Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Marc R on July 16, 2011, 06:04:59 PM
-
I agree that in those cases where we can clearly say that the OB bonus is only due to the weapon having more offensive power, then it makes little sense that this "offensive power" can be used for defense. But OTOH it is probably (almost) only for non-magical bladed weapons that we can say that the OB bonus stems from a sharper weapon and that this is something that cannot be used defensively. E.g. for all crushing weapons I don't see why better steel should lead to higher OB (at least I don't see that same correlation as for bladed weapons). But according to RAW we can buy a high steel war hammer and such a weapon adds +10 to OB. So is it superior balancing and/or workmanship in these cases? Then it might make sense to allow the bonus to be used defensively, wouldn't it? But if that were the case, is the +10 bonus of the high steel sword perhaps also rather from better balancing and/or workmanship and thus usable also for defense? I mean why should bladed weapons be penalized?
The rules don't give a clear answer to these questions. Therefore we decided that we simply allow the weapon OB to be part of the OB in all respects and thus allow it to be used for parrying.
As an aside thought from using various tools, in most instances if you use a tool with 100% of your available strength and weight, you will break it. (If you two hand a casual house hammer and do a full body swing you will either break the shaft or pop the head off the shaft). I suspect most of the superior materials aspects relate to being able to use the weapon more aggressively without fear of overusing and breaking it. . .i.e. a steel sword has more flex and strength than a bronze sword, so you can swing it harder, or use it in angles of attack vs armor that would damage or break the bronze sword. . .being able to use more force, and having fewer restrictions like "If I slash him on top of his head my blade will snap on his helmet" are the root of that bonus.
-
IMHO it is also a representation of its effect vs other metals. So a bronze sword will slice through a copper sword or armor, the same goes for steel vs iron.
So it is both the ability to use the weapon more aggressively, or making the weapon itself easier to use (balance, design, ability to direct force) as well as its interaction with other metals or materials.
MDC
-
I agree with all of the above and I would like to add: material synergy: using the best material in the right place. Using a very rigid material for the haft of a warhammer will confer much of the impact energy back to the wielder, while a more pliable material will absorb it before it boomerangs into the wielder's hand.
The effect of a blow on a high steel hammer head of a full body swing on an anvil will be a dynamic, bouncing wave inside the hammer head. If this head is thoroughly hardened it will develop micro fractures that will lead to a full crack in the hammer head, but the nice thing about high steel is that you can temper it how you like. So the best construction (and why it is +10) is that the smith should harden just the tool ends (the ball and peen ends, or the face of the hammer) and leave the core of the hammerhead more soft so it can dampen the ridiculous impact forces.
Another factor important for weapons is pliability. If a sword edge is too pliable it will bend and dull in a single blow on armor, if it is too rigid it will fracture and break. It should be just right, hence conferring a higher bonus on your sword if it is made of mithril or lean, which will not dull or fracture.
Sometimes I allow for special shapes that do more damage, that are allowed for by the used material, such as saw toothed edges or wicked flanges on maces, etc. Soft iron will not be up for the rigors of such construction, while high tempered steel will be perfect.
In my campaigns I use a crafting system that relies more of the crafter than on materials or magical bonuses. there are several bonuses which apply to a given item: craftmanship bonus + material bonus + construction bonus + magical bonus.
- the craftman ship bonus is a measure of how well the item was made. It is determined by how much the crafter rolled over 111. Every 20 confers a +1 bonus. For every race there is a maximum that they can attain: Humans +5, Dwarves +7, Elves +9 and Noldor +12.
- the material bonus confers its bonus only if used properly and better materials are more difficult to craft, so it confers a hefty penalty when trying to craft difficult items (limiting the craftmanship bonus)
- construction bonus: laminating metals or wood, special tempering, adding spikes and other damage enhancements will confer a bonus, but also add difficulty to the crafting roll, so it is also a dual edged sword.
- magical bonus. If a blade is made of mithril, or above, it will count as magical and cannot be made more magical. For non magical items the enchantment brings only a +5 bonus. This bonus is nearly always magical guidance (or magical deflection in the case of armor), but the alchemist must still use the correct spell of bringing the item to that bonus: so a white alloy spiked chain (+20 nm) can be enhanced by an alchemist to (+25 m) by using Enchant metal V (or equivalent).
-
I think there is a lot of blurring of the line between bonus for materials and bonus for the skill of the craftsman.
-
I suspect that "Sharper" is not the key and sole element though, since say glass fractures to sharper edges than is possible for steel, but I'd still rather have a steel sword (unless the glass is laen).
