Topic: Old problem with fire spells...

[GoblynByte]

Okay, this is a bit of a long shot, but here it goes...

Just recently I was talking to my brother about RM and the its revision in RMC.  We had played RM2 ages ago (a sort of natural progression from playing MERP) and stopped playing it for several reasons.  The important thing, though, is that we haven't played it in probably 17 years or so.

When we started talking about it we talked at length about some of the things that we didn't like about the system.  He recalled something about trying to figure out how a fire spell interacted with armor and how complicated the process was.  He couldn't remember any details beyond the fact that it was such a cumbersome solution that they had to write it on the character sheet for future reference.

Well, I'd like to try RM again (in the form of RMC) but it will be issues like this one, those that created a poor experience in the past, that will keep some of the others in my group from giving a trial run the green light.  However, I feel if I can find this one case and see if RMC has corrected it I might be able to use it as an example of how things were made better.  The only problem is that my brother's memory of it is simply in reference to what a pain in the butt it was and not on the actual problem itself.  I've tried looking for what this problem might have been but I only have theory to go on.  I likely won't actually find the problem unless we start playing again, but if I can't find the problem (and any potential fixes) they probably won't green light a trial.  Does that make sense?

Okay, so...all I know is that it was some sort of problem with how a fire based spell might have interacted with armor and that it was a complicated enough solution that it made my brother, one of the smartes people I know, throw in the towel.  I'm certainly not suggesting it was this problem alone that caused us to stop playing RM2.  There were several reasons.  But I'm thinking I can make an example of this issue...if I can figure out what it was.

Hey, I said it was a long shot.    Does anybody have any thoughts on this convoluted post? 

[yammahoper]

Sounds to me like he had a player who did not like taking a critical, propably after it was rolled, and his armor made no difference in his opinion, as ANYONE taking a B 51 heat crit takes the same damage, there must be a rule about that, then looking and looking and not finding anything, deciding to ignore it while the objecting player is very unhappy and forgettable session insues...?

I can't help myself...Ima gamer at heart, always looking for motive

lynn

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I would have to agree with Lynn that it was most likely something like how armor has no effect upon the damage taken by a firewall spell. Considering that the character is voluntarily going through the firewall (I would not allow it to be cast where somebody was standing), then taking damage is gonna happen.

And if that is the case, then a simple solution would be to divide AT in half (rounding up), and subtract that from crit rolls for those spells, and ONLY those spells/criticals where OB/DB and/or RRs do not come into play in any manner (like the various Wall spells).

Of course, it could also be that perhaps this issue came up in the past because of a misunderstanding of the rules. RM2 was not the best at making things clear..... 

Anyways, if they cannot remember the issues that they had back then, it is quite possible that they really weren't that severe to begin with and were more along the lines of "but I don't like that this can hurt me and I can do nothing about it" complaints of players (which are common to every system) like yamma mentioned.

[GoblynByte]

Hmmm...I must have misrepresented it a bit.   

My brother at the time was the GM and it was more the complexity of sovling the issue that frustrated him.  At the time the two guys that had half a brain to figure that stuff out (my brother and one other guy in the group) were pretty objective in their desire to learn the system rather than "work" the system.  Me and the other guy were a lot younger and really just excited about expanded crit charts from what we got a thrill out of for MERP.  I have absolutely no recolection of the issue as I was probably playing Nintendo when they were attempting to figure this out.

In the end it wasn't so much that they felt the solution was unrealistic or unfair, just that the rule a) took a long time to find (a symptom common to RM2, as Rasyr suggested) and b) took a rather convoluted formula to figure out.  And it wasn't this one specific rule that "ruined" him on RM.  Really nothing "ruined" us on RM.  We just drifted to other genres and later looked back at RM and remembered some of the troubles we had.

I honestly wish I could remember more about the specifics of the issue.  Like I said; I probably wasn't paying as much attention at the time and was just waiting for my turn to come around again.  And my brother was just mentioning remember that particular issue.  He could only remember that it had something to do with some sort of fire spell and how its interaction with armor was figured.  Again, he didn't think it was unfair, just difficult to figure out.  I looked through Spell Law but couldn't figure out what he might have been talking about.

Sure, if he can't remember it than it obviously didn't scar him for life.  But he knows the issue was there and I think if I could say "hey, remember that issue you guys had back in the day?  Well, RMC has sort of smoothed that out.  RM might be worth checking out these days."  I haven't even presented the thought of running RM again, so his mention of the "offensive" rule wasn't any sort of defense from trying RM.  It was just in context of a conversation of "game theory."

