Topic: Paladin = Not usable?

[Zedul]

I have ignored ESF and SCSM with Paladins since they came out.  Not even a special rule...most of the time. least ways.

Allowing EVERY class to wear heavy armor doesnt break the game (yep, we have tried it).  Nothing stops an E crit after all.

Seriously my freind, just let the paladin wear the armor just like you have planned.  All will be fine.  To reach a skill of 120 in full plate takes a LOT of ranks, he will pay for it.

Witchking, I like you more and more as the years go by.  Prost!

Amen.

Remember, our job as GM's is not to bury the players in rules, take away their stuff, and crush their dreams.  The concept of fantasy roleplaying is that your players get to be the hero or great champion they read about in stories.  They are each writing their own heroic journey within the epic the GM is spinning.  Your job is to referee the game in such a way as to make their victories hard fought, and their losses meaningful.

The purpose of rules are to serve the campaign and make the game better, not rob us of a good time and make us conform to a system.

In general any spell that has an * next to it tends to ignore armor penalties altogether for any class.  Those are "instant" spells meaning they just go off, some of them go off even when the player in unconscious, almost like a spell trigger.  The Paladin has a ton of * spells - which should explain right away that armor is no obstacle.

However you decide to handle Paladins and armor to fit your campaign remember that someone is almost always going to want to play that class and if you hamstring it you will have one disappointed player.

 


 

[Kristen Mork]

In general any spell that has an * next to it tends to ignore armor penalties altogether for any class.  Those are "instant" spells meaning they just go off, some of them go off even when the player in unconscious, almost like a spell trigger.  The Paladin has a ton of * spells - which should explain right away that armor is no obstacle.

That's an interesting house rule.  I'll have to consider borrowing that.

[Old Man]

You can't cast Channeling spells while in full plate. Even though the very concept of a Paladin is a guy in heavy armor, (it's even the image *you* guys chose to describe the class in RoCoII). What's up with that?

Paladins in my world aspire to armor as hard as plate but based on leather such as Demon-hide (slain by themselves) or Dragon-hide or other suitable creatures. (Armor using Rigid Leather skill but acting like the Metal plates ... AT18 wears as AT10 for example.)

Ciao,
Old Man

[GrumpyOldFart]

I still say... "vestment".

If you don't want to go with a straight vestment, want to literally have the armor clanking underneath, not just the armor value, then make up a variation that is specific to the Paladin lists... "surcoat". Have it provide no defense at all... just lower maneuver penalties and casting penalties on armor. So not only would a mid/high level paladin be able to cast in armor, a high level paladin would be able to run footraces in his full plate as well.

[pastaav]

I know, i know. I may have sounded harsh, but after spending close to 5-6 hours creating characters with my players, to only come at the conclusion that the whole concept of his character was ruined because he could not cast spells while in full plate... well... let's say it didn't go so well.

The point is, i'm not comparing it to ad&d, but it just seemed weird at the time to have a Channeling profession that could wear Full Plate even though it prevented the player to cast spells.

Right now, i've ruled that some specialized class (such as Paladins and Clerics and so on) could get their armor blessed, thus bypassing the metal limitation, but other professions would require Transcend Armor skill to cast while wearing armor.

I think your choice of words is very called for. The inability of RM2 of supporting the classic paladin in plate armor is one of the major faults of the edition. Something that make the editions rule engine unable to support a majority of the fantasy worlds out there.

In RMSS the issue was fixed with the transcend armor skill made part of the core, but if you use RMC then you need to add rules from the companions or houserules to get the paladin archtype working. The issue is hot flame topic since some RM2 fans seems to not support the idea that RMSS could actually ever have improved things.

[Ecthelion]

The purpose of rules are to serve the campaign and make the game better, not rob us of a good time and make us conform to a system.

Yes, but as a GM you have to consider whether removing a rule really makes the game better. Some here seem to think that removing rules as they please would improve their game. That is not the case. But I admit that an experience RM GM knows which rules he can use and which he can bend or remove. But not a beginner...

In general any spell that has an * next to it tends to ignore armor penalties altogether for any class.  Those are "instant" spells meaning they just go off, some of them go off even when the player in unconscious, almost like a spell trigger.  The Paladin has a ton of * spells - which should explain right away that armor is no obstacle.

That is not an official rule.

[Zat]

Just to add my 2 pennies worth....

Armour is not the only factor (although it may be the major issue) that needs to be considered. Other objects carried or worn, such as weapons, shields and general equipment also need to be factored in with Transcend Armour.

[rdanhenry]

The point is, i'm not comparing it to ad&d, but it just seemed weird at the time to have a Channeling profession that could wear Full Plate even though it prevented the player to cast spells.

