Topic: What is "Material Bonus"?

[Marc R]

Back to the top post though. . .the OB bonus is not only useful offensively, it makes sense that a high steel sword makes for a better parrying tool also, as the whole is not just a matter of sharpness.

[VladD]

not to forget material synergy, new designs (such as a basket hilt) and craftmanship that also figure in the bonus. Even based on a material and magical bonus alone would I allow the wielder to use them for parrying. The only question remains: since the bonus is intrinsic, if you also attack at +0 OB, would the total intrinsic bonus be added, since it is not gone from the weapon?

[Marc R]

Unless you used it for DB, in which case it's not gone, it's just on the other column of the balance sheet.

[jaranka]

It looks like you guys have shown many good reasons why a superiorly(sp?) made weapon could help with both offense and defense(balance, material), and also that there are factors which would only increase its offense(sharpness).  Some of you may have great knowledge of the manufacturing of these weapons and may wish to extend the rules of the game to include your knowledge, but for probably most of us, when we find a +15 sword, how are we to know what enhancements contributed to that bonus such that we know if its applicable to both?  I guess it's a matter of how much more detail to the game we want.

You could simply say that any OB on a weapon can be applied to either OB or DB, which I'm sure many of you do.  I'd argue that there should be a difference between the two, and that OB cannot be used for DB, otherwise an OB on an item is clearly better than a DB on an item which I don't think was the intention of the creators.  If you want, give your sword both an OB and a DB bonus. A super weapon with a handguard might be +10/+5. But to flatly say that all bonuses on a weapon can be used both offensively and defensively I think makes that bonus more powerful than it already is.

And it is only non-magical bonuses that can be applied to both, or does a magical OB work the same way? I guess it depends on the nature of the magic. What about +OB on e.g. a necklace? Can that be used for DB also? That certainly makes it better than +DB on a necklace. I don't know where you draw the line, especially if the argument is solely based on the craftsmanship of a weapon.  Is it weapons only that can go both ways?  Why call it an OB at all if it can be used for defense, just call it a B.

I just think the two bonuses should be separate but equal.  Not only does it give them some distinction, but it also simplifies all these questions.  Let OB be offensive only and DB be defensive only.  I like the idea of a weapon having both an OB and a DB if the weapon's construction permits.  It even allows for some flexibility such that the bonuses don't have to be equal.

My 2 cents.

[markc]

Jaranka;
 So you would have all weapons listed in the following manner weapon (OB/DB). What about a bonus that could be used in either or, ie a sword that has a +20 bonus that can be used for offense or defense?
MDC

[jaranka]

With this idea, either it has defensive properties or it doesn't.  If it does, it always does and you always gain the benefit, unless of course you can't parry. You could have a sword +10/+10.  Or a sword +20/+0. Or a +20/+20.  Pretty nice sword. But you wouldn't have a weapon who's bonus could be applied to either one.  I don't think that would be workable with this idea.

If you have a well-balanced weapon, that weapon should provide you with both a bonus to your OB and a bonus to your DB.  It wouldn't be an either/or situation.  It would be powerful and would of course have to be balanced within the campaign, but e.g. a +10/+10 weapon would be a nice find for lower levels.

Magical bonuses would work the same way.  A magical Amulet of Offensive Power would give a bonus to OB.  Bracers of Defensive Prowess would give a bonus to DB.  A Magnificent Sword of Battle could provide both a bonus to OB and DB.  And in none of these cases could OB be used for DB.  It just doesn't make much sense to me to have it work one way and not the other, or even to call it an offensive bonus when it could just as easily be used for defense.

[rdanhenry]

DB bonuses are more powerful than OB bonuses, even when you allow all OB to used to parry, because DB bonuses apply any time you are attacked, while an OB bonus only applies when you are attacking. A +5 OB necklace would be less valued than a +5 DB necklace, since both add the same amount to your OB/DB total when fighting, but the +5 DB also applies against those extra attackers you aren't parrying, the arrow that comes at you when you lack either cover or shield, and the sneak attack from that assassin.

Allowing OB bonuses to parry strengthens them slightly, but DB bonuses still are more desirable.

[kevinmccollum]

No offense but do any people consider the impact of some of these proposed rules to the potential new customer? Taking an already complex game and adding more rules isn't enticing to new players.

Modifiers to OB, as listed in arms law include weapon bonuses (it doesn't differentiate between magic/material/quality/etc).

