you want to move 10% and attack, you hit at -10. If you want to attack with 90% and then move 10% of movement, no problem. You go on your initiative and use the -1/1%Act under minimum required rule.

They are saying that if they attack with 90% they get a 100% swing..
Please help me track this down so I can figure it out.
The point is, why wouldn't you always attack with 90 if you're getting 10 for free..? It doesn't jive with my %Act understanding.

[Ecthelion]

They are saying that if they attack with 90% they get a 100% swing..

They probably had a house rule with this ruling in a previous RM group. I am quite sure such a rule does not exist in the RMSS/RMFRP rule books and AFAIK it also does not exist in the old RM2 core rules. You can ask them to give a reference in the rules, but I doubt they will be able to do so.

[markc]

 Maybe they are saying if you attack in the deliberate phase [+10 IIRC] you attack at full % and get another action for the other 10%.

MDC

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Perhaps they got it from the fact that in RMFRP, if you declare a full melee attack, you get a +10 to OB (RMFRP, page 217).

Anyways, in RMFRP, an attack takes 60% - 100%, and the standard rule for RM is that if you are performing an action that has a percentage range, each % under the maximum range equals a -1 to the skill.

There is no official rule that allows ful OB when using 90% activity.

[providence13]

Thanks everyone! This is all pretty much what I was thinking..

I don't blame them. It's easy to just assume that the way you've been doing it must be RAW/ the best way. Sometimes it is, sometimes not. I change things too. But I really want to know why's and wherefores.
Also, there's no way I could just take over and assume that we are all on the same rules page. This should be expected until I can beat it out of them.

[Marc R]

The number of house rules that creep into play can sometimes be boggling. . . .some of them so common that the house rule effectively overcomes the book rule among almost all games. . .to the point where people are shocked when you reference the book rule in the book.

"It can't say that!"

"Right here it does."

[providence13]

LordMiller,
That is exactly what happens almost every game!

Now I have changed stuff too. I'm no different.
But I think the reason their rules were changed has been forgotten and that
 now actually hampers play.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

But I think the reason their rules were changed has been forgotten and that
 now actually hampers play.

Which is why it is a good idea to always document rules changes and house rules.

That way, if such a situation arises, if they cannot find it in the rulebook, or in the documents house rules and rule changes, then it does not get used.

As mentioned previously, it could have been a house rule in another game and perhaps they never even realized it. Perhaps the GM just instituted it, and they never looked to see or wondered where it came from, and just carried it over in a number of games....

[RandalThor]

That is why whenever I make a house rule, I start off with the reasoning behind the change. I also think that helps the players to get a feel of my GMing so they know what to expect, with my hope being they will have an easier & better time in the game.

[mtpnj]

We have been playing rolemaster for about 20 years since about when companion 2 came out.  We have always believed a full attack only required 80% of action.  Not sure where we got that but Rolemaster compaion 1 on page 63 lists actions. Under 75% of action melee and missle attacks.  Under 90 % was listed multiple martial arts attacks and 2 weapon melee.
An initial reading of RMSS on page 80 where it lists common actions it gives a range for full melee attack as 60-100.   Without careful reading it is easy to see why players think they can make minor movements and still get a full attack.

[providence13]

An initial reading of RMSS on page 80 where it lists common actions it gives a range for full melee attack as 60-100.

There. I've penciled a line through that word in my book.

We have been playing rolemaster for about 20 years since about when companion 2 came out.  We have always believed a full attack only required 80% of action.  Not sure where we got that but Rolemaster compaion 1 on page 63 lists actions. Under 75% of action melee and missle attacks.  Under 90 % was listed multiple martial arts attacks and 2 weapon melee.

I'll have to check that out. Thanks.

[Ecthelion]

mtpnj, I agree that, if you have been playing RM for a long time and read lots of different RM rules, things can become confusing. But please note that the RM2 Companions contain optional rules, and not each of these has been carried over to RMSS/RMFRP. For RMSS/RMFRP the 60-100% are correctly listed as the requirement for an attack, but the rules also explain that any percentage less than 100% means that the OB for the attack is reduced by the amount less than 100%.

[mtpnj]

I absolutely agree with you on RMSS requiring 100% activity for a 100% melee.  I was just pointing out that as old players somehow we got it into our minds that a full melee attack  required less that 100% and getting old players to want to change to their detriment is not easy.