Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Fullerton on May 02, 2008, 09:35:07 AM
-
As more fuel for the fire, other major game systems don't give penalties to ranged attacks for using armor. And in the most major of those, arrows do pretty equivalent amounts of damage to melee weapons *and* bows don't suffer from reload speed issues.
Yes, and in the major of those a dart from an x-bow could have problems in killing a rat...
I'm confused as to your point here. Are you saying a d20 system crossbow (1d8 or 1d10 damage) would have a hard time killing a rat (which has only 1 hit point)?
Penalties from armor to ranged attacks make sense IMHO: try to shot an arrow wearing steel bracers and see if they don't hinder your aim!
Cool! I'm glad you have a flavor reason to want that. (Because we were talking about balance reasons for it, not flavor reasons.)
-
It is a balance reason. . .essentially the system goes out of it's way to limit the defenses of people able to kill at range. . .
This makes it possible for a close combat character to survive into range to chop them.
The system is on the deadly end due to the crit system, so it's not a minor factor. As a comparrison, in AD&D one 10th level fighter with a Longsword facing ten 1st level fighters with loaded and aimed light crossbows is probably in a position where the smartest thing to do is charge, suck the damage, and hack them up before they can re-load. . .RM would make that a very ill advised choice.
At 1st level, 35 OBs, Armor makes a key element here. . .if the archers are in heavy armor, they will loose all OB and miss, if the target is in heavy armor, they may not take any criticals.
Flavor is why, but balance is why there's not "Melee OB penalty" (Despite the fact that logic would say that fencing in AT20 has to be harder than fencing in street clothes.). . .IMO the system is balance skewed against common sense to favor armored melee over missiles, to prevent the game from becoming one where all fights take place at long range. (Getting antagonists into melee range enhances drama, and allows for speaking. Sniping can be exciting, but it places distance from all encounters, which often leads to a mechanical/tactical game.)
Consider how boring a western would be if the hero killed everyone at 500' with a rifle. . .flavor and balance are hoplessly mixed up, because systems are balanced to provide a certain flavor. . ."Balance" in any complex system consists of a multitude of unbalanced elements that in aggregate balance each other. The choices you make in each individual element build to create the flavor of the game, but in the overall they are all balanced against each other. . .it's rather hard to discuss rules flavor without talking about balance, or vice versa, because in many ways they end up being the same things, just looked at in different ways.
-
LM,
Do you remeber the old rules for D&D; if a fighter is attacking a target with less that 1HD they get a number of attacks equle to their level. So in you case above having a bunch of 1HD vs a bung of >1HD is a big deal.
MDC
-
I lost my first RM character to two crossbow weilding city guardsmen on the battlement over a gate to town. . .I was fleeing town on my horse. . .
In my previous AD&D life, that meant less than 20 HP damage at the worst . . . .I could live with that. . .heck, I could ignore that.
I ended up bleeding out on the ground after I fell off my horse.
My instincts were tuned to a different reality. . .the more heroic flavor of AD&D. . and I died. . .
And yeah, I remember the days of sweep attacks, clearing out a whole cave full of kobolds or goblins with a couple of mid level fighters. "Save the fireball for the bugbears!".
In my experience, a 10th level RM fighter vs 10 1st level fighters is rather risky, even a plate clad fighter vs leather clad archers with daggers. I recall that being a fairly casual fight in my AD&D days. . .when you ran up on people where your minimum rolled damage + magic sword bonus + strength bonus exceeded their HP, it was almost as good as sweeping kobolds.
I fear we've both gone utterly off topic, and branched. . .should really open new threads so the title and the content match.
-
I'm confused as to your point here. Are you saying a d20 system crossbow (1d8 or 1d10 damage) would have a hard time killing a rat (which has only 1 hit point)?
1hp is the suggested average hp, but a rat has 1/4 d8 hps, which means that it can have up to 2 hps... and survive a bolt from a xbow... ;)
-
Well, I has a squirrel once survive a blast from my shotgun. Hit him broadside with a birdshot load and send him tumbling about 15 feet. Little bugger jumped up and scooted into the brush and up a tree. I watched it in the trees and could see the blood on its side. It was very much alive let me tell you. I felt very bad, so I loaed a buchshot round and blew it away...litterally almost in half. I felt pretty bad to waste a squirrel like that for no good reason, and I never hunted them again, but it sure did surprise me to see it survive that broadside.
