Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: giulio.trimarco on January 29, 2009, 05:47:00 AM
-
I think they are the some problems that you read frequently in the forum.
They are principal about combat and spell casting.
Character generation/advancement is very good, perhaps a bit slow. I'd like to see some official options to remove XP and levels.
Removing profession bonuses. I think that skill costs is already accounting more expertise.
About combat:
Fumble not tied to competence of combatatns.
Critics are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)
Too simple to kill very impressive monster, doing super-roll.
No locational damage.
No dodge.
No shield skill, only a flat bonus.
RMC presents rules for breakage insanely complex (how do they worked out them... ::))
No defense roll. Instead of putting a bonus in defense I'd like an active defense. This way combat is more dynamic (a double fumble!!!! :D)
Weapons table are diverse but similar. Doing an "E" critical to a naked warrior with a dagger is the some sa doing an "E" critical with a Great Lance at full gallop wiht a Heavy Barded, Heavy War Horse :-[. Difference is hits, but not too much. This change, a little, with higher AT20, but depends on the weapons.
Etc.
-
Yep, there are some valid criticisms there, not 'game breakers' but areas that could be looked at, certainly.
-
Criticals are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)
Combat Companion seems to reduce this issue.
No dodge.
Dodge and/or parry are inherently part of the system that is what using part of OB as DB is IMO
No defense roll.
At least for RM I prefer not having an active defense roll as it slows down combat and RM combat is already slow enough. YMMV
-
Well, I don't completely agree.
To a little extent CC mitigate the issue. But the problem is still there. An A critical is light wound, that can degenerate in a serious wound.
If you don't have a weapon with wich you have expertise, you can't "parry/dodge". If you do you are using another manoeuvre completly, taking all the round.
If you have a shield and no weapon you can't improve you parry/dodge.
Rolling defense will not slow down combat if you reorganize the numbers of tables and how you use them.
There are some mechanics that can speed up play and give more dinamism.
In addition RM takes into account facing (rear/flank), instead of using some semplification.
Since the combat round is 10 seconds, talking of facing is a little odd.
Instead you should apply your defense for the entirety of the round and, for every attack over the first, scaling the DB of an X factor.
More speed and semplicity and make sense too, since in 10 seconds who knows where you're facing?
-
giulio: I completely understand where you're coming from regarding crits. However, I've found that (especially when playing with the same group for a long time) randomness is often your friend. I understand that it doesn't seem to make much sense for an "A" crit to lop off someone's head while an "E" crit does +2 hits. But if you take away too much randomness, combat becomes too predictable and ends up as little more than an exercise in basic math. My players like the idea that any critical is potentially devastating. If it's really a problem for your group, remove the "Auto-kill" results from the "A" and "B" crit charts and replace them with severe bleeding instead.
jolt
-
Eehe,
no, I don't believe it's a randomness problem.
It's a table problem. Since there are too much results for every critical, they don't know what to put in them.
Randomness is good, but after years (6 or more) reading the some tables, that's no more randomness, it's a table readed for years.
And the 66... I hate that 66.
What's the meaning of putting a 66 that's a killer? Randomness?
But that's another story.
And the Large and SuperLarge Tables?
Boys, more than half the results are only a way or another of saying: it's dead. :'(
And the magic fumble?
Only the last 4 results gives something to worry about. You must roll 96+96+100 to be in some type of danger...
You loose three minutes to roll a near meaningless fumble.
Call it randomness...
Sorry for the rant. It's wasn't meant to be.
-
[modbreak]
I decided to split the topic because it didn't actually have anything to do with RMC vs RMFRP (i.e. a comparison of the two versions of the Rolemaster system), and was more about various issues that giulio has with Rolemaster (both versions, apparently).
Those issues are a proper subject for discussion (no system is perfect), and should have their own topic.
Please continue on.... ;D
[/modbreak]
-
I'd like to see some official options to remove XP and levels.
Please not. I belong to those that would rather keep both. And with the goal based XPs from RMX the handling is now far easier than for older RM versions.
Removing profession bonuses. I think that skill costs is already accounting more expertise.
Please keep them, they give a distinction between different profession even at early levels.
Fumble not tied to competence of combatatns.
Correct, perhaps this could be improved. No big deal OTOH.
Critics are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)
Too simple to kill very impressive monster, doing super-roll.
The criticals in this way are something which is very special for RM and in contrast to you I think it is a good thing. I agree that having a PC killed by an unlucky roll easily is a bad thing. Therefore I would vote for having a rule like the Fate Point rule from Channeling Companion being a core rule rather than something optional from a companion book. But being able to have a lucky roll and to kill a superior opponent is something that I very much like about RM (even if it happened very seldom that one of my characters actually had such a lucky roll against a vastly superior enemy ;)).
No locational damage.
Many people indeed mention this. Personally I never missed this.
No dodge.
Perhaps you can take a look at HARP Lite which includes such a rule. I think that rule could (and perhaps should) be adapted for RM.
No shield skill, only a flat bonus.
On the one hand I agree that the handling of a shield is probably something that needs to be learned and therefore a skill should exist. OTOH we already have quite a long list of skills, so I am a bit unsure whether a shield skill should really be added.
RMC presents rules for breakage insanely complex (how do they worked out them... ::))
I suggest to make these optional if they not already are. Simply don't use the parts you don't like and that can easily be left out. Breakage rules are such rules.
No defense roll. Instead of putting a bonus in defense I'd like an active defense. This way combat is more dynamic (a double fumble!!!! :D)
From a statistical POV it does not change the average outcome of combat a single bit. So it's simply an unneccessary roll. And you still can have a double fumble if both combatants fumble their attack rolls.
Weapons table are diverse but similar. Doing an "E" critical to a naked warrior with a dagger is the some sa doing an "E" critical with a Great Lance at full gallop wiht a Heavy Barded, Heavy War Horse :-[. Difference is hits, but not too much. This change, a little, with higher AT20, but depends on the weapons.
The lance does almost three times as many hits as the dagger against AT1 and more than eight times as many concussion hits against AT20. So the difference in hit points is considerable, not even taking into account that from a full gallop the result on the lance attack table will likely be higher than the dagger attack done from a footman, due to the OB bonus from the horse's speed. It is true that the critical is the same for low armor types (for AT20 the dagger can't even reach a D or E critical), but when it's your PC the lance attack is done against, then your probably glad that this lance attack does not mean certain death but that it has the same (relatively low) chance of killing the PC as the attack from the dagger. So in general I think the tables are OK.
-
In addition RM takes into account facing (rear/flank), instead of using some semplification.
Since the combat round is 10 seconds, talking of facing is a little odd.
Instead you should apply your defense for the entirety of the round and, for every attack over the first, scaling the DB of an X factor.
More speed and semplicity and make sense too, since in 10 seconds who knows where you're facing?
Perhaps your suggestion would also work, but I think that it is the current handling, with a simple +15/+35 being added to the roll, which is more simple.
-
And the 66... I hate that 66.
What's the meaning of putting a 66 that's a killer? Randomness?
The 66 ensures that Ambush has a significantly higher chance of delivering a killing blow. With the 66 in the tables a 10th level assassin with 20 ranks of Ambush has a 55% chance of killing his opponent if he delivers a C-critical or higher. Without the 66 the chance would be only 30% for a C-critical - only a bit more than half the chance. So it has it's merits. And is there really a problem with the 66?
And the Large and SuperLarge Tables?
Boys, more than half the results are only a way or another of saying: it's dead. :'(
Huh, unless you have a holy or slaying weapon most results that you will achieve say you did only a bunch of concussion hits. Yes, if you have a very good weapon and we talk about "only" a large creature, then results of 96 until the end of the table will probably deliver a killing blow. But that's on an open-ended roll! And for super-large creatures you can IIRC not achieve a killing blow with a normal weapon at all unless you have one of those special 96-100 results.
Sorry for the rant. It's wasn't meant to be.
But I must say it very much sounds like it :(. Much of what you wrote, at least in your last two postings, is not really a general problem of the RM system but appears to be something which you don't like and which you are ranting about here. Perhaps it would be better to discuss individual parts of these problems in separate threads, possibly giving a suggestion how to improve the system and gathering input for ideas. Collecting a bunch of perceived problems in a single thread creates a high likelyhood of drifting off into ranting...
Just my 2 cents
-
Fumble not tied to competence of combatatns.
What would you call the skill Swashbuckling that can be used to recover from fumbles? A experience fighter who ignore this skill has only himself to blame IMHO. He simply did not spend any effort on improving his ability to counter fumbles.
Critics are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)
I would say this randomness is rather essential to making a believable combat system. Without you randomness you end with "high level characters can ignore attacks from low level ones". Being able to kill superior enemies with enough luck is IMHO a very good feature of the game.
Too simple to kill very impressive monster, doing super-roll.
Errh...have you missed that these criticals are open ended?
Consider a super large creature and a normal weapon. The only way to get a killing strike is if the first roll is 96-97 and the second roll small enough to make the final result be 97-98. This is ignoring that the super large creature will absorb low criticals and that they might have the ability to ignore stuns, bleeding penalties and similar. I can't see how this can be seen as easy by any stretch of definition.
