Topic: Strength, Encumbrance, and Quickness penalty...

[GoblynByte]

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

On CL page 142 under it reads:

If his Strength stat bonus is greater than his encumbrance penalty, the difference may be used to cancel all or part of the character's armor Quickness penalty

So, if I have a character wearing a chain shirt (-5 Quickness penalty), has an encumbrance penalty of -10, a Quickness stat bonus of +5, and a Strength bonus of +20, does this mean his armor's Quickness penalty is negated and his +5 Quickness stat bonus still counts towards DB?

It seems like a sort of thrown in comment, and I can't find it mentioned anywhere else (in other references to the Quickness penalty, for instance) so I was thinking maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[Marc R]

Your Encumberence affects your BMR.

Your armor quickness penalty affects your Qu bonus.

Your ST bonus will negate first your Encumberence penalty. . . .then your Armor Quicknes penalty.

Your example is indeed correct.

Essentially, that Qu bonus that armor impacts gives you BMR, initiative and bonus to any skill that references QU. the encumberence is just BMR, so it's not as good. . . .you get the "just speed of movement" back first, then once you clear that you get the full out quickness of motion back.

In my home crew, this is referred to as the "war troll plate rule"

as in "You put plate mail on a war troll, it doesn't slow him down."

and yeah, we should have duped that line into the other armor rules. . .sorry.

[Ecthelion]

Interestingly the Rolemaster Rulings page explicitly states that "Armor quickness penalties may not be reduced by high St. [5/15/00]". But we aways ignored this ruling and allowed exactly what GoblynByte mentions in his example.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

On CL page 142 under it reads:

If his Strength stat bonus is greater than his encumbrance penalty, the difference may be used to cancel all or part of the character's armor Quickness penalty

So, if I have a character wearing a chain shirt (-5 Quickness penalty), has an encumbrance penalty of -10, a Quickness stat bonus of +5, and a Strength bonus of +20, does this mean his armor's Quickness penalty is negated and his +5 Quickness stat bonus still counts towards DB?

As Ecthelion points out, there is a previous official ruling that specifically states that your strength bonus has no effect upon the quickness penalty.

So, I would agree with and support the previous ruling and say that a character's Strength bonus cannot and will not affect the quickness penalty from armor.

Strength does, however, have an affect upon the maneuver modifiers from armor.

Also, keep in mind that the quickness penalty from armor can only reduce the Quickness bonus to zero, it cannot make it less than zero.

If you want to make a house rules that allows strength to affect the quickness penalty, that is quite alright, but if you do, I would recommend either allowing the quickness penalty to reduce the Quickness bonus to below zero as well, or require that the strength bonus be equal to or higher than the quickness penalty before allowing it to be negated, and then only using that portion of the strength bonus that is higher than the encumbrance penalty (as LM suggested in describing his house rule above).

It seems like a sort of thrown in comment, and I can't find it mentioned anywhere else (in other references to the Quickness penalty, for instance) so I was thinking maybe I'm reading it wrong.

The biggest difference between armor and encumbrance is that armor is worn while encumbrance is carried. That is the only reason that I can think of for the original authors keeping them separate.

[Marc R]

Only problem is that the "previous ruling" applies to RMSS/FRP specificly. . . .shrug.

That official ruling page refers back to "Previous versions of RM" but that list is short, and the link to more data is dead. (I think brent may have killed the link pending re-compiling the pre-rmss data)

I recall going over those for inclusion into the process as we did RMC, and we actually clearly edited the text for any that you called still official rules.

Then again, that is a single comment in a note, it's possible we intended to cull that rule and missed that one comment. I don't specificly recall any discussion of that specific rule.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Only problem is that the "previous ruling" applies to RMSS/FRP specificly.

Actually you were correct. I misread what it said in the RMC Character Law earlier, as was there for attempting to affirm that previous ruling on RMC as well.

A character's Strength Bonus, if it is greater than his encumbrance penalty, may be used all or part of his Quickness Penalty from Armor worn.

So, Goblinbyte's example would be correct after all.

[Ecthelion]

Is there a special reason why the aforementioned RM Ruling should apply to RMSS/RMFRP while it is not valid for RM2/RMC? If no one can remember such a reason I would suggest to remove this ruling also for RMSS/RMFRP and allow St to reduce Qu penalty for all RM versions. Personaly I think it is useful if we keep the number of differences between the different RM version small - and if there is no special reason to have this ruling for RMSS then I'd therefore like to remove it. Does that make sense?

[Marc R]

If I understand it:

There was a fairly large RM2 errata database.

RMSS "Superceeded" all RM2 errata (all errata was either complied into the rules or cut)

The RMSS errata grew, but never got all that big.

RMC was written, and in many instances that same process of "What about this" errata or that rule variation was taken into account.

We didn't do a perfect job of it (a few old issues have been raised, and a few new ones.) but we tried.

As to points of conflict, I agree with your overall logic, quite strongly actually, that if possible errata or official rulings should unify rules unless there's some really good reason otherwise. . . .but I don't make anything official, so the best I can do is "ditto" your comment.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Is there a special reason why the aforementioned RM Ruling should apply to RMSS/RMFRP while it is not valid for RM2/RMC? If no one can remember such a reason I would suggest to remove this ruling also for RMSS/RMFRP and allow St to reduce Qu penalty for all RM versions. Personaly I think it is useful if we keep the number of differences between the different RM version small - and if there is no special reason to have this ruling for RMSS then I'd therefore like to remove it. Does that make sense?

In RMFRP, on page 56, Encumbrance is part of the "Weight Penalty" and it states that Weight Penalty is the lesser of 0 (zerO) or [Encumbrance Penalty + Armor Quickness Penalty + (3 x Strength Stat Bonus)].