My thinking is rats and squirrels are about the same. It is also one of my experiences that makes me dislike ALL hit point systems, even RM. All damage should be determined by the critical with a new mechanic for being knocked out or down (and yes, I have a couple of ideas ;) ).
lynn
-
I think we are diverging from the original thread and may be we should open a new one, but I answer here nontheless.
What are those ideas ? I admit to like combat in RPG and ICE crit system suits me well. I think that you can already use it without HP, leaving a gap when it comes to determine when you go down. Maybe you can rule that when you take more penalties than your constitution, you are unconscious ?
Something like that may be OK ?
Sum up
1. Each penalty /10
2. Each hit / round
3. Each round of stun
If the sum is over 5+CO bonus, you pass out ?
I just came up with that and have not give it a long thought. Is it something like that you have in mind yamma ?
-
I tried to sever this thread out of the other thread, I think I got enough posts to make sense. I was trying not to cut any of the posts that were mixed between this topic and the original topic.
Fidoric.
I wonder if all possible penalties should be grouped, including all you gave but also % of exhaustion and % of PP cast.
-
Why not. I can't say if 5+CO bonus is Ok but I imagine that we can take any penalty into account without altering the balance if we increase the threshold to pass out (10+CO...).
What I find interesting in this idea is the restraint it can induce. The more exhausted or the most power-deplete you get, the more susceptible to faint...
-
5 plus con bonus would be too low for anyone if you include stuns and bleeds into the calculation. you should make it higher maybe to a mininum of 15 or 20. Also fighting men should have a higher number than the average person.
Come to think of it most of the ideas I have goes back to HP just in different form.
-
RMX/C don't have stunned Maneuver, the skill that fits this concept best, why not use Body Development, since you're making it an irrelevant skill if you drop hits from use? Give it a standard bonus progression, and make it something akin to a "RR to remain concious".
-
That's a good idea LM.
That way it could also be used as a RR to avoid being knocked out by a strike on the head. Something like a RR between the attack and the Body Develpopment bonus.
-
I think the original coment about "could have trouble killing a rat" was ment in terms of could roll a 1 for damage.
-
Well, I has a squirrel once survive a blast from my shotgun. Hit him broadside with a birdshot load and send him tumbling about 15 feet. Little bugger jumped up and scooted into the brush and up a tree. I watched it in the trees and could see the blood on its side. It was very much alive let me tell you. I felt very bad, so I loaed a buchshot round and blew it away...litterally almost in half. I felt pretty bad to waste a squirrel like that for no good reason, and I never hunted them again, but it sure did surprise me to see it survive that broadside.
My thinking is rats and squirrels are about the same. It is also one of my experiences that makes me dislike ALL hit point systems, even RM. All damage should be determined by the critical with a new mechanic for being knocked out or down (and yes, I have a couple of ideas ;) ).
lynn
Side Bar,
Yamma,
I think what you experienced was a US Army field test with a minimal amount of funding.
End Side Bar
MDC
-
Very funny markc.
My ideas wrap around stun results. If stunned, roll 1d10 + rnds of stun. If result is higher than Co mod (+ ???), target passes out. Roll 2d10 for stun no parry results.
I would like to see a simular rule for knock down results. Many crits should be able to knock a person down without it being in the color text.
Stun mnv skill as it exist bothers me. I would like to see the skill changed so a successful mnv allows for attacks to be made at -50 (or -75 for Stun No Parry). The penalties should apply in full, but successful skill check allows action. This makes the skill useful without overpowering it.
Initially my thoughts on the stun/knockout roll were develloped for a rule handling knockdown in combat. Anyway, i have not had any chance to play test these, but it changes the entire context of spells that cause stun.
Basically, I think some rules along this line have a couple of advantages. One, it could streamline Arms law and make it far less intimidating in appearance. Second, I find hits SO artificial that a good no hit point combat system could improve play. Hit points are the height of romance and do not fit well in a game that prides itself on being more realistic than not.
lynn
-
I had a idea for a system that had Not actual over all Hit points, But instead had "Structural points" by body location (the amount of damage an area could take before being severed/destroyed. Also had "blood Points" For bleeding results. so basicaly hit points were replaced by structural and Bleed points.