For large criticals you "only" need a open ended roll and then have 50% chance of slaying the creature...that is a killing hit on about every 40 critical you inflict. Not that every hit will give a critical due to the large creatures crit negation. Maybe you have a point on very weak large criticals, like trolls for instance, that lack the concussion hits to really withstand large criticals...but I can't see these described as very impressive monsters.
No locational damage.
I assume that you mean called shots...I agree you have a point there. Quite many consider this to be fault of the system. Myself I don't mind since called shots on weak spots would balance with called parry on the same weak spots.
No dodge.
Errrh...dodging is very possible by allocating OB to DB. Is it that there is no roll involved that is your problem?
No shield skill, only a flat bonus.
I don't get the gain really, but it is trivial to add a shield skill that let you add your number of ranks to your DB.
RMC presents rules for breakage insanely complex (how do they worked out them... ::))
I agree that the breakage rules are rather hopeless...the same can be said about most gaming systems. Is it in warhammer when all characters carry tons of weapons since the weapons break all the time?
No defense roll. Instead of putting a bonus in defense I'd like an active defense. This way combat is more dynamic (a double fumble!!!! :D)
You mean double fumble in that the attacker fumble his attack but still manage to hit his enemy because the enemy fumble and steps into the attack?
Personally I don't loose any sleep about the lack of such double fumbles...what IMHO matters at the end of the day is the effective to-hit-chance and the to-kill-chance. Yet I can understand that people might like rolling dices even while it makes it much harder to get a to-hit-chances and the to-kill-chances that scale well.
Weapons table are diverse but similar. Doing an "E" critical to a naked warrior with a dagger is the some sa doing an "E" critical with a Great Lance at full gallop wiht a Heavy Barded, Heavy War Horse :-[. Difference is hits, but not too much. This change, a little, with higher AT20, but depends on the weapons.
I think most players would care a lot about taking 18 hits or taking 50 hits. Taking puncture criticals is also in general much worse than slash criticals. On the other hand I do agree that your observation is correct even though it is not a game breaker for me.
-
Sorry for the rant. It's wasn't meant to be.
But I must say it very much sounds like it :(. Much of what you wrote, at least in your last two postings, is not really a general problem of the RM system but appears to be something which you don't like and which you are ranting about here. Perhaps it would be better to discuss individual parts of these problems in separate threads, possibly giving a suggestion how to improve the system and gathering input for ideas. Collecting a bunch of perceived problems in a single thread creates a high likelyhood of drifting off into ranting...
Just my 2 cents
Agreed.
-
Well, I don't completely agree.
To a little extent CC mitigate the issue. But the problem is still there. An A critical is light wound, that can degenerate in a serious wound.
If you don't have a weapon with wich you have expertise, you can't "parry/dodge". If you do you are using another manoeuvre completly, taking all the round.
If you have a shield and no weapon you can't improve you parry/dodge.
Rolling defense will not slow down combat if you reorganize the numbers of tables and how you use them.
There are some mechanics that can speed up play and give more dinamism.
In addition RM takes into account facing (rear/flank), instead of using some semplification.
Since the combat round is 10 seconds, talking of facing is a little odd.
Instead you should apply your defense for the entirety of the round and, for every attack over the first, scaling the DB of an X factor.
More speed and semplicity and make sense too, since in 10 seconds who knows where you're facing?
I tend to play RM because of the things you mention you do not like.
1) A Defense roll will slow down combat by a lot if the GM has ro roll for each of his 15-30 combatents as well as the players rolling.
2) The Crit Type: IMO the crit letter is showing how good of a chance you have to inflict a lot more damage or strike a vital area. So an A only gives you a small chance to strike a vital area and an E means you have lots of options to strike a vital area during the round.
3) The facing: Since you said you like wargames I am supprised you do not like the facing rule.
4) Parry with weapon: In this case it is a little easier to parry with a weapon if you use the Combat Companion with RM2/C or RMSS. I also think it is a valid point that if you do not know how to use a weapon you will not use it effectivly in combat.
5) Shield: There have been a few people that like the idea of a shield skill or use the MAC or CC to have a combat style that increases a shields DB in combat.
6) Numbers: On the weapon charts there are some special numbers that have always been in the game. They are 01, 66, 100 and that is just the way it is. If you do not like one or another just change it. If I were to guess why the 66 was in there it would be that plaing the result higher in the chart might require a reroll or a roll up and would not produce the same effect. This way even if you do not roll up you know that generally a vary potent crit if your crit result is reduced by some monster special ability.
MDC
-
Critics are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)
Imho this is the only real problem in you list, the others are just very minor issues, mostly personal preferences that aren't really related to problems in the game structure.
You don't like those things, but even changing them you'll add nothing or very little to the game, because you'll leave some gaps in the "internal logic" of the system unchanged.
Why I said that "crits are too random" is the only real issue in you list? Because IMHO it underlines one of the "internal logic" problems I mentioned above. RM gives you a very detailed character creation, you can basically make any character you want and you'll know everything about him/her. This would suggest that PCs are really important in the game (not inside the game world, but wihtin the scope of the game), but then RM doesn't give you any mean to build stories around the characters you created or to bring into play the bits of your character that you would like to explore/expand.
Quite the contrary, it makes characters almost irrelevant to the game flow, granting them of the same attention that it gives to every NPCs in the game world. Yes, Fate Points are a sort of patch to fix a part of this problem (preventing PCs to be killed randomly), but they still fail to solve it completely, as we still lack a way to make characters important. Note that by important I don't mean powerful, I mean important for the story, what lack are ways to make the game focus on characters' motivations, beliefs, fears...
So: do we want RM to focus on characters, maintaining and maybe developing further its character creation system, or do we want it to focus on lethal combat and real-life simulation? I think we cannot have both.
-
No locational damage.
I stand by what I've been telling my players since I started playing this game with RM1. If your foe doesn't leave open the spot you want, are you gonna wait, or are you gonna take whatever you can get? I'll let you call a shot anytime you could normally use "Ambush" skill. Even if you don't actually have any Ambush skill. If the crit table disagrees as to location, your called shot trumps it, but amount of damage/disability is comparable.
No dodge.
People dodge all the time, that's what most of DB usually is. Do you mean nothing that falls between 'auto dodge' as represented by stat mods to DB, and Adrenal Defense skill?
I can see your point I think, but I don't see a major problem with it as it is. Getting yourself to dodge by training rather than by instinct as most people do would probably be about as hard, and carry about the same penalties, as using Adrenal Defense. The light armor, rapier-and-main gauche types could probably find a way to work it as part of a combat style, I'd have to look. But for a guy in a steel breastplate? Dodge? Huh?!?
No shield skill, only a flat bonus.
This was an easy fix, I houseruled this long ago: Weapon, 1 hand concussion, shield punch. Use Ram/Butt/Bash, unless you are really ginormous you'll max out at Small.
RMC presents rules for breakage insanely complex (how do they worked out them... Roll Eyes)
I agree. Well, not insanely, but too much housekeeping/info tracking for too little gain. Often as not, I ignore em, and it doesn't seem to do much harm to my game. I just remind players that they might want to replace things that take a lot of abuse. If I started having a problem with players using 2 handed swords as prybars and such, I'd do something about it.
No defense roll. Instead of putting a bonus in defense I'd like an active defense. This way combat is more dynamic (a double fumble!!!! Cheesy)
I'd call it another case of too much housekeeping for too little gain. You're saying take every physical attack in the game and make them all opposed rolls instead of single rolls, right? I agree it will change the feel of the game, but I'm not unhappy with it as it is.
Weapons table are diverse but similar. Doing an "E" critical to a naked warrior with a dagger is the some sa doing an "E" critical with a Great Lance at full gallop wiht a Heavy Barded, Heavy War Horse Embarrassed. Difference is hits, but not too much. This change, a little, with higher AT20, but depends on the weapons.
Um, I gotta ask.... how much deader than dead do you want?
If you don't have a weapon with wich you have expertise, you can't "parry/dodge". If you do you are using another manoeuvre completly, taking all the round.
If you have a shield and no weapon you can't improve you parry/dodge.
See above. "Shield punch". Learn 1 rank. Or learn 0 and take the minus for no skill.
In addition RM takes into account facing (rear/flank), instead of using some semplification.
Since the combat round is 10 seconds, talking of facing is a little odd.
I can see your point, but again it's not a game breaker for me. One of the things I like about RM is that it's pretty modular, the line between "is affected by houseruling X" and "is not affected" tends to be pretty clear. So if you think facings are dumb, leave em out. Don't bother to think up a change until you've playtested leaving em out and found out whether that works for you, and if it doesn't why not.
So: do we want RM to focus on characters, maintaining and maybe developing further its character creation system, or do we want it to focus on lethal combat and real-life simulation? I think we cannot have both.
I think we can Arioch, but I think it'll be a long, rough road. I agree the story needs to have more say, but we should probably start a whole new thread about ideas to implement that one.
Let's just say I agree.... but I disagree, too.