Modifiers to DB include parrying with as much of the characters OB with the weapon they are wielding. Simple. End of story.

[Marc R]

I just treat it all as bonuses to the pre split OB, unless it specifically states otherwise.

[GrumpyOldFart]

No offense but do any people consider the impact of some of these proposed rules to the potential new customer? Taking an already complex game and adding more rules isn't enticing to new players.

Which is probably why the topic is here instead of part of the "Rolemaster Product Suggestions" thread, or somewhere like it.

Any RPG, being based on the idea of immersing imaginary people in an imagined reality, is going to have spots where the rules don't mesh seamlessly with what GM and players have imagined. If the rules were complex and comprehensive enough for that not to happen they wouldn't call it "an RPG," they'd call it "physics". RM, being "an already complex game" as you correctly noted, has built both its reputation and its customer base on what many call "realism", but since it is applied to imaginary worlds could probably more accurately be called "believability". In other words, the average RM GM or player is going to wish for the mechanics to approach the "physics" definition above as closely as he can without sacrificing playability and without requiring college level math.

Every GM and every player is going to have a slightly different idea of where the "proper" compromise between believability and complexity lies in order for the game to still be playable and fun. For those whose "proper" compromise tends farther toward complexity than your assessment or mine, such conversations as these are useful, as it helps them achieve the believability they want with the minimum complexity necessary. That's not to imply that it isn't still complex, or indeed more complex than you or I would want to put up with, only that the extra complexity is no more than needed to get the results you want. To that end, a forum where people can ask, "Has anyone encountered _____ potential issue? How did you solve it?" is a godsend, as it allows all the available solutions to be compared and the "best" (by the questioner's purely subjective standard) to be chosen and adjusted to fit. That doesn't mean the solution will ever become part of the standard rules, or even an "official" optional rule.

Keep in mind that in many ways RM is not, nor has ever been, a "game system" so much as a "tool kit" for the GM to design the game system he wants. To my certain knowledge, RM rulebooks and supplements throughout the history of the company have openly warned that the GM should pick and choose which optional rules (if any) he wants to use, and should not attempt to use all of them at once as they are not always compatible with one another. Not to mention some of them have "synergistic effects" when used together that can seriously affect game balance.

In short, the reason RM has so many rules and so many ways to modify them, and for that matter the reason why threads like this one exist, is because RM was designed with "Rule 0" in mind:

Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.

 My 2 coppers...

[Cory Magel]

The way I look at things like this (this topic) is that...

This is a fantasy game. The fact that there are materials that can essentially simulate magical properties is for flavor and variety or a useful tool for someone who has a 'low magic' game, but still wants to be able to hand out items with bonuses.  Over-explaining or over-thinking the details of those properties is unnecessary and might even be an annoyance to a good number of GM's because they've explained them in specific ways in their own little world already.  Saying where the metal came from (generally) and what kind of properties it has is useful, trying to get into the real world physics of why you get specific bonuses isn't so much.  In this case, a certain mechanic (that you can use OB for DB) shouldn't turn into a complex chore of having to figure out where every point of OB is coming from and disqualifying some as a result when trying to defend yourself.  It would make those items less useful and it's just not fun.

Personally I feel that Rolemaster should never get overly specific about certain aspects of the system as it's core.  Yes, some things needs to be hammered out in full for rule purposes, however other things do not NEED an explanation that covers every last possible detail of their theory.  Magic is a great example; different GM's explain the various magics in different ways.  For an official setting I think it can get, and even should, be very specific, but for the core system some things should be left somewhat generic or ambiguous.  Mentalism is mental magic, magic projected via the PC's own mind - do we really want to define exactly how and where the PC derives that power as a core rule?  I'm my little world I would explain them as almost one person super-tiny deities... they are effectively self taught channelers who are pulling (channeling) the power from themselves.  That's going to be very different from how others explain it.

Now, I might say something contrary to this about other aspects of the core system, but I guess it just depends on where you draw your line on set/defined vs flexible/general theory.

[pastaav]

I think it can pretty much be summed up to as a setting issue. The flavor of the game matters lots when we speaking about the logic of magic, materials and how common people perceive these. In some it makes sense that special materials are ordinary metals that get certain properties when the smith mediate over them when he make them. In other settings it makes more sense that the superior materials are dwarven made and builds on superior technology.

[Marc R]

On that end, I can definitely say that when the game is epic, all bonuses stack.