-
the crits themselves often just flat damage, sever or destroy locations. . .what you seem to be saying is a hit points by location system, like the one used in the GDW system (T2k, DC, etc):
Stats are 1-10, IIRC it was:
Head = con x2
limbs = con + st
Chest = Con+ST x 2
abdomen = con+st
I might be off on that, it's been a really long time, but that kind of basic logic. . .your stats determine your body's ability to take damage by location. . .which is a hit points by location system with an aimed shots/hit location mechanic.
That would seem to complicate things. . .as is a "Hit breaks bone in upper arm, limb useless" result would still just short cut the logic.
-
It might save for the fact that a Hit by location system and a Generic crit table Like the Strategic targeting system in Greylaw and arm companion of RM2 reduces the number of crit charts needed to only 1.
-
But I like lots of crit tables. Damage resolution is not RM's problem. When people talk about chart master, they mostly refer to the complicated and alwful bookish appearance of the attck tables. Face it, the look to be serious tabulation tables. This is one reason ICE went to the condensed attck tables with listings in groups of three instead of 40-150 individual results.
RM is a great game, but it has stayed to anal for mass appeal. I know this sounds snooty, but look around these boards. This is NOT you average group of gamers OR geeks. There are some very bright people here, who do mind a little complication because it is not very complicated in their opinion. Any more than THACO was, for that matter.
lynn
-
I beleive , Yamma, you are now talking about those gamers that a lot of us would not include in a session anyway. ;D
-
I beleive , Yamma, you are now talking about those gamers that a lot of us would not include in a session anyway. ;D
But from the business end of the game, that is the point. Investors care little for the purity of a game, but the marketing value of it.
lynn
-
I tend to think most of the people haunting this forum tend to be gamemasters. I have only gotten to be a player once, and was not really satisfied with the GM. I think as a general rule GM's tend to be big into detail and depth. Depth generally means complexity, if not in the core rules then in the house rules.
I envisioned for my campaign a hit location table of the 30 locations front and back. Then there would be specific ABCDE, puncture, krush etc crits specific to the location. Doing the math comes up with many pages, but it would still only be looking results up on two tables.
-
30 locations?
-
30 locations?
That's exactly what I said when I've read croakerdogboy post! ;D
Seriously, isn't that a little too much detail?
-
30 locations is a lot yes, but I think that would create pretty amazing combat results. I love characterization, and I have found that one of the quickest ways for someone to really warm up to their character is to hack on them a little bit.
In the Aftermath campaign I was running, one of the guys made a very stupid mistake, got captured, and he lost both of his ears to some post apocalyptic cannibals. The woman added them to her trophy necklace. She survived the bloody rescue attempt, and then showed up several months later as patron of a tavern the PC's went to. Entertainment ensued.
The point is that he was really attached to his earless guy after that, and it added to and fleshed out his personality. The current RMSS crit tables are great, but barring magic or modern medical help, they are also very destructive to the character. I tried once to find a single table that would allow the character to lose an eye, but survive the fight. I couldn't find it. So much for any potential pirates.
I tend to run low magic campaigns as a matter of choice. I like magic, but I have always felt in high magic campaigns after fifth level you are either a spell user or a supporting cast member. A lot of complexity is spent on magic in Rolemaster. If you subtract that, then 30 hit locations and crits adds more to the natural combat for me.
But then I am a computer programmer. So I could spend a week and write the software to allow me to either hit a button or input the rolls and get the result pretty quick.
-
My current PC, a mage has lost an eye.
And in a RQ game "I" lost an arm along with another PC.
The GM wanted the other player to go on with his character, because he had an impact in his story line. But the player wanted a new character. I played my one-arm character once or twice (main problem was my character had only POW 3 after devine intervention), but the GM didn't take much attention.
It is the same with my one-eyed mage, it didn't have any impact - yet.
-
I beleive , Yamma, you are now talking about those gamers that a lot of us would not include in a session anyway. ;D
Oh but those players can be educated :)
I have taught a lot of people RM over the years and most of them have been surprised over how simple the system really is, compared to how it looks like when you look at the attack tables and skill lists.