Anyway, there it is. 

[Defendi]

I think our problem is that none of us can think of anything more complex about a fire attack than, say, a sword attack.  Maybe you were using a lot of modifiers that most of us ignore.  Hmmm.  There were a lot of optional rules by the end of RM2.

[GoblynByte]

I think our problem is that none of us can think of anything more complex about a fire attack than, say, a sword attack.  Maybe you were using a lot of modifiers that most of us ignore.  Hmmm.  There were a lot of optional rules by the end of RM2.

Hmmm...it would have been all core rules.  And by the time we stopped playing RM2 our copy of Spell Law hardly had a bend or fold on it (none of us played a user of spells very often).  So that should tell you something about how experienced we were with it. 

The other thing I was thinking was that they might have been accidentally transposing some rule aspect over from MERP that was accounted for in some other way in RM that they were unaware of.  We played MERP quite a bit before making the transition to RM so such "assumptions" of RM rules were quite possible at the time.

Of course there's the complete possibility that my brother was simply remembering the issue incorrectly.  It was nearly two decades ago, after all.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Well, can I vote for your brother mis-remembering?

The only other possibility of spells and armor that I can think of are the armor rules as to what spells you are allowed to cast, and/or the armor ESF rules.

Perhaps the "fire" aspect of his memory came from the spell he was trying to cast when he had the problem/issue, and didn't really have to do with fire at all, but the casting of the spell. Those ESF rules (which are optional) might possibly have been an issue, or maybe he didn't understand the BAR attack table (the columns being based on the target's armor, not the casters).

In any case, spells resolve in one of three manners...
1) OB/DB -- no real difference from swinging a sword. Perhaps a couple of extra modifiers..
2) RR -- no armor interaction here at all.
3) Other -- if you don't fumble, it is cast pretty much. Now the effects (i.e. like the crit from a Firewall) can affect things later, but again, there is no core armor interaction on these types of spells.

As for "using all of the core rules", you do realize that a good chunk of Character Law was optional rules, don't you? The RMC Team were all shaking their heads as they revamped things and there were a number of "I thought that was core" comments among them. 

And nothing in the Companions was ever considered core, not even Rolemaster Companion II.

[GoblynByte]

As for "using all of the core rules", you do realize that a good chunk of Character Law was optional rules, don't you? The RMC Team were all shaking their heads as they revamped things and there were a number of "I thought that was core" comments among them. 

And nothing in the Companions was ever considered core, not even Rolemaster Companion II.

Oh, I meant all we were using were the 3 core rulebooks and none of the companions.  Not that we used all the core rules.  Heck, I don't think we even had Monsters and Treasures at the time. 

[GoblynByte]

Okay, well it sounds like he may have indeed been remembering it incorrectly.  I even looked to see if I could find rules regarding travelling through hot terrain (deserts and such) and problems that might come up with characters wearing metal armor.  Couldn't find anything in that respect so that couldn't have been it.

Oh well.  No biggy.  Like I said; I want to try to run a RM adventure or two in the near future for "old time's sake" and I figured I might be able to arm myself with knowledge if that same problem occurred again.  For the most part I'm reading through RMC and remember (vaguely) the times we played RM2 and, while I can see a lot of the surface issues we had (we never really did like all the attack charts), I'm pretty oblivious to any details (both good and bad).  I do remember a lot of the confusion the old books brought on due to organizational flaws and the fact that RMC absolutely destroyed that problem is a huge step.  And we took baby steps back into the ICE world with HARP and feel that's one of the best FRP systems in history.  We're not really planning on using RM for an extended campaign, but I want to play through it a bit just to learn more about it.  So we'll see how it goes.

Thanks for the input, all! 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

(we never really did like all the attack charts)

Well, you have 2 options to solve that issue...

1) Rolemaster Express Combat Tables -- A lot fewer tables/charts overall, and you still get the essence of the system.

2) Damage Dice Option -- Express Additions #3 has an Option called RM Simplified, that removes all tables and charts practically. One portion of that was adapted from HARP's Damage Dice option, and it can be used to generate RM-like damage use multiple dice. Worth the $2 to check out if you really don't like the Arms Law tables.