-
I sort of like the breakage numbers of weapons as I use it for dramatic purposes. Yes there weapon can break during a battle but what about the 50th battle? Sometimes I have the player track the weapon damage and sometimes I track the damage.
On the PC front they have to find a weapon smith to fix weapons or have the tools and knowledge themselves. In the past I have created magical forging tools and whatever else they would need to fix armor and weapons. They were either shruck down and then expanded or it was in a magical house item.
MDC
-
So: do we want RM to focus on characters, maintaining and maybe developing further its character creation system, or do we want it to focus on lethal combat and real-life simulation? I think we cannot have both.
I think we can Arioch, but I think it'll be a long, rough road. I agree the story needs to have more say, but we should probably start a whole new thread about ideas to implement that one.
Let's just say I agree.... but I disagree, too.
We could, but just not in the way RM tries to do now... and yes, it'll be a very rough road, the system should basically be rebuilt from scratch.
-
I agree that a shielding skill would be an improvement, which is skill at using a shield defensively (using a shield is, after all, a skill).
Shield bash or shield punch are different skills - they are essentially OBs.
The only other issue that I agree with is profession bonuses - I'd be happy to see them go.
-
Hi,
I think that some of my ideas have been read in the wrong way.
What I've said aren't problems or something that destroy RM.
They are simple peculiarities that have, in the long run, given me a rationale to quit playing RM.
I have suggestions/ideas for "adjust" many of them, or at least I can give my insight on the matter.
In every case I don't expect that everyone of you feel the some about this "peculiarities" but, imho, on thing is finding (please forgive this :D) a patch, one thing is trying to justify why this peculiarities aren't peculiarities.
We can discuss every of them in detail (even in different threads), perhaps some useful solutions/suggestions can come up, and who knows, the Big ICE Brother could take some good point... after all they're humans ???
-
We could, but just not in the way RM tries to do now... and yes, it'll be a very rough road, the system should basically be rebuilt from scratch.
I don't know that that would be necessary, although it's being done all the time for a variety of purposes anyway. I think the major problem is that of most RPGs: How many hits you took and dealt, what injuries you did, what spells you cast, who and what you killed.... all that is easy to quantify for purposes of giving experience. So an RPG designer can fairly easily draw up a basis for XP guidelines based on it, and a new GM can understand it. What's harder is thinking up XP guidelines based on a player's contribution to a story that the person making the guidelines has never, nor will ever, hear.
I agree that a shielding skill would be an improvement, which is skill at using a shield defensively (using a shield is, after all, a skill).
Shield bash or shield punch are different skills - they are essentially OBs.
A shield, even a small one, has a surprising amount of inertia to it. There are basically two ways you can use one. You can either actively shove the shield toward the incoming attack, or you can leave the shield basically in place and move around behind it. Most people do the second. The first is called "punch blocking", and is a favorite of fighters who use small roundshields or bucklers (what RM calls "target shields"), which are about as light as it gets. Seriously, with a "normal" shield that weighs 15 lbs. attached to one hand and arm, how active do you expect that off arm to be? Won't you snug it up close to your ribs and let your legs do the work of toting it?
And if you're a punch block defender, I let it be assumed that you learned how to shield punch during that process.
The only other issue that I agree with is profession bonuses - I'd be happy to see them go.
Easy enough to ditch em from your game, no?
-
I don't know that that would be necessary, although it's being done all the time for a variety of purposes anyway. I think the major problem is that of most RPGs: How many hits you took and dealt, what injuries you did, what spells you cast, who and what you killed.... all that is easy to quantify for purposes of giving experience. So an RPG designer can fairly easily draw up a basis for XP guidelines based on it, and a new GM can understand it. What's harder is thinking up XP guidelines based on a player's contribution to a story that the person making the guidelines has never, nor will ever, hear.
This is why in many of the groups I have played there are two bonus awards. The GM bonus award which the GM awards to the player he thinks made the session most enjoyable/entertaining or had the best roleplaying. Then the Player's choice award, this is awarded by majority vote of the players. We usually had them set between 10% and 20% of the average award given.
-
The only other issue that I agree with is profession bonuses - I'd be happy to see them go.
Easy enough to ditch em from your game, no?
Yeah, I suppose I should have said "I was happy to see thm go".
:D
-
I don't know that that would be necessary, although it's being done all the time for a variety of purposes anyway. I think the major problem is that of most RPGs: How many hits you took and dealt, what injuries you did, what spells you cast, who and what you killed.... all that is easy to quantify for purposes of giving experience. So an RPG designer can fairly easily draw up a basis for XP guidelines based on it, and a new GM can understand it. What's harder is thinking up XP guidelines based on a player's contribution to a story that the person making the guidelines has never, nor will ever, hear.
Well, XP by injuries, critics, and hits is another thing of RM that isn't pratical.
Hits delivered, crits, etc.
Too calculation. I think that rigid XP guidelines isn't very necessary.
The GM assign every player XP as he feels appropriate.
In addition XP are an overall experience/knowledge of the PC. Giving specific XP for combats it's a way to kill the "Role" part of the game, IMHO.
About the shield probelm:
I do some medieval fight, with arms and armor.
Shield is used as active weapon. You should intercept a blow and "drive off" the energy.
Leaving the shield in place, especially with light shields, mean a broken shield and arm.
Imagine a buckler that try to block a warhammer.
In addition shields straps are made so, when your arm is up (at chest level), an guard, you shiled cover you body, and you can "move" the cover.
If you relax you arm the shield will go behind you, leaving room for the blow and a running stance.
Using a shield well is a very important thing of a medieval warrior.
In RM this isn't factored because a shield skill means double DB and this, of course, will blow the OB/DB system.
Or better, will blow the warrior / monster system. Since many warriors will use a shield the system will rebalance itself.
The other problem is that only with a shield you could hope of block an arrow.
Now also this is an important skill.
BUT, if you don't have sword in you hand you couldn't improve your defense. So ::)
The facing problem is a false problem. An RPG must be fast and giving facing in a 10 seconds rounds will do nothing in sense of realism.
So why don't punt a -20 (or -30,40 or whatever) DB for every attacker over the first?
I use a system where the breakage rules are very important and adds an element of unpredictability to combats. I use them. I enjoy them.
Why don't use a more simple system in RMC?
In case the blow is parried (no hits delivered or 5 or less hits deliverd) the defender weapon do a breakage check. If failed the weapon will suffer a damage (to STR) equal to difference.
If passed the attacker weapon do the some check.
The active defense. Not much to say here. Many think that an "active" defense will slow down. I don't think so.
A defender that roll a defense is actually playing is round.
If you put in game the fumble possibility of the defender or attacker, it's a very nice thing to play.
In addition you defender beat attacker of an X factor, a counter attack can be gained. But this is an advanced option.
About the table to be different but too similar. It's a delicate issue. In effect only against some AT there are differences. All in all you give a A,B,C,D,E criticals more or less with all weapons (even fists). Even with a cannon ball you will deliver an E critical (or n crits on the some location ??? blasted ribs, destroyed ribs, pulverized ribs, chewed ribs, etc.)
The mean of all of this is:
A charging knight on a heavy war horse hit a nearly naked bandit, hits for an E critical..
A kid will crawl behind a nearly naked bandit and, with a knife, hits for an E critical.
Now... who is potentially more killer?
The lance, only because score a critical at 87 opposed to the dagger at 95 and differences on dispositions of criticals.
I've taken the two opposite weapons with lower AT.
We found that a Battle Axe, Two-Handed sword, Flail and Lance are practically equal. And smaller differences with other weapons.
-
Well, XP by injuries, critics, and hits is another thing of RM that isn't pratical.
Hits delivered, crits, etc.
Too calculation. I think that rigid XP guidelines isn't very necessary.
The GM assign every player XP as he feels appropriate.
In addition XP are an overall experience/knowledge of the PC. Giving specific XP for combats it's a way to kill the "Role" part of the game, IMHO.
Sure, if you have a good GM who knows what he's doing. What if it's someone who's never played an RPG before? With no real guidelines he's gonna get into fairly deep trouble before he realizes it, is he not?
This is why in many of the groups I have played there are two bonus awards. The GM bonus award which the GM awards to the player he thinks made the session most enjoyable/entertaining or had the best roleplaying. Then the Player's choice award, this is awarded by majority vote of the players. We usually had them set between 10% and 20% of the average award given.
I like that, and yes, there should be something similar. But the point I'm making is that the basic rules a 'green-as-grass' player or GM sees in most RPGs is that hack & slash gets you rewards (XP) faster and easier than wit, innovation or quick thinking, whereas the latter are what take it from wargaming into roleplaying. The only way they're gonna become the core of the game is when rewarding them becomes more basic to the XP concept than combat. It does in your game apparently, but you had to houserule that.
-
I use a system where the breakage rules are very important and adds an element of unpredictability to combats. I use them. I enjoy them.
Why don't use a more simple system in RMC?
In case the blow is parried (no hits delivered or 5 or less hits deliverd) the defender weapon do a breakage check. If failed the weapon will suffer a damage (to STR) equal to difference.
If passed the attacker weapon do the some check.