The first Rolemaster Companion introduced the Paladin and also provided an option to remove armor limitations from any Channeling Professions that the GM felt ought to wear armor. The second Rolemaster Companion revised the Paladin somewhat (even beyond adapting all the professions to expanded skill selection), and it introduced the Transcend Armor skill. The Paladin was never offered without a means to make wearing armor viable, at least once he has some levels under his belt.

I think your choice of words is very called for. The inability of RM2 of supporting the classic paladin in plate armor is one of the major faults of the edition. Something that make the editions rule engine unable to support a majority of the fantasy worlds out there.

It required the use of optional rules, but the paladin itself was an optional rule. RM2 did not support the paladin in core, because it was simply missing (and the paladin is actually a very narrow archetype). Once the paladin appeared, he appeared alongside options to make his use of armor and spells in conjunction viable.

[Moriarty]

The inability of RM2 of supporting the classic paladin in plate armor is one of the major faults of the edition. Something that make the editions rule engine unable to support a majority of the fantasy worlds out there.

No doubt RM2 has its flaws, but not 'supporting the classic paladin' is hardly a major fault, if a fault at all. A paladin is a holy warrior, anything else is interpretation of folklore - including the paladins use of spells. If we want spellcasting, sword wielding, plate wearing holy warriors (a very narrow archetype as correctly stated by rdanhenry) then this conflicts with the RM interpretation of magic and armor, which forbids metal armor for channeling users, and you can argue which interpretation is more important or correct, but the basic incompatibility is just that, and not a fault of 'the system'.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

You could always rule that the player can use a background point to allow it at character creation (or trait points, depending on what system you are using) to achieve the same thing.

This means that the character is an exception rather than twisting the rules completely to suit a specific situation. Personally, I like quite a few of the suggestions, in the end RM allows ways of approaching stuff from difficult angles.

I suppose it also depends upon your mindset with regard to channelling in general, that the character is blessed with the ability to work magic through an outside source that "channels" the power to them to cast the spells.  Given that the entity that does this must be exceedingly powerful... and even Heavy armour is not going to stop them from "assisting" a favoured follower... taking that a step further, the chances of a character recieving this power should be dependant upon the favor that the character has.

Therefore you could ssume that a character "in good standing" could simply ignore the penalties, whilst one with less favour would not. I think it is wrong to assume that the ability to ignore armour penalties should be taken as automatic just because of the character's profession in these cases. Additionally, those spells that can be cast subconsiously, should be treated as the dieties direct efforts to aid thier followers..rather than any attempt by the character themselves.

[pastaav]

It required the use of optional rules, but the paladin itself was an optional rule. RM2 did not support the paladin in core, because it was simply missing (and the paladin is actually a very narrow archetype). Once the paladin appeared, he appeared alongside options to make his use of armor and spells in conjunction viable.

The Paladin was really missing from the core rules, kind of expected maybe from core rules that made casting channeling spells in metal armor impossible. If you did not run a world with a setting calling for the paladin archtype you might not have missed the profession. Having core rules that made metal armor and channeling spells impossible to mix is IMHO flawed in itself for a game that was aimed at supporting generic fantasy.

Arguments about the profession not being introduced until there also was optional rules that fixed the flaw that core rules did not support combining channeling spells and metal armor seem a bit moot when the criticism is exactly that it was optional and not even included in the core rules.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

The Paladin was really missing from the core rules, kind of expected maybe from core rules that made casting channeling spells in metal armor impossible. If you did not run a world with a setting calling for the paladin archtype you might not have missed the profession. Having core rules that made metal armor and channeling spells impossible to mix is IMHO flawed in itself for a game that was aimed at supporting generic fantasy.

Except that "generic fantasy" is, in this case, purely AD&D... for which, back when RM2 was created, the Paladin wasn't even a core profession per se (it was a sub-class of the Fighter)! Saying that, about the matter, RM2 was "flawed" because it could not predict that, 30 years later, the Paladin would become popular in fantasy settings based on AD&D is a bit... unfair.

[Nders]

Well said Olf

[Arioch]

Champion's spell lists in Combat Companion have some spells that mimic trascend armor effects, IIRC.

However: keep in mind that in d&d paladins can cast while wearing plate, but have tons of restrictions. You could keep the same restrictions (high stats, strict moral code, donations,...) and let him ignore spell casting penalties for armor.

[yammahoper]

The current rules of RMSS/FRP provides a very playable paladin.  However, the number of SCSM rolls required slows play down just a bit.  For those who don't mind, the result is a lot of paladin spells go off in the deliberate phase, at the end of the round, next round, etc.

We choose to ignore the required SCSM once the Transcend Armor skill reduced the penalty cast to zero or less.

Eventually I even got sick of that and just changed the rules so channelers can wear metal armor.  The high mnv in armor cost balances out the wearing of armor quite well without that rule.