Now, I don't know who gave that ruling on Brent's page, but the text on page 56 actually and specifically states the opposite of that ruling.

Therefore, I would have no problems declaring that ruling as being voided.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

We didn't do a perfect job of it (a few old issues have been raised, and a few new ones.) but we tried.

And you guys did an excellent job.

-----------------

As for points of conflict between the systems...... Some will obviously happen, but I also think that they should be as unified as possible...

[GoblynByte]

We didn't do a perfect job of it (a few old issues have been raised, and a few new ones.) but we tried.

And you guys did an excellent job.

-----------------

As for points of conflict between the systems...... Some will obviously happen, but I also think that they should be as unified as possible...

And here I just thought I was reading something incorrectly. 

[Dark Mistress]

Huh just goes to show, that sometimes it is how things are written. My whole group was always under the assumption str did not effect the qu penalty from the armor only from the encumbrance.

Granted this makes more sense and makes str even more important to fighter types who want to wear heavy armor.

[Marc R]

It also makes it key to have a drop bag. . . .since encumberence penalties take precedence, a bag of gear will steal the Qu negation penalty. . .so drop it before combat.

Of course, if you end up having to run, you either eat the penalty or loose anything in the drop bag.

Personally, I think We should take all the ATs, then compare their weight to a 180# human with a 0 St bonus. . .and whatever increments of encumberence that gives should be subtracted from the armor maneuver table penalties. . .leaving just restriction of movement on that table. . . .

Then I'd have no problem with this wee rule not applying, and just including armor in encumberence. (Strength can't really help if the armor prevents certain motions, but as long as armor isn't included in encumberence, ST should have an effect on Armor penalties like these.)

[Antalon]

Uhm...I've got RMX, and it isn't clear to me what the Encumbrance penalty actually applies to? 

An encumbered character may suffer a lower PACE.

But, does the penalty also apply to MM?  What about OB?

Its clear that Armour affects MM and PACE.

Can anyone set this out in nice easy to understand sentances - I'm being really dense on this 

[dutch206]

I've always played it that STR bonus has no effect on armor quickness penalty. Otherwise, why not invest ranks in plate mail for everyone?

[Marc R]

essence and channeling restrictions

high cost

minimum maneuver penalties

missile penalties

pace restrictions

swimming

etc.

[GoblynByte]

essence and channeling restrictions

high cost

minimum maneuver penalties

missile penalties

pace restrictions

swimming

etc.

Swimming...hmmm...ugh...I'm reminded of my very tough dwarven warrior, wearing full plate armor, now residing at the bottom of the river Anduin after the boat got tipped over.  Funny thing is it wasn't until after the session concluded that we realized he was carrying the quest item we had spent all night searching for.  Well...if anyone wants to dive the river...there it is!    That sure learned me!!

[Antalon]

Sorry to labour the point - but I'd be really grateful if someone would clarify how encumbrance effects MM.

E.g. AL Classic, page 41, outlines how to calculate encumbrance penalty - but it states that 'penalties discussed here apply to Base Movement Rate'.

Page 38 ALC contain table 04-02, which although it identifies armour penalties as a modification to MM it says nothing about encumbrance.

Does encumbrance only affect BMR?

If not, does the encumbrance penalty also apply directly to MM?

John

[GoblynByte]

Sorry to labour the point - but I'd be really grateful if someone would clarify how encumbrance effects MM.

E.g. AL Classic, page 41, outlines how to calculate encumbrance penalty - but it states that 'penalties discussed here apply to Base Movement Rate'.

Page 38 ALC contain table 04-02, which although it identifies armour penalties as a modification to MM it says nothing about encumbrance.

Does encumbrance only affect BMR?

If not, does the encumbrance penalty also apply directly to MM?

John

The way I undertand it the encumbrance penalty only applies to BMR.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

This is actually more difficult to answer than you might think. There is something of a contradiction in the rules that both ICE and the RMC Team missed and therefore failed to address properly.

Section 10.5 Encumbrance does not, according to the way it is written affect anything but BMR.

The BMR is affected according to the modifier given on 10-10 Encumbrance Table, found in RMC Character Law, page 142 (RM2 Character & Campaign Law, page 15).

This modifier affects ONLY Base Movement Rate. And the note below it about Strength offsetting this penalty, and the penalty from armor also only applies to Base Movement Rate, I would have to say. This is because this entire section on Encumbrance talks ONLY about its effect on BMR, so the note would also only be talking about BMR.

However......

10-4 Static Action Table on RMC Campaign Law page 137 (RM2 Character & Campaign Law, page 45) has a section on it called "Maneuver*" and the asterisk says that modifications to maneuvers are made on the Movement & Maneuver table (i.e. this means the MM skills).

In this section there are modifiers for encumbrance that DO affect rolls on the Movement & Maneuver Table. There is another note that also explains this a little more and basically gives GMs the option to use the Section 10.5 Encumbrance rules for MM type skills as well.

Personally, I believe that Encumbrance (one version or the other) should affect OB and MM skills as well as BMR (armor already affects DB, the question is.. should Encumbrance?)

In any case.....

The Official Ruling is

Encumbrance does affect MM skills as well as BMR

A GM just needs to decide which version...

(Note: if the GM is using Section 10.5 Encumbrance as the mods to MM skills, then I would also allow the strength bonus note to offset that penalty and the armor penalty)

Also note: It is my belief that the Armor mods (which are a type of encumbrance mod) are separate from the other Encumbrance mods because they can usually be dropped relatively quickly, but the armor is harder to remove quickly, and less likely to be removed during combat, thus separating them makes sense since it actual encumbrance can change quickly in such situations.