I play RMSS and I did buy the RMC 3 core books but I have not taken a good look at the breakage system. But having said that I am of the school the sometimes you cannot make something simple and keep all the stuff you want to have.
Crits:
Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now. In most games I have seen when they go the rout you seem to point towards they have smaller charts for each location. For example take a look at Warhammer and Warhammer 40K, even though they are the same system they use some of the ideas you talked about above.
I can say that maybe having new eyes on the crit system might help but then again it might not either.
MDC
-
Sure, if you have a good GM who knows what he's doing. What if it's someone who's never played an RPG before? With no real guidelines he's gonna get into fairly deep trouble before he realizes it, is he not?
We are all have been green GM and to me the wrongest way to say to a junior GM HOW should be handled XPs is printing on a book charts and charts about XP for hits... in a game that have TONS of hits.
And you gain XP fot crits... after the 345 A crits you still gain XP.
And, as said again, this will put in the game the D&D problem: all the party in search for just one more monster to kill.
I don't think this is a good school at all.
But that's taste---
markc,
I think that new tables, lighted tables, are needed to render more appealing RM to newcomers (or oldgoners ;D). The problem as now, after trying other system, the weapons chart maintain a particular feeling but... hey, even a whip can kill with a single blow ???
If no one will ever work this out, no changes will be ever done. An changes are necessary for any living product.
P.S.
I hope changes will be for the good, and not like D&D 4e :'(
-
I don't know that that would be necessary, although it's being done all the time for a variety of purposes anyway. I think the major problem is that of most RPGs: How many hits you took and dealt, what injuries you did, what spells you cast, who and what you killed.... all that is easy to quantify for purposes of giving experience. So an RPG designer can fairly easily draw up a basis for XP guidelines based on it, and a new GM can understand it. What's harder is thinking up XP guidelines based on a player's contribution to a story that the person making the guidelines has never, nor will ever, hear.
This is why in many of the groups I have played there are two bonus awards. The GM bonus award which the GM awards to the player he thinks made the session most enjoyable/entertaining or had the best roleplaying. Then the Player's choice award, this is awarded by majority vote of the players. We usually had them set between 10% and 20% of the average award given.
I don't think that just giving XPs would be a solution, but probably as GrumpyOldFart suggested before we should open a new thread to discuss this topic ;)
-
Crits:
Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC
I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.
Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! :D
-
Sure, if you have a good GM who knows what he's doing. What if it's someone who's never played an RPG before? With no real guidelines he's gonna get into fairly deep trouble before he realizes it, is he not?
We are all have been green GM and to me the wrongest way to say to a junior GM HOW should be handled XPs is printing on a book charts and charts about XP for hits... in a game that have TONS of hits.
And you gain XP fot crits... after the 345 A crits you still gain XP.
And, as said again, this will put in the game the D&D problem: all the party in search for just one more monster to kill.
I don't think this is a good school at all.
But that's taste---
I'm not suggesting "printing on a book charts and charts about XP for hits... in a game that have TONS of hits." As you pointed out, we've all been green GMs before, and we've all had to come up with our own answer for "What do I give XP for and how much?" And I have yet to see any RPG company come up with a really clear, concise answer. My position is that while giving someone too much accounting may be bad, giving a green GM (likely the only who to actually read the XP guidelines, the experienced GMs already have their own ideas) a vague summary completely dependent on one or two totally subjective values is even worse. It virtually guarantees that a GM is gonna destroy his first world setting through imbalance.
Please understand, I agree with you that we don't need a book, or some complex formula that cries out for a spreadsheet. I'm saying that if you don't provide a green GM, someone who is by definition ignorant of how the game works, with clear guidelines on how XP are normally earned and used, he's gonna be lost and he's gonna take his best guess based on that ignorance. And RPGs in general are complex enough that his best guess based on ignorance is nearly guaranteed to screw up.
-
Crits:
Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC
I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.
Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! :D
;) Right!
The question is: can new approaches maintain the charts improving playability, options and speed?
IMHO, yes.
The idea should be to have generalized charts, in a way to combine them, to millions of possibility.
Instead now we have rigid charts that combine all to one result: a crit. A crit that is the some for whatever weapon you use, whatever the strength of the blow, whatever caused them.
Combat spells suffer the some problem.
-
Crits:
Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC
I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.
Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! :D
;) Right!
The question is: can new approaches maintain the charts improving playability, options and speed?
IMHO, yes.
The idea should be to have generalized charts, in a way to combine them, to millions of possibility.
Instead now we have rigid charts that combine all to one result: a crit. A crit that is the some for whatever weapon you use, whatever the strength of the blow, whatever caused them.
Combat spells suffer the some problem.
I think this is done in the RMC Combat Companion in that balde weapons have there own crit chart and pole arms have there own chart also. But they are not the full chart like in Arms Law but a slightly reduced chart and combat system that is detailed in RMC Combat Companion.
MDC
-
Crits:
Are you saying you want a chart for critical hits that depend on weapon used, location and ability of the attacker? IMO that is a lot more charts than the 2 RM uses now.
MDC
I'd love to have crit tables for individual weapons - though the rest I could leave.
Love Rolemaster=Love Charts! :D
;) Right!
The question is: can new approaches maintain the charts improving playability, options and speed?
IMHO, yes.
The idea should be to have generalized charts, in a way to combine them, to millions of possibility.
Instead now we have rigid charts that combine all to one result: a crit. A crit that is the some for whatever weapon you use, whatever the strength of the blow, whatever caused them.
Combat spells suffer the some problem.
I think this is done in the RMC Combat Companion in that balde weapons have there own crit chart and pole arms have there own chart also. But they are not the full chart like in Arms Law but a slightly reduced chart and combat system that is detailed in RMC Combat Companion.
MDC
I own also CC, to me suffers the some problems.
-
By the way, would a "green GM" know what "playing a role" is and when to appreciate it? ;)
In my opinion, as long as you do not know roleplaying, why shouldn't you have lots of fun with rollplaying, as long as everybody in the group enjoys it?
If there is no need for Roleplaying-EP, why bother? And as soon as a group new to the concept starts to appreciate roleplaying, what is going to stop them to make up some standard rewards for pursuing the character traits instead of looking for the optimal way?
-
The question is that a better laid out combat system will help roleplayng and rollplaying.
And a better laid out magic system will help roleplaying and rollplaying.
In addition, since ICE is a profit company, I think should searching for ways to catch more customers in their product, making the product itself more enjoyable.
-
The question is that a better laid out combat system will help roleplayng and rollplaying.
And a better laid out magic system will help roleplaying and rollplaying.
Sorry, but I have to object. I played several RPG systems and with different players and gamemasters, but no RPG helped and inspired roleplaying as much as Rolemaster did. Not for me, not for my friends.
Sure, there are exceptions, who detest the charts and tables, who do not want to have hundreds of skills and the always looming possibility of death. They play and enjoy other games, which is perfectly great - for them and for me.
In addition, since ICE is a profit company, I think should searching for ways to catch more customers in their product, making the product itself more enjoyable.
Agreed!
(It is already enjoyable - it only needs to become more attractive to a larger group of people and/or gamers.)
-
Naphta,
I respect you experiences and opinion.
But it's a fact that many players (me included) feel RM a little too invasive.
I don't mean slow to play (in fact it ins't very much), but it doesn't scale well.
Too difficult actions, too simple actions.
For the first 10+ levels (if you do a skill based game) you PC are little more than bubbling idiots.
After an X everything is possible.
You read all over internet opinions and experiences in witch the famous tables gives inappropriate results to situations.
Or game mechanics too complex or inappropriate for what they try to accomplish.
Super rolls enter the game too often, destroying a good scene or a good laid out plan or distrupting a sense of disbilief.
Idem as above super bad rolls or that absurd super fumble if witch you near killed itself (ifor skills, adreanl manouvre or combat).
So even myself enjoyed RM for many years and perhaps, if I found another group (over my two), will start a new campaign with RMC, but sure RM suffer from design constraint that were never addressed.
The chart are monolitic and very similar, especially combat chart. And chart are the first thing to be revised (not eliminated) to be more generic, more dynamic and more fun.
Why is this so absurd?
That said I don't doubt that you like RM as is. But that doesn't mean that the issues aren't there.
-
giulio.trimarco;
Do you have a method to make RM charts more dynamic and not generate a lot more charts? I can say that more generic charts sounds like the oposit direction you want to go. Again I have read your posts about but I fail to see why you can not do that now with RM charts. Simpley look at the location listed and creat your own flavor text with the results listed. It is something I do all they time with monsters and the human centric crit charts of RM.
IIRC you have said that you have played RM2, RMSS and thought about RMC. DId you find RMSS different from RM2 or RMC? For the list you gave of the games you play or like to play Harn is the only one on the list that I have heard of that people talk about being realistic. In Warhammer and Ars Amagica you PC are way about the normal person in the world. You are not an average joe that has to experience the un-normal to rise above the populace. Now in RM I have told my players that almost everyone in the game is between 4th and 10 level, and they start out between 3rd and 5th. They are at the begining of their life journey. So be carefull as it is a big bad world otu there. And as they have experiences normals do not they rise above the average person.