-
I don't want condensed combat system, pleeease, noooo :cry1:, I like the original system. I think original idea is good (and simple, I think), i.e. attack table + crit table (+ some improvisation according to circumstances interpreting the crits). Oddly some of those new condensed systems seems to me more complex.
I want lots of attack and crits tables, it's one of the things that I love in RM. :D
-
I'm serious, what are the 30 locations?
-
Locations are
1 - Top of Head
2 - Face
3 - Neck
4 - Left Shoulder
5 - Right Shoulder
6 - Left Pect
7 - Right Pect
8 - Left Lower Rib Cage
9 - Right Lower Rib Cage
10 - Left Lower Abdomen
11 - Right Lower Abdomen
12 - Groin
13 - Left Hip
14 - Right Hip
15 - Left Thigh
16 - Right Thigh
17 - Left Knee
18 - Right Knee
19 - Left Shin
20 - Right Shin
21 - Left Foot
22 - Right Foot
23 - Left Bicep
24 - Right Bicep
25 - Left Elbow
26 - Right Elbow
27 - Left Forearm
28 - Right Forearm
29 - Left Hand
30 - Right Hand
-
I've been thinking a lot lately about hit location, so I find this an interesting list. I think a standardized set of locations is very useful.
I think you could easily cull 13 of those, the R/L distinctions, if anything a complication. You'd need to fiddle a location determination based on facing. . .a left flank attack will usually, but not always hit left locations, rather than right.
Similarly the Pec/Ribs/Abdomen distinction might be best described as "Upper Torso", "Mid Torso" and "Lower Torso" so that the location list is also equally aplicable front/back.
I think trusting the GM to deal a bit with the probabilities/flavor of which side or facing is hit would be preferable to needing 8 hit location tables based on angle of attack (including "From Above" and "From Below" as well as the 6 standard hex facings.)
I don't have the CC handy. . .anyone have it handy, in terms of what the Armor By the Piece locations were?
-
AbtP Locations are
Head
Neck
Shoulders
Arms
Hands
Torso
Abdomen
Groin
Legs
Feet
-
That's almost exactly the simplified list I end up with too. . .and the variations are not really signifigant.
Only problems I can think of involve things like:
a Breastplate (Front no Back),
Those fencing armors that cover one shoulder/side/arm/hand and leave the other exposed, used in side on fighting styles.
Or
an Open faced helmet, where a center shot from the back or sides is helmet, but from in front is face.
Though the GM's call can be used there, it might create problems.
-
That's why I was going with the extra locations. To cover armor variations that may be a little off on one side or the other.
That and to cover the extra crit possibilities for internal and external damage. i.e. Kidney shot, off hand or weapon hand damage. Off foot for martial arts etc.
If you use stance based upon weapon used I think that will clear up the hit location tables considerably. It would require a little more research into the most commonly used stances for each weapon type, but I don't have a problem with that.
-
Funny thing:
I was thinking of a location system but only with 4 location (without R/L distinction) !
Only 4 ? Yes:
Head Area
Upper Left Upper right
Lower left lower right
Abdomen, Legs
The exact hit area and effect is determeined by the Crit roll,
because they should have the lethal chances.
Arm Crits are possible in Head, Upper and Lower areas.
-
Is'ent that 5 areas
head
upper
lower
abd
legs
or 3 areas
head
abd
legs
MDC
-
I think that the exact location is not really important in game terms. What's important is only the effect of the blow and if the hitten area is protected by armor or not, the rest is just flavor.
Why does a player (or the GM) want to try to hit a specific location instead of attacking normally?
Because he wants to hit a non-protected area or obtain a special effect.
So what we need it's only a mechanic to handle blows to non-protected areas. Special effects can IMHO be handled by existing mechanics, like using a special critical tables (subdual) or manuevers (disarm, feint,...).
-
I understand where you are coming from with the location armored or unarmored being necessary. But I long for more detail in my flavor charts. That is why I am taking the approach I do. I realize there is a happy medium and I am more on one end then the other, but I even like to track armor damage. For a while I have been working on techniques for shield material strength and passive damage done to shields rather then the broad "Shield Destroyed" crit. So if I am concerned about a shield being hacked up and it's affect on combat, I most certainly am going to be concerned about someone getting a hacked off thumb. I realize the descriptions are called flavor text, but since most of the real world visual and long term damage come from the flavor text it seems pretty important.