[pastaav]

The Paladin was really missing from the core rules, kind of expected maybe from core rules that made casting channeling spells in metal armor impossible. If you did not run a world with a setting calling for the paladin archtype you might not have missed the profession. Having core rules that made metal armor and channeling spells impossible to mix is IMHO flawed in itself for a game that was aimed at supporting generic fantasy.

Except that "generic fantasy" is, in this case, purely AD&D... for which, back when RM2 was created, the Paladin wasn't even a core profession per se (it was a sub-class of the Fighter)! Saying that, about the matter, RM2 was "flawed" because it could not predict that, 30 years later, the Paladin would become popular in fantasy settings based on AD&D is a bit... unfair.

RM2 is not 30 years old even this day and even if we go with the notation that AD&D defines fantasy you just said yourself there was a paladin variant in AD&D. Sorry but there is simply not any good excuse for outright forbidding channeling spell casters from having armor if the goal is supporting generic fantasy. In fairness it can be claimed that RM2 was not aimed at being a true generic system but that it was rules for Shadow World. Still I find this topic rather pointless so I am dropping out of the discussion now.   

[Zedul]

Yes, but as a GM you have to consider whether removing a rule really makes the game better. Some here seem to think that removing rules as they please would improve their game. That is not the case. But I admit that an experience RM GM knows which rules he can use and which he can bend or remove. But not a beginner...

That is not an official rule.

1.  I would not suggest any beginner GM get close to Rolemaster, this is a graduate level system.  Asking a newbie GM to make sense of all these rules and editions is like asking a freshman theology student to reconcile Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  You might as well just hand them a package of Zoloft, a bottle of 151, and a pistol to shoot themselves with.

2.  No it is not, but it is the most adequate and workable interpretation of said spells that we have come up with.

[rdanhenry]

The Paladin was really missing from the core rules, kind of expected maybe from core rules that made casting channeling spells in metal armor impossible. If you did not run a world with a setting calling for the paladin archtype you might not have missed the profession. Having core rules that made metal armor and channeling spells impossible to mix is IMHO flawed in itself for a game that was aimed at supporting generic fantasy.

Except that "generic fantasy" is, in this case, purely AD&D... for which, back when RM2 was created, the Paladin wasn't even a core profession per se (it was a sub-class of the Fighter)! Saying that, about the matter, RM2 was "flawed" because it could not predict that, 30 years later, the Paladin would become popular in fantasy settings based on AD&D is a bit... unfair.

RM2 is not 30 years old even this day

True. But since RM1 is (roughly speaking - some parts slightly more, some slightly less), and RM2 was mainly adding onto RM1 various options that statement was a reasonable approximation. Point doesn't change.

and even if we go with the notation that AD&D defines fantasy

You missed the point. The point is that the only way your statement makes any sense is if "generic" is read as "D&D-derived". The idea of a holy knight predates D&D and is not uncommon. The idea of a spell-casting holy knight is a D&Dism with little, if any, basis in fantasy not itself influenced by D&D. If you wanted a literary case of channeling use in metal armor, Elric is a far better choice.

Sorry but there is simply not any good excuse for outright forbidding channeling spell casters from having armor if the goal is supporting generic fantasy.

Given that "generic fantasy" only ever means one of two things: (a) D&D-derivative, or (b) formulaic pseudo-Tolkienesque crap, this hardly seems like this would be a worthwhile goal. However, RM seems fairly supportive of the second type of generic fantasy, having the necessary races and various Middle-Earthish touches.

If you want to cover the fantasy genre in general, you can't just have a rules set, you need a rules-construction kit and you'll want Fantasy Hero instead of Rolemaster -- although as more and more companions piled up, Rolemaster became more and more of a kit rather than a game. Or you can use your judgment to tweak Rolemaster. Remember that Rolemaster is an old-school game, written when it was assumed the GM was capable of independent human judgment.

[Marc R]

I'm not getting the problem here.

You want to play a heavy armor paladin and avoid the metal armor problem, there's at least 6 answers on the table.

1) Have the GM use the golden Rule, and exercise some gameworld tweaking.

2) Use the metal armor for channelers rules from the companion the Paladin appeared in.

3) Use Transcend Armor as a skill or talent.

4) Use esoteric materials ala "AT20 made of giant beetle carapace" or "Dragon scales".

5) Use some variant of Vestment Rules.

6) Use some variant of "Made like AT 12, Protects like AT 20" like certain armors you see in the treasure books.

That's six off the top of my head, most of which were touched on by someone already in this thread. It's not a matter of impossible, it's a matter of which choice you want.

RM was released in 1980, the paladin was first published in 1986, likely not so coincidentally in the same exact book that had the "Metal Armor for channelers" variant rules.

[providence13]

Quote Marc R
It's not a matter of impossible, it's a matter of which choice you want.

This is Rolemaster...