I guess I am just having trouble understanding your points from post to post because of the language difference. But I do like to read your coments and ideas.
MDC
-
giulio.trimarco>Sorry but I'm with naphta23 on this one. (mostly)
1) You suck at low levels! well, yes I agree. Unless you use the skills with really easy tasks you're pretty much screwed. But hey, the same thing applies to every other rpg that I've played.
2. You are a god at high levels! Well, I agree on this as well. Still, where's the difference to other games? If anything RM is much better in this regard using diminishing returns for skills.
If you design the adventure appropriatly and use difficulies for skills this should solve the problem.
If you want better PCs from start you start them off at a higher level.
-
Ok, ok.
I'm on the loosing side.
I've argued enogh.
This is the type of closure that, to me, are bringing RM to a smaller and smaller market (Imho).
Even if I've bought the books without using it.
One last thing:
while every issue could be circumvented in milions of way (like you explained), the issue is there.
Some issues are there nonenthless. And many people feel them. No way about it.
I have played much more RPGs that I can remember (and I have more than 100 in my library) and while I can't keep playing with all, many of this systems are realistic, quick and the player is in control.
Perhaps different approches (and an open mind) to some aspects will do more good than expected.
Bye
-
The problem with difficulties of succeeding with rolls for low level characters is a genuine problem that has a very straightforward solution. You can like School of Hard Knocks suggest change the modification for routine to +50, a for easy to +25 and then this problem IMHO literally vanish.
-
Ok, ok.
I'm on the loosing side.
I've argued enogh.
This is the type of closure that, to me, are bringing RM to a smaller and smaller market (Imho).
Even if I've bought the books without using it.
Is that your way of answering to the feedback given here ??? ? Sorry, but I've told you early in the thread that the way you reported your issues here sounds very much like a rant and gave a suggestion on how to better gather input and feedback on your suggestions. But you kept on in this thread and it seems you can't accept that other people have a different point of view.
And keeping the good parts of Rolemaster and only changing the parts were many people have an issue with - and not only a single person or very few persons - is the way to keep RM in the market. Head over heels just modifying the system will certainly be no benefit for RM - and simply following your feedback without a closer look would be just that.
-
Talking about issues, does anybody have a good solution to the AT1 is superior to nearly all other ATs? I got the idea from an earlier thread and although I had never noticed the issue, wearing normal clothes seems most of the times to have the advantage of lower hit points and crits. This IMHO is one the strangest things in RM and one has to ask, why this was allowed in the first place and why no one has corrected the flaw? As I understand, only now, in CC a new look a things is presented but the downside is that every individual AT doesn't have an attack table.
-
As I understand, only now, in CC a new look a things is presented but the downside is that every individual AT doesn't have an attack table.
The attack tables in Combat Companion has 10 Armor Ratings. That is because the attack tables in Combat Companion utilize a different paradigm when dealing with armor, as detailed in the Armor by the Piece rules also found in Combat Companion. And that new Armor system only has 10 Armor Ratings. So, the tables in CC DO cover all of the Armor Ratings.
There is also an AT to AR conversion table in CC as well.
-
The chart are monolitic and very similar, especially combat chart. And chart are the first thing to be revised (not eliminated) to be more generic, more dynamic and more fun.
First of all: sorry if I was insulting or infuriating with my narrow minded arguments. :-[
The problem is, that I do not know a better fantasy roleplaying game, which does by all ends not mean that I have played them all, perhaps I only played worse games or have a completely other taste. Of all campaigns I ever gamemastered or took part in as a player, that Rolemaster campaign lasted much longer than any other, and still does - the players and I still have have as much fun as at the start of the campaign, if not more.
So you are right, I have problems with an open mind, since I really enjoy as a gamemaster, that even I cannot really predict what is going to happen. And it is quite likely that I have not as much experience as you have with other roleplaying games or with Rolemaster; I cannot deny that I could be going to realize the same problems that you have experienced, that I am upset with the way Rolemaster provides solutions for various situations.
Problem is, we rarely use the charts / tables, we just roll the dice sometimes, look at the result, most of the times without looking for the skill bonus, and decide what happens, thus we rarely look for the descriptions on the Maneuver tables. Perhaps in a certain time we also are about to be bored by the charts/tables, experience the same problems.
The problem I see is the charts - many gamers I know detest Rolemaster without having it ever played. Most of the time, they think their prejudices are justified as soon as they see some charts. They do not want to believe that combat is much faster than in other roleplaying games, they refuse to try out and decide for themselves.
I do not know if changed charts would help Rolemaster to be accepted by a larger group of gamers, but it could be worth a try. But how can the charts become more dynamic, more consistent and satisfying while not become much bigger and therefore more unattractive to other gamers?
I beg your pardon should I have given you the impression of me being a pig-headed person and your opinion being unwanted; I am interested in your opinion and I would like to find a solution for your problems with Rolemaster - after all, me and my players could also profit from your experiences and proposed enhancements.
-
Talking about issues, does anybody have a good solution to the AT1 is superior to nearly all other ATs? I got the idea from an earlier thread and although I had never noticed the issue, wearing normal clothes seems most of the times to have the advantage of lower hit points and crits. This IMHO is one the strangest things in RM and one has to ask, why this was allowed in the first place and why no one has corrected the flaw? As I understand, only now, in CC a new look a things is presented but the downside is that every individual AT doesn't have an attack table.
First welcome to the forums if no one has said so before.
The fix I use is to change the old AT1 to AT2 and use AT1 for fast creatures. It has worked very well for me in the past and I think the future.
MDC
-
Talking about issues, does anybody have a good solution to the AT1 is superior to nearly all other ATs? I got the idea from an earlier thread and although I had never noticed the issue, wearing normal clothes seems most of the times to have the advantage of lower hit points and crits. This IMHO is one the strangest things in RM and one has to ask, why this was allowed in the first place and why no one has corrected the flaw? As I understand, only now, in CC a new look a things is presented but the downside is that every individual AT doesn't have an attack table.
Bear in mind that AT 1 is light clothing. ATs 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 are all just as much "normal clothing" as is AT 1, unless you really think putting on a jacket is exotic. If you are going to be in cold weather or crawling through brambles, AT 1 might be your best bet for combat, but not for environmental protection. AT 1 would be common in summer in most settings, but would be too cold for winter.
The main issue with ATs are that people forget that ATs 5-8 are not actually armor and the way that mobility is double-punished in both the charts and the reduction of Quickness DB in armor. I think there would be no problem simply eliminating the DB restriction for armor that has been properly fitted to the individual. I would say that wearing a backpack would be far more of an issue in evasive movement than any form of armor.
-
Bear in mind that AT 1 is light clothing. ATs 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 are all just as much "normal clothing" as is AT 1, unless you really think putting on a jacket is exotic. If you are going to be in cold weather or crawling through brambles, AT 1 might be your best bet for combat, but not for environmental protection. AT 1 would be common in summer in most settings, but would be too cold for winter.
I use the idea that AT1 is very light clothes indoor clothes. AT2 represent the durable clothes you would use when you are outdoor. A player in a sunny climate might elect to keep his indoor clothes and still use AT1 if he has no weaponbelt, backpack and similar. Problem with using these kind of light clothes is of course that they will not stay whole when subjected to typical adventuring situations.
-
You got some valid thoughts on the clothing issue here.
This reminds me that this is something we should discuss in our group.
I took a quick look in Arms Law and AT2 are Robes. Robes can be made out of various materials and need not be heavy.
Heavy clothes are actually supposed to be found under "soft leather base", AT5-AT8 according to Arms Law anyway. (RMC Arms Law, p.12)
Maybe AT6 would be the most appropriat one for really heavy outdoors clothes?
Still, I will argue that AT1 can be warm and durable cothing as well. I have personal experience with both sewing and wearing medieval style clothing (Linen, hemp, wool, leather...) and they do not restrict your movement in a significant way if sewn right.
I would say AT1 for normal outdoor clothing covering warm through cold weather, AT6 for winterclothing.
-
First welcome to the forums if no one has said so before.
The fix I use is to change the old AT1 to AT2 and use AT1 for fast creatures. It has worked very well for me in the past and I think the future.
MDC
Thanks for the warm welcome. How fast is a fast creature and do you mean creatures that have AT1 normally or something else?
-
I use AT 2 as the default AT for everyone - it makes armor much more appealing. AT 1 is reserved for special creatures such as skeletons.
-
I use AT 2 as the default AT for everyone - it makes armor much more appealing. AT 1 is reserved for special creatures such as skeletons.
That sounds like an idea worth trying, thanks. Now all I have to do is lure the old gang to play RM once again. The good old times, I once played a teenage mutant ninja turtle (RMC VI had stats for all C&T monsters including animals) and an elephant dancer.
-
First welcome to the forums if no one has said so before.
The fix I use is to change the old AT1 to AT2 and use AT1 for fast creatures. It has worked very well for me in the past and I think the future.
MDC
Thanks for the warm welcome. How fast is a fast creature and do you mean creatures that have AT1 normally or something else?