[Marc R]

Only one possability I can think of where core rules might lead to schenanigans over fire vs armor in RM2.

Someone used Heat Solid on someone in armor.

This was allowed (likely with a RR) many GMs did.

This lead to trying to figure out how much damage hot armor did, and how long it took to don and doff armor.

There were rules to be found on hot things and damage they do in combat rounds, there were rules on how fast you could get out of your armor. . .this might lead to running around book to book looking for an answer.

I beleive, in core, there is no time period for doffing armor, so they might have hit a wall there and gotten pissed off. I recall a similar incident getting ugly, but about a guy in chainmail down a well and drowning. . .which takes longer, getting out of chainmail or drowning. . .(BTW, neither doffing armor or drowning times were in core RM2)

OTOH there may also be a critical result out there that results in hot armor too.

Other than that, it's a head scratcher for me too.

[dutch206]

I agree with LordMiller.  Heat Metal spells cast on platemail were never really covered in RM2.  IIRC, RM Classic Spell Law has a section devoted to elemental spell attacks and their effect on the environment.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I agree with LordMiller.  Heat Metal spells cast on platemail were never really covered in RM2.  IIRC, RM Classic Spell Law has a section devoted to elemental spell attacks and their effect on the environment.

Page 78 of RMC Spell Law has a table that indicated critical take because of item temperatures. For example, if you use Heat Solid to heat somebody's armor, they will take an 'A' heat critical every round once it reaches 200 degrees. Pages 78-79 have a lot more detail though.

So, if that was the fire/heat issue that your brother had, it has actually been covered.

(I had forgotten about that table and section until dutch206 said something)

[Marc R]

We did a thourough looting of the RMFRP SL spell notes, and covered a bunch more stuff at the same time. Hopefully most of those issues should now be contained inside SL.

Then again, "Heat solid" shouldn't work on people, or their gear, per core rules. . .but many GMs allow "U" spells on people or their gear with a RR, it's a common enough house rule. (I frankly wouldn't be surprised to see a version of it labled "E" or "F" rather than "U" in one of the old books or one of the versions or printings of them.)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Then again, "Heat solid" shouldn't work on people, or their gear, per core rules. . .but many GMs allow "U" spells on people or their gear with a RR, it's a common enough house rule. (I frankly wouldn't be surprised to see a version of it labled "E" or "F" rather than "U" in one of the old books or one of the versions or printings of them.)

Heat Solid, and the similar spells are all Force spells in the RMC Spell Law, not Utility spells. That means that they can be used against foes (who get a RR).

[Marc R]

They're Fs in my most recent RM2 SL too. Shrug, I misrecalled those as U.

I guess cooking you in your armor tied well to D&D "Heat Metal" but boiling your blood was the problem with "Heat Liquid".

Thank god both spells have "Inanimate". . .it only takes like 10-15 points of body temperature increase to kill you.

Of course, we've now provided GMs with everything needed to deal with Paladin Thermadore except for the Don & Doff times on armor. . .heheh.

Gonna see that in the new armor rules in the Combat Companion?

[PiXeL01]

 I seem to recall Don and Duffing rules were in Arms Companion including a skill to do it faster. Of course those could have been a continuation from one of the Companions.

It has been an issue in our campaigns not to have access to Don and duffing rules, or at least just the period of time needed to put on an armor. I hope they will be including in the Combat Companion as well

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Gonna see that in the new armor rules in the Combat Companion?

Nope. Figuring out donning and doffing times for individual pieces of armor was not on my list of things to do. That would get into too much complication. In most cases, it would be easier and faster to kill the mage who cast said spell than it would be to get out of the armor...

[Marc R]

Only problem is stuff "Cools normally" after heated. . .so other than jumping into cool water or someone casting to cool it, you'd likely die before the armor lost enough heat to stop cooking you.

Then again, house rules wise:

Chain you can get out of in a hurry on land, if nobody is meleeing you at the same time, and you don't care about cutting straps. (Might be hard to grab hot chain, but I bet being encased in it would motivate the heck out of you.)

Plate and rigid leather likely a lot of strap cutting. . .unless you're in articulated AT20 that takes something like a tool or key to remove. . .in which case likely it's time to look for some water since you'll never get it off in combat time.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Right, also in most cases, it takes minutes to get out of armor (at the very least), not rounds. So, there is no real need to get into donning/doffing times because that is not something that can be done in tactical time frames.