-
Exactly. For that matter, a sword meant to be used against a metal armored opponent isn't supposed to be sharp, it's supposed to be brought to a rounded edge. The purpose isn't to try to physically penetrate the hard shell, it's to concentrate the shock transfer on as small an area as possible, in this case a line about 1mm or so wide. If the sword has any weight and speed to it at all, when you hit an unarmored spot it's going to cut anyway just by sheer mass.
The only place you get a noticeable advantage against metal armor by having a sharper sword is about the first 2 inches or so back from the point. Anywhere else, all "sharper" gets you is "easier to notch". Whether a sword is tip-heavy or pommel-heavy, or whether it springs back to true when flexed, makes a lot more difference than whether or not it's sharp does.
-
It was described to me as "Sharp like a butter knife". . .but even a butter knife will cut you if I full swing on you, much less a 4' butter knife.
-
Granted, if mere sharpening could make it where it would slice through plate, I could see it. But on the other hand, maybe not then either.
Lightsaberchuks... bad idea. ;D
-
I have to disagree with your insights:
Sharpness is a BIG factor. Even the most broad sword, used in the late 15th century in an attempt to pierce plate armor, was sharper than a razor blade (attested by blades found in rivers!) because blunt tools won't be as effective as sharper ones. The metal of the edge is the factor which determines the effectiveness of the edge but sharper is always better. In fact: a rounded edge will present more area up to 2-4 times as much as a really sharp edge, therefor diminishing the effect of the blow 2-4 times.
If you want to dent a plate armor, or bruise and break a maille wearer you get a better tool: a mace or a hammer. A sword was just a tool to slaughter peasants and although attempts were made to adept the sword to pierce plate armor they were not really successful. What they tried to do was circumvent the armor, trying to get in between the plates, where sharpness is also a factor, damaging the opponent eventhough you strike at an odd angle, or when all the momentum is gone by wriggling the blade through the gap.
Please refer to www.myarmoury.com (http://www.myarmoury.com) for more accurate information on these subjects.
Game On!
-
Lightsaberchuks... bad idea. ;D
But very high comedic value.
MDC
-
I think it's the cross sectional view of the edge. . .like a straight razor is nearly parabolic to a very fine blade, while an axe is a 30 degree wedge of metal. Both are sharp. (It is much easier to cut a tree up with a sharp axe or hatchet)
Blades used on armor would likely trend away from fine edges to wedge edges, which is not to say they wouldn't be sharp, but they wouldn't be sharp in the same way. . .and I can't really think of any actual real world blades that were formed like a razor or knife. (Think of the difference in formation between say a Machete and just about any sword, in cross section)
The late period (non Japanese) swords trended to point blades.
-
What they tried to do was circumvent the armor, trying to get in between the plates, where sharpness is also a factor, damaging the opponent eventhough you strike at an odd angle, or when all the momentum is gone by wriggling the blade through the gap.
Which is why sharpness is important near the tip. Other than that, a sword against a metal clad opponent is a mace with only 2 flanges. And yes, sharper is better when slaughtering unarmored peasants, but you have no guarantee that's all you'll face. That finely honed edge damages easily, a notch catches on things.
Even the most broad sword, used in the late 15th century in an attempt to pierce plate armor, was sharper than a razor blade (attested by blades found in rivers!)
After being scoured by the current for a few centuries, I'd expect so. From what I understand the hull plates on the Titanic are razor sharp for the same reason, but I bet most of them weren't the night of the collision.
-
Most warriors on the field didn't have full metal armor either, but having cut a tree down with a machete and an axe, the major problem I suspect is not metal, but bone. . .you spend a lot of time levering a machete free of the tree, the axe rarely gets lodged in the tree. . .even if you're not breaking your edge on things, you don't want to penetrate bone with a war blade, you want to break it or smash it or shear it, you don't want to cut into it then get stuck.
Edge or not is aside of the point. . . .late era bronze was harder, and held a sharper edge than early era iron (Low steel really, it's hard to actually manufacture actual pure iron), but it was more brittle than iron. . .not so much that the iron age warriors who dragged down the bronze age empires into the first dark ages could smash through bronze weapons or armor like they were fighting people in glass suits, but over the course of a battle the iron weapons would break less often, and over a campaign replacement was less of a problem.
In that instance, the bronze tech was harder and sharper, but the more dull low steel beat it out in terms of durability in use and relative maintenance levels. The "Iron age" weapons could take more of a beating and still work. Measurable durability improvement trumped measurable sharpness / hardness superiority.
-
After being scoured by the current for a few centuries, I'd expect so. From what I understand the hull plates on the Titanic are razor sharp for the same reason, but I bet most of them weren't the night of the collision.