I also have AT2 be the normal AT for player charactrers and most monsters that are AT1. I play it by ear when determining what type of creature geta AT1. So a panther would get AT1 in my book but unlike the post above skeletons would not as in my game they are rather slow and ploding. I do have a rule that says any creature that has a Fast Movment rating listed in RMSS C&T or any other product gets an AT of 1. For others I have to use my best judgment and a little tought.
MDC
-
I'm working on a new table system for RM.
When it's ready I'll post the work.
The target is to generalize, simplify and give more "interaction" during combat.
When I've done the engine an hand could be useful in filling the critical table.
If someone is interested let me know.
-
When it's ready I'll post the work.
Instead of posting here, I suggest you to send it as an article to the Guild Companion: http://www.guildcompanion.com/ (http://www.guildcompanion.com/)
Easier for you (you don't have to figure out how post tables here in the forums) and probably more people will see it.
... and you've got a PM. ;)
-
Ohh, I don't mind that many people check the tables.
I mind that someone can see that new approches are possible to old problems.
-
Ok, ok.
I'm on the loosing side.
I've argued enogh.
This is the type of closure that, to me, are bringing RM to a smaller and smaller market (Imho).
Even if I've bought the books without using it.
Is that your way of answering to the feedback given here ??? ? Sorry, but I've told you early in the thread that the way you reported your issues here sounds very much like a rant and gave a suggestion on how to better gather input and feedback on your suggestions. But you kept on in this thread and it seems you can't accept that other people have a different point of view.
And keeping the good parts of Rolemaster and only changing the parts were many people have an issue with - and not only a single person or very few persons - is the way to keep RM in the market. Head over heels just modifying the system will certainly be no benefit for RM - and simply following your feedback without a closer look would be just that.
Agreed. I find that some people come into an discussion with a bit too much passion and emotion. It's a good idea to sit on your issues for a few days if that is the case. When you present issues with emotion and suddenly people start to see this emotion it does nothing but degenerate the discussion to a lose-lose situation. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion, however there is such a thing as a flawed opinion. This is the whole idea of a debate. You may have an opinion but someone might present a flaw or disagreement with the opinion. Again if emotion or passion enter into it the debate is lost and suddenly it's a street fight.
-
Hi,
I've nearly completed my table prototype, I'll post a PDF with an table example, say about a Broadsword.
The table is done with a simple OpenOffice Calc sheet, so whatever weapon could be implemented in minutes ;D
Meanwhile I'd like to know how you fell about this type of approch (without starting a war :P).
The table will resemble the one from Arms Law.
Armor on the top, scored attack number on the side, and a table per weapon.
Now, first of all the AT(Armor Types) aren't really AT but AM(Armor Material).
In essence the table will tell that IF you make contact with whatever location (more later) covered with a specific AM, you will score that damage.
Example: Glasc attack a poor peasant covered from head to toe (for semplicity) by clothing (light-medium) (AM2). His attack hit with a 87 to torso, so we check AM2. The damage is 12AS.
If the pesant has a chainmail (how lucky) on torso whe should check AM7.
Now I've implemented a "penetration" concept. This boils down to this.
Every weapon has up to three critical types. In essence the aspect witch can cause a injury. For a sword their essentially slash and point.
In addition to this a non-penetrating crit type is added.
For example even is a sword will still wound a plate protected location (an "A" crit), the damage could be only a "blunt" damage, for now we will use Krush, but I plan to implement a "Blunt" crit table.
This way, still retaining RM weapon chart, you'll have the possibility to totally customize armor (by location), eliminate the double quick penalties, and every armor material will improve the protection.
More will follow.
-
Mmmm, how can I post a PDF?
-
Mmmm, how can I post a PDF?
You can either post it in the Vault or you can post it on some other site and then provide a link to it here.
ICE does not permit the posting of files to threads by the general populace.
-
Thanks for the info.
-
I'll definately use AT2 as "normal adventuring gear" for our upcoming game. AT1 will be "travelling light". Clothes, your sword and nothing else.
-
I think they are the some problems that you read frequently in the forum.
They are principal about combat and spell casting.
Character generation/advancement is very good, perhaps a bit slow. I'd like to see some official options to remove XP and levels.
Removing profession bonuses. I think that skill costs is already accounting more expertise.
About combat:
Fumble not tied to competence of combatants.
Something wrong with the Swashbuckling skill?
Criticals are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)
I love the randomness of the Critical Strike system. It keeps Rolemaster unique. Without it, Rolemaster would not be Rolemaster.
Too simple to kill very impressive monster, doing super-roll.
Like a dragon? Why not? There are some very good examples of people killing impressive animals. Saltwater Crocodiles in Australia are very impressive. Yet they were being killed and their numbers depleted in the first half of the 20th Century (and they were killing and eating humans before).
Another impressive animal is the reticulated python. Longest snake in the world, they could attack and eat humans if given a chance. Finally, there are living, but still cryptid, dinosaurs.
No locational damage.
you don't need them. If you have a good GM/DM, you can simulate Location damage by use of the Moving Manuever Table (Rolemaster's core table).
No dodge.
D&D doesn't have parry, but that doesn't stop us. Parrying in Rolemaster represents dodging, footwork, and parrying.
No shield skill, only a flat bonus.
There is a shield bash skill.
RMC presents rules for breakage insanely complex (how do they worked out them... ::))
Actually, they are quite simple.
No defense roll. Instead of putting a bonus in defense I'd like an active defense. This way combat is more dynamic (a double fumble!!!! :D)
Weapons table are diverse but similar. Doing an "E" critical to a naked warrior with a dagger is the some sa doing an "E" critical with a Great Lance at full gallop wiht a Heavy Barded, Heavy War Horse :-[. Difference is hits, but not too much. This change, a little, with higher AT20, but depends on the weapons.
Etc.
Parrying should be okay in doing this. you don't need am active defense roll.
Are you sure you like playing Rolemaster? You sound as if you are better off playing a different game. :)
-
Like a dragon? Why not? There are some very good examples of people killing impressive animals. Saltwiter Crocodiles in Australia are very impressive. Yet they were being killed and their numbers depleted in the first half of the 20th Century (and they were killing and eating humans before).
That cracked me up. That's one of the goofiest profanity filter effects yet. Someone should write up the Saltwiter Crocodile's stats.
-
They will definately have a +30 racial bonus on the Retort Skill.
-
Elton Robb,
your replay is made up of personal tastes and mechanical nonsense.
-
giulio, personal taste comes into play in most postings, yours as well. And please stop comments as the one above about "mechanical nonsense". There is no need to get insulting just because someone expresses an opinion which does not match with yours.
-
Like a dragon? Why not? There are some very good examples of people killing impressive animals. Saltwiter Crocodiles in Australia are very impressive. Yet they were being killed and their numbers depleted in the first half of the 20th Century (and they were killing and eating humans before).
That cracked me up. That's one of the goofiest profanity filter effects yet. Someone should write up the Saltwiter Crocodile's stats.
Saltwiter Crocodile! HAH! I feel silly enough to do it. ;)
ITS SALT WATER CROCODILE!!!
-
I think RM is very well done and constructed. There is only one point that keeps me 'off the boat,' as it were. My only (personal) issue with RM is one that I've brought up before. The single roll hit-damage mechanic is very good, but my issue is specifically with the way strength and agility are averaged (power and accuracy) to figure the amount of damage done. It works fine when dealing with narrower margins - when strength and agility aren't too far apart - but I think it starts to break down when dealing with huge differences in either, like a massive troll that can't hit the broad side of a barn but will completely demolish the barn in one hit if he does manage to strike it out of simple luck.
I think the existing mechanic does work well in the other direction, though. An attacker with low strength but high accuracy is going to hit more often, but they're just not going to be able to manage much damage unless they roll a critical. In other words, simple hits are going to cause light scratches and 'nickle and dime' the foe to death. But if they can get that blade into the sweet spot and slash a vein they'll take the target down in one blow. But in the larger, stronger attackers the idea of causing light bruises to 'nickle and dime' the target to death seems...unlikely.
For me it boils down to this: I don't believe in grazing blows from a troll. A troll either misses or turns his target into paste. And the concept of parrying an attack from a troll is simply foreign to me. Dodge? Sure. Parry? Paste.
Note: All opinions.
Note: I use the troll as an example of an extreme of massive strength but low hand-eye coordination. No offense was meant towards trolls or their kin. The same could be said for any creature with great strength but traditionally low accuracy.
-
Oh, by the way, I think HARP has a good fix for this because there is a line between hit and miss. A troll could have a very low OB meaning that he may not get higher than 1, but if he does than the 'weapon size bonus' is there to really send him over the top. So, if that mechanic were taken advantage of, he wouldn't hit too often, but when he did he'd rarely get that "I've seen kittens hit harder. 1 Hit" result on the critical table.
-
I think that the only real way to solve this issue would be to separate out the attack roll from the damage roll.
For example, if you make the attack a Medium maneuver (modified by foe's DB and using quickness and agility as the stats used with OB here), then you could have clean hits or misses.