-
Is'ent that 5 areas
No abdomen and leg is one area. So I have "Head and Arms", "Chest and Arms", "Hip and Hands/Arms", "Abdomen and (upper) Legs". (With overlapping - see below)
Now I repeat something from my third post:
In RM the GM has often to interpret and change the critical result to fit the combat sequel, so a less detailed system is better -
it allowes interpretation and the flexibility for a dynamic moving enemy.
I build this resolution long time ago, but I had never the players to test it:
(http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic?id=3b80lJfXRpk7n29Fs3hd2Qh6DzNxfDRi850Av4xQp5Fd3Ig=&size=l)
The location 4 is part of 2, 3 and 5. *
This results in an approximation of the strike location, combine it with the crit-result (stun to death) and give the players an interpretation: "slashes your rigth side", bleeding, stuns etc. "neck breck" "stab your stomach"
I believe strikes to feets are not so common, therefore 5 expand to 5a seldom, "on demand", against riders or for dwarvish attackers.
if the attackers go for upper hits you can also interpret a 10 to be located at the head (and vice versa). This kind of change may also be, if you are horsed or fighting a hobbit, or hobbit a standing man etc.
As you can see, the arms are displayed twice to take the arm protection for the head into account.
So if the combatant archives a headstrike but a weak result on the critical table: The arm (shield) blocked the swing; but the arm (shield) may still hit the head because of the momentum.
In every location are strike points which may have deadly results (high crit-rolls).
With other than puncture or slash crits, there may be a problem with "instant dead"-result in the lower locations.
But the GM can adjust it (either longterm dying with the possibility to heal the injured or relocate the hit to the upper locations)
Some other examples:
Interpret the 5-location with a high crit-roll as a very private hit, with long time knock-down but without high damage (although that guy wants to die instantly)
Or imagine a arrow strike to your arm which pins your hand to your body.
___
* I recognize that it might be better to make the "10" on the d10 the head hit.
-
I am also constantly encouter that the crits are written for humaniod combatants and as a GM again I have to adjust them to the opponet. A good hit location system has to be general enough and the monster description of combat good enough to provide easy GM knowlege of hw it attacks and what areas are vunrable to attacks from what direction and type of attack.
MDC
-
This does remind me of One problem RMs combat/crit system has a hard time justifying/simulating correctly.
Mounted Combat. Being mounted is supposed to give you an advantage over your opponent. I will have to do some looking again to see if you actually gain any OB bonuses for being mounted against an Unmounted opponent, but the Crits don't change. A guy on a mount just should NOT be able to Hit a Guy very often or easily in the Lower legs to feet areas, but should More often hit the Upper body area/Shoulders and head region. But this is not reflected/modified/adjusted by the skill or the rules for mounted combat at all.
-
Yes, but the flavor text should be adjusted by the GM.
For Hit Location RQ show how to handle it: Add a value (or subtract it) to reflect the higher change to hit high or low.
As for a bonus:
Is it true that a rider get a bonus like more damage, easier to hit ?
The same is with the rules for someone on higher ground. I like the RM approach to it: It doesn't state anything, only "to be determined by the GM".
In RQ2 the attacker (on higher ground) got a plain bonus; and they gave IMO a ridiculous example of some persons fleeing from town guards climbing on a wagon (to get that bonus). :P
Would a person get in reality a bonus to OB on a horse or on a table
or
do we all believe it, because we seen it on TV ("Zorro", "Dshingis Kahn" etc) ? ? ?
__
BTW RM2 gives rider a bonus for their speed ...
-
I understand where you are coming from with the location armored or unarmored being necessary. But I long for more detail in my flavor charts.
Yes, I understand, that's why we like RM critical charts, after all: flavor text. ;D
-
Remember that now RM (revised in RMSS/RMFRP) is not only OB vs OB in combat, you can develop combat styles that allow you to increase the shield bonus and cover against attacks no-front (I allow it with the 'reverse strike' skill too), so a high level character needs to develop more than a simple OB skill if it wants to be really a good fighter.