The only reference I've found to sharp hull plates on Titanic is the actual impact damage, showing that the plates were made of bad iron and shattered like glass. The only other reference I can find on currents forming rocks and stuff is that they get more rounded, not sharper.
Being a carpenter, branching out in plenty of other crafts, I know that everything gets better if done with sharp tools, then if done with blunt tools. Every job I even sharpen my stone chisels that go on my Kango, even though I know its going to blunt down quickly, but I like the better handling and the speedier breakdown of the stone/ concrete in the beginning.
Weapons are nothing more than specialized tools for killing people. If your sword lasts only one or two fights, so be it. If your local smith makes the best steel in the region, so much the better. People can't be too picky and they have to roll with the punches. I've seen plenty of used blades and none of them have nicks or bent edges, even though they were used extensively on other blades and other armor in mock fights.
One reason for that is that armor is ideally made of spring type steel and not hardened to core, while a good edge is probably twice as hard as an outer layer of a plate and backed up by layers of softer, shock absorbing steel.
Another reason is technique: drawing your blow when you see its being intercepted, twisting the blade edge away from harm on intercepting the enemy's blade and trying to avoid the areas of armor and only strike on the exposed areas.
Lastly I have to agree with Marc R's explanation; but I have to add some information: Bronze was not a homogenous material that was made in a single quality. By varying the amount of copper and tin smelted together you could control the quality of the end product. Armor wouldn't be of the shattering hardness variety and weapons wouldn't be made from the bendy soft variety. Still steel came on top. One reason was that when it was discovered that you needed coal fire fueled with bellows to produce iron, it was a whole lot cheaper than using copper and tin. Especially tin was a scarce commodity in those days in Europe and the Middle East, while iron was very abundant everywhere.
Anyways: the micro mechanics of ancient and medieval weapons vs ancient and medieval armor has been a point of debate for a very long time, as are the techniques of defeating ancient and medieval armor with such weapons. I'd rather leave that to real scholars and use their research in my gaming.
-
Even the most broad sword, used in the late 15th century in an attempt to pierce plate armor, was sharper than a razor blade (attested by blades found in rivers!)
Could you please give references for you assertions.
-
To offer another example: I spend the extra cash for higher quality drill bits, not because they cut better, but because they last longer and don't break when I stress them.
-
A comment on Bronze; as a Chemist I remember my instructors taking about how hard it was to forge bronze all the time, getting the right amount of tin and copper was tough as they tended not to purify it thus various impurities. And as most people remember from any type of lab in school impurities cause lots of problems.
MDC
-
In the end, the tables overlap the lowest quality iron falls below the highest quality bronze. .but the higher end iron/steel alloys are better than bronze .which is as it should be.
But the point where iron overtakes bronze as a better material, was not purely on a hardness/sharpness scale. . .and I don't just mean "better" economically, I mean better for a given use.
Durability and flexibility affect use. . .if you apply too much pressure into a cheap drill bit, you flex it slightly, and the tension and torque snap it off, the same amount of pressure doesn't break the expensive drill bit.
That's not because the bit is sharper, or harder, it's because it's less brittle. . .and that variation can be as little as a percentage, or a partial percentage. . .you can push the better material just a bit harder for results, which would over-stress the weaker material and break the tool.
For example: with my low steel sword, I make a block that you, with your bronze blade, would never attempt, because it places too much stress on the blade and would damage your blade. . .I've learned that my sword can take that amount of stress. . .so I make the block.
That's what I meant in terms of material quality isn't just how sharp the blade is, and why it might make sense for material quality bonus of a weapon to be usable for DB.
-
As I've argued above: It is about hitting the sweet spot, both with mixing tin and copper and possibly other metal trace elements as with burning the metal just enough to burn off excess carbon in the steel. That was made a sword good, or that crafter the best one in the region, because he knew how to mix the alloys. And I'm talking bronze and iron here. THE main reason for using iron is imo the economic one: but later on it was discovered that iron had a lot more qualities, such as case hardening, partial hardening and annealling, that made it the better and cheaper material for your armoring needs.
as for references: go see www.myarmoury.com (http://www.myarmoury.com) and read their reference lists for that. I belief that it was a reference to Oakeshott's work.
-
IMHO, the crafting or quality bonus is the ability of the smith to mix and forge the right type of material. So in my game the material has a base value that is adjusted by the quality of the smith skill roll along with magic and other factor(s).
MDC
-
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.
-
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?
-
Unless you used it for DB, in which case it's not gone, it's just on the other column of the balance sheet.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I just treat it all as bonuses to the pre split OB, unless it specifically states otherwise.
-
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... ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
On that end, I can definitely say that when the game is epic, all bonuses stack.