Then IF a hit IS called for, you roll on the attack table (and add in mods for strength and a mod based on how well the attack roll was (i.e. take the total attack roll (OB + roll - DB) and subtract 100. If the result is positive (and it should be in order to succeed as a medium maneuver), you add it to the damage roll.
Example:
You: OB 85 Broadsword (St bonus = +20)
Foe: DB 50 (AT7)
You roll and get a 77. You add in your OB and subtract the foe's DB for a total of 112 (77 + 85 -50 = 112), which means that you hit the foe. Ok, now you roll for damage, you roll a 92 and add in your 20 strength bonus, and your +12 from a good hit. This gives you a total of 124 (92 + 20 + 12 = 124). Looking up the result on the Broadsword attack table gives you a 16DS. You then rol for the critical normally and apply the damage
Yes, this DOES mean that you can do zero damage. That would just mean that the damage was turned/absorbed by the armor itself. But it would serve to reduce the associations between attack rolls and damage....
-
Oh, by the way, I think HARP has a good fix for this because there is a line between hit and miss. A troll could have a very low OB meaning that he may not get higher than 1, but if he does than the 'weapon size bonus' is there to really send him over the top. So, if that mechanic were taken advantage of, he wouldn't hit too often, but when he did he'd rarely get that "I've seen kittens hit harder. 1 Hit" result on the critical table.
OTOH the added weapon size bonus usually leads to only a few hits/stuns/bleeding etc. more with the HARP core combat system. E.g. where a normal crush attack would do only 1 hit, the same result (01) from a huge attack does 9 hits. A result for 51 for a normal weapon on the same table yields 15 hits, 1 stun and a -10 to activity, while from a huge attack it would result in 19 hits, 2 stuns and -15. Of course the attack size can also make the difference between a fatal critical and one yielding "only" a major wound, but it is far from making the difference between a bruise and the opponent being "paste".
IMHO RM has a quite good means of handling damage from such giant creatures with high strength and low accuracy and this is the damage multiplier. E.g. most of the giants in Creatures & Monsters have such a multiplier, so that e.g. an attack table entry 26E would instead become 78E with a x3 multiplier. But this multiplier is rarely used, perhaps too seldom, e.g. not for trolls or dragons.
-
Oh, by the way, I think HARP has a good fix for this because there is a line between hit and miss. A troll could have a very low OB meaning that he may not get higher than 1, but if he does than the 'weapon size bonus' is there to really send him over the top. So, if that mechanic were taken advantage of, he wouldn't hit too often, but when he did he'd rarely get that "I've seen kittens hit harder. 1 Hit" result on the critical table.
OTOH the added weapon size bonus usually leads to only a few hits/stuns/bleeding etc. more with the HARP core combat system. E.g. where a normal crush attack would do only 1 hit, the same result (01) from a huge attack does 9 hits. A result for 51 for a normal weapon on the same table yields 15 hits, 1 stun and a -10 to activity, while from a huge attack it would result in 19 hits, 2 stuns and -15. Of course the attack size can also make the difference between a fatal critical and one yielding "only" a major wound, but it is far from making the difference between a bruise and the opponent being "paste".
But if you take the difference between a medium and huge attack you can go as much as 4 steps up the critical table which can account for a LOT.
IMHO RM has a quite good means of handling damage from such giant creatures with high strength and low accuracy and this is the damage multiplier. E.g. most of the giants in Creatures & Monsters have such a multiplier, so that e.g. an attack table entry 26E would instead become 78E with a x3 multiplier. But this multiplier is rarely used, perhaps too seldom, e.g. not for trolls or dragons.
Wait...really? There's a damage multiplier? I never even saw that! That would fix the problem right there! I know there was a "resounding strength" ability in HARP that basically doubled hits delivered, but I didn't know that existed in RM. How did I miss that? Maybe it was just in creatures I never used. Well that's an easy enough fix right there. Just apply that trait to any monster the GM feels has that overwhelming strength.
-
I think that the only real way to solve this issue would be to separate out the attack roll from the damage roll.
For example, if you make the attack a Medium maneuver (modified by foe's DB and using quickness and agility as the stats used with OB here), then you could have clean hits or misses.
Then IF a hit IS called for, you roll on the attack table (and add in mods for strength and a mod based on how well the attack roll was (i.e. take the total attack roll (OB + roll - DB) and subtract 100. If the result is positive (and it should be in order to succeed as a medium maneuver), you add it to the damage roll.
Example:
You: OB 85 Broadsword (St bonus = +20)
Foe: DB 50 (AT7)
You roll and get a 77. You add in your OB and subtract the foe's DB for a total of 112 (77 + 85 -50 = 112), which means that you hit the foe. Ok, now you roll for damage, you roll a 92 and add in your 20 strength bonus, and your +12 from a good hit. This gives you a total of 124 (92 + 20 + 12 = 124). Looking up the result on the Broadsword attack table gives you a 16DS. You then rol for the critical normally and apply the damage
Yes, this DOES mean that you can do zero damage. That would just mean that the damage was turned/absorbed by the armor itself. But it would serve to reduce the associations between attack rolls and damage....
One could even argue that attacks being treated as movement maneuvers would be more interally consistent anyway. I mean, think about it; why is an attack not a movement maneuver? There's movement involved and you're testing your skill and it is often compared to the skill of another person. How is that different than, say, sneaking?
I'm sure it would be considered the slaughtering of a sacred cow. I know there are a lot of people who think that separating hit from damage is evil. And I've heard all the reasoning. I just don't agree with it. But I think the logic that would branch out from this one change would have overwhelmingly useful benefits. For instance, it could make concepts such as targeting specific hit location more efficient. Targeting the throat could be a Hard maneuver but wouldn't actually decrease the amount of damage you did by taking the penalty to hit. You could also apply any MM bonus to the result of the damage part so you wouldn't sacrifice the "good roll = good damage" aspect.
Hmmm...I like this idea! I'm gonna run with it. ;) Very nice Rasyr.
-
Hmmm...I like this idea! I'm gonna run with it. ;) Very nice Rasyr.
I tinker, therefore I am....
-
Hmmm...I like this idea! I'm gonna run with it. ;) Very nice Rasyr.
I tinker, therefore I am....
The tinkering got you an idea point. That phrase got you a laugh point.
-
I'm not saying this to be a jerk, but are you new to RM?
The reason you go through all that character generation process with all those stats, is for when these problems come up. If the GM feels those skills are needed, you chose the primary stats to assign to get the bonus. Add professional bonuses, and professional cost, and boom you have a new skill. Problem solved.
Also talent law has things that add these types of abilities you are asking for.
So answering these is redundant but easy enough. As your gm could simply add any skill he deemed is necessary.
"Fumble not tied to competence of combatants."
Fumble is a luck thing and is tied to your type of weapon. 2 handed weapons have a larger fumble range. The swashbuckling skills work on this, and you could simply add a anti fumble skill akin too the disarming skills. If you feel it was that necessary.
"Critics are too random. An "A" critical can kill you with a bit of luck. (I like realism, but dispatching PC randomly isn't a good choice)
Too simple to kill very impressive monster, doing super-roll."
Crits are luck. If you don't like that Add Fate points from the (RMSS Channeling companion), these are added like 1 per game for intense combat, maybe 1 per level for less combat. These emergency points save characters from insta kills like that. And most GM's fudge those murderous rolls. Also super monsters have super abilities. Undead's stats seem weak. But if you add the stat drain, the group is in big trouble unless they have a cleric (as if their Constitution reach zero, they become lvl 1 created undead).
"No locational damage."
Did locational damage in Palladim. Sounded great was not so good in practice. But there is a skill that allows one to adjust crits up and down (rogues use it alot). If combined with a talent to do it from any postion, it becomes very powerful. A rogue crits you and adjust the crit up or down for each rank (not skill total) they have. And of course they adjust it towards the nastiest crit. I believe rogues get it the cheapest, but combat types get it cheap enough. If not you can add a skill and everyone in your game will just hit the guy in the eye, groin, head, or whatever.
"No dodge."
This is probably on purpose. If you use anticipations this subtracts 50 from the attack, and is instaneous (as long as the person can see the attack coming). This spell can be powerful (so if you have a caster there is that to add to dodge). There are also the adrenial moves and such (usually associated with martial artist) which adds to the DB and OB etc, which is considered over powered by our group (but would be logical if your using a martial artist). Warrior types are fairly good at doing this.
"No shield skill, only a flat bonus."
20 points, plus a quality shield, quickness bonus, racial bonus (caster casting blur,shield( if they are using a shield), anticipations etc). You have a huge bonus. Then if you use Talent law they can do even more to it, you can end up with some crazy Defensive bonus's. Again add Adrenial skills and it can be absurd, but that is up to you.
"RMC presents rules for breakage insanely complex (how do they worked out them... )"
The weapon breakage rules are simple (at least in RMSS) it's on the weapon chart. It is the thing called weapon breakage #. If you roll the doubles listed on your chart you have to roll to see if you break your weapon. Add your weapon strength, weapon quality and then make the roll. If it gets over a certain number, the weapon has reached it's breaking point, snap. Weapon gone. If the GM wants you can have a person roll the same breakage number any time it seems appropriate.