But with the appropiate skills, there is big difference between low-lvl and high-lvl characters.
RM crits. are the best combat rule I have ever seen in a RPG, it is realistic that a high level character can be dead by an unfortunate hit. Is in real life a character immune to dead only by its high experience?.
In HP only based combats (as D&D) it is absolutely impossible that a character dies until certain number of attacks, and this is equal to dead immunity.
-
Would a person get in reality a bonus to OB on a horse or on a table
or
do we all believe it, because we seen it on TV
No it isn't "just from TV", it is a Tactical fact, which is Why Mounted cavalry were so popular in certain cultures. A Mounted combatant had an advantage over an unmounted Opponent. It's Show in TV (even if it might be more exaggerated) becuase it is a reality. This is also Why Generals would seek to have there troops positioned on Higher ground. It always sucked to be the Guys who "Didn't" get to pick the terrain. it had more effect on the Missile than the melee, but even in melee it was of importance for several factors.
#1 the enemy had to Come up hill at you thus tiring them out more.
#2 Less likely to hit you in a vital area becuase they are lower,
#3 if using shields, especially Body/Tower/Full shields (what ever you want to call them) it became easier to keep the opponent away from you when they are lower down.
#4 you ability to hit them in the head or chest became easier as they can't jump over or dodge as easily.
#5 even if they are using a shield, they are more exposed. keeping the shield at normal level, their heads are more easily exposed. raising the shield to protect the head Tired the opponent out more (try holding a bicycle Tire, spokes and rim, over your head and Swing a broom at the same time) Plus By moving it higher you exposed yourself in the lower regions.
#6 It's much easier to dodge a blow aimed at your legs (legs being one of the most nimble parts of the body) by side stepping or jumping, than it is to your mid section.
#7 Much easier to knock a guy down if your up higher than he is. On a hill, pushing you opponent back with your shield often results in them tumbling downwards, In the other Direction, it is harder to keep you balance on while trying to attack a guy higher up the hill than you.
I could go on. But I think that should be enough to explain WHY being on higher ground is an advantage.
-
I don't doubt an advantages for higher ground in a skirmish (or more).
Running up a hill causes exhaution, thrown weapons downhill will have more momentum.
There is also an advantage for cavalery.
But for a fight one-on-one ?
I believe there are also advantages for fighter on lower ground.
I don't have that fighting experience (unfortunately ? ), but I would prefer the stance on the floor above the stance on the table ...
___
BTW shield fighting means to move it around ...
-
oh I do understand shield fighting involves moving it around, But the size determines how much it is moved around and how much more that exhausts you. Your going to move a full shield alot less than a normal or small shield, but the trade off is area covered and protected.
-
I beleive, in the overall, that horses in combat represented a major benefit. . .the typical movie or book response to a charging person on horseback is to jump to the side and strike in passing. . .which doesn't actually work in real life unless facing a dufus. It's expected, intended for you to try and break, and all mounted style combats vs loose formations were built around beating that move. . .which is the #2 reason why cavelry dominated in it's time. . .The way to beat cavelry is to stand your ground and stick it to the horse, which also happens to be suicide if you don't have a well seated long spear. (Almost no horse will actually charge onto spears, they did it only when the press behind shoved them on, they are smarter than us that way.). . .the only really effective 1 on 1 tactic on foot on open ground vs a mounted opponant is to shoot them off their horse. Terror of something big with a nasty person on it running you down made cavelry a tactical weapon.
As to the #1 reason. . .mobility of encumberence. . .highly trained and hardened infantry can march horses into the ground over the long haul, but in the pre-industrial world, generally the lowest level feudal rular ruled "Everything within a day of his house" . . .and a horse makes for a rather larger manor property than foot based land grabbage. It's the ability to control large areas, or to move troops to where you need them that made cavelry a strategic weapon.
In RM game terms, let the horse spend activity moving, while the rider spends activity attacking, and don't skimp on the large bash/trample attack, which is a tactical nasty. . . .while moving your arse, your armor and all your loot from place to place make them a strategic boon beaten only by mass Teleportation.
As to the on topic, I've never had much problem with just moving that mounted sabre cut from foot to hand, or from leg to arm. (Or from head to abdomen on the rider being attacked by the footman.)