"No defense roll. Instead of putting a bonus in defense I'd like an active defense. This way combat is more dynamic (a double fumble!!!! )"
I'm not seeing the double fumble coming out of this idea. But again if you want an "active" defense add adrenial moves. It will be more absurd than Shadowrun, rolling 30 die for defense, but it can be done. And Rolemaster already has critical fumbles (which is essentially a double fumble). If they roll really bad on the fumble they can practically kill themselves. In fact we had an arcanist fumble so bad he killed the entire group.
"Weapons table are diverse but similar. Doing an "E" critical to a naked warrior with a dagger is the some sa doing an "E" critical with a Great Lance at full gallop wiht a Heavy Barded, Heavy War Horse . Difference is hits, but not too much. This change, a little, with higher AT20, but depends on the weapons.
Etc."
If you use the rules for charging there is alot more damage. And heavily armored people are much easier to hit, but harder to crit on. A person not wearing armor is harder to hit, but easier to crit on. So your dodge rules are already implimented. And damage is damage, how much different do you expect the damage to be from one E to another E? If one type was too unbalancing, then everyone in your game system would use that same type of weapon to attack (the first time our group had void bolts came to mind). I'm not sure on your meaning of the barded horse? A heavy War Horse would probably charge faster without the barding, but would be heavier (and thus slower without the barding). Mass x accelartion = power. If you lose the speed you lose some attack power, but if you lose some mass you lose some power. So from the charts point of view it is easier to have one simple answer. Instead of 600 for each situation.
As one of my teachers used to say "there is no such thing as deader". An E crit on one guy may be described slightly different, but in the end dead is dead. And watch out for those A tiny's , we had a group lose many eyes from a group of styrges... It was so bad the GM had to say, you wake up at the Inn and strangely you all had the same dream...We now fear A tiny criticals as a group....heh.
But the RM system in my experience already has the answer to most of your questions. It's just usually we are looking in the wrong place for the answers ;)
-
I'm not saying this to be a jerk, but are you new to RM?
Don't mistake alternate suggestions to the way things are done with not knowing how they are currently done. Most comments made on these boards about how things could be 'fixed' (in anyone's opinion) are made with full knowledge about the rules as written.
-
"Fumble not tied to competence of combatants."
Fumble is a luck thing and is tied to your type of weapon. 2 handed weapons have a larger fumble range. The swashbuckling skills work on this, and you could simply add a anti fumble skill akin too the disarming skills. If you feel it was that necessary.
I disagree Chukoliang. You know the rules well enough to "iron out" some creases, but it all seems a bit ad hoc. An experienced person using a skill he or she is familiar with should (in my opinion) be far less likely to fumble.
I think most (or all?) rolls should be open-ended. No unmodified results please. If your skill bonus is good enough to cancel out an extremely low result, then you saved the situation.
-
A lot of water under the bridge in this thread... so excuse me if I'm covering old ground.
1. The "66" is superfluous and illogical. Get rid of it if you don't like it.
2. Randomness of criticals and fumbles. Exactly why I play/run RM. If you don't want to use a critical result as written (as a DM) or don't think it's appropriate to the situation. Then change it to a lesser effect. Instead of killing a PC with a fluke "00" on a "A" type crit, KO them instead!
3. You want Fumbles to happen less when your skilled?....well, perhaps then only roll for an actual fumble when a fumble result is indicated but the result is negative after all modifiers are applied. Otherwise, treat any unmodified roll that falls into the fumble range as a simple miss. That way a super-skilled person may fail but will only really screw up on really poor results from an OELow roll.
-
IMO The 66 exists to leverage the ambush skill, at 15 ranks:
Any roll of 51-65 = 66
Any roll of 67-81 = 66
Any roll of 82-84 = 96-99
Any roll of > 84 = 100
thus 15 ranks at around 7th level (14th level for 1 rankers) = 50% odds of taking target down with a one shot from ambush.
I don't think that was accidental or illogical, and is a key element of the assassination tropes. . .for random non ambush crits, it's an odd duck, out of sequence result. . .but there's a logic to it, and it serves a purpose within the overall system.
-
I think Grinnen may have been referring tot he inclusion of the 66 on the Static Maneuver tables in RMSS?
-
Well, that is just goofiness. . .unless you ambush that lock you intend to pick.
Likely, that's just "Cool" factor. . ..
The random 66 in the crit table for non ambush situations led to PCs jumping around happy to roll said 66. . .so putting a 66 result on the SM tables could similarly provoke happiness.
-
I was referring to the crit tables and any other tables that the 66 has any significant result greater than a result numerically higher. ;)
I personally don't agree with the inclusion of it's existance just to enhance the Ambush skill (even if that was the intention ;) ). I prefer that specifc skill to allow latitude in the ability of the user to place a blow for specifc effect or target area. Therefore the user has the ability to vary the result of a critical by a small margin, and a low crit result should result in a less effective blow.. even if the critical was from ambush.
-
Using the weakest A tables, you have a 6% of taking a target down (66, 96-99 or a 00 result)
The 66 result triples the effectiveness of ambush. . .since you can go up to 96, down to 66 or up to 66 with your crit mod. . .
Thus, each rank raises the lethality of an ambush critical by 3%
Taking the odds to 50% of dying if attacked from ambush by an 8th level attacker with 15 ranks. (I'll ignore the miniscule odds that you'd fail to hit and get at least an A crit attacking by surprise)
From there it drops off to 1% per rank of increased lethality.
If you shoved the 66 result up to the end of the table, so you had 95, 96-99, 00 as the down/dead results (thus not changing the odds, just the placement of the 66 to 95) you'd radically change the benefits of ambush.
The sweet spot where 50% of all hits are down/dead would go from 15 ranks (approx 8th level) to 44 ranks (approx 21st level)
The line of 66% would go from 31 ranks (approx 15th level) to 60 ranks (approx 29th level)
the line of 75% would go from 40 ranks (approx 19th level) to 69 ranks (approx 34th level)
The 90% would go from 55 ranks (approx 27th level) to 84 ranks (41st level)
The utter doom assassin who any ambush strike kills would go from 65 ranks (32nd level) to 94 ranks (46th level)
Without the 66. . .you'd really need to cut the cost of ambush, as it'd loose a lot of it's benefit, especially that steep curve of benefit up to 15 ranks, before it falls off for 16+ ranks.
-
Looking in from the outside, I'd have to agree with Grinnen. Changing a crit chart that impacts such a large portion of the game just to address a single skill seems to be a mistake. There has to be a better way to handle ambush rather than corrupting the validity of the crit charts.
-
I have to say I like the 66 and so do most of the players I have played with. Some have used ambush and some have not in various games. Also as a house rule I do not let people mod the result to 66, 99 or 00; so the above ambush rules do not apply fully to my experiences.
It is just another number besides 100 to look forward to rolling. And the crit results tend too be eye watering and bring about cringes from GM's and players alike.
But every game is different.
MDC
-
what validity?
Ambush is the only common factor that affects criticals. . .(there are 2 uncommon factors, one the lucky BGO the other the I and II damage reduction levels)
If criticals were completely random, it wouldn't matter where the results are. . .the 00 lethal result could be the 23 instead, and it wouldn't matter at all. . .there's no "Validity" for placing more lethal results close to 00 and less lethal ones down near 01 other than the gut feel of low-bad, high-good. . .
But once you put the Ambush skill into play, the placement of the lethal/down results matters a lot. . .but only matters for the purposes of the Ambush skill, essentially.
The fact that the criticals have any order at all is not an arbitrary flow from weak to strong, it's a flow from weak to strong with an irregularity at exactly the 2/3 mark that allows for a particular pattern of Ambush development where the first 14 ranks are worth 3%, the 15th rank is worth 2% and every rank past that is worth 1%.
Moving the 66 result to 95 would be akin to saying:
"OK, rather than the first 10 ranks of a skill being worth +5, now they are worth +2"
The problem is that changing ambush to the standard bonus progression, then allowing the bonus, rather than the ranks to apply to the critical would just be too powerful. . .but reversing to ranks/level so every rank is worth just 1% is too weak. . .while rank/level with the 66 on the crit table is "just right". . . .
That odd and out of place 66 result on the critical tables might annoy for it's non ansthetic, contrary to pattern position. . .but since it only comes up in context of the ambush skill, then you'd have to actually lay out an actual improvement to Ambush as the justification for moving it out of there. . .merely that it would make the pattern more asthetically pleasing is not a good enough reason, IMO.
(i.e. propose a "fix" for ambush that doesn't just replace one asthetic oddity with a rule by exception, and I'll get on that bandwagon, but until then I prefer the asthetic oddity to yet another rule that is done completely different for one instance than any other. It allows +1/rank with the table tweaked, and for as MarkC mentioned, the shout of "66!" at the table, a beloved RM moment.)
-
LM, your position is dependent upon the ambusher only getting an A crit result. If you have all the advantages of getting a successful ambush off and roll so poor as to only get an A, then you shouldn't have a 50% chance to kill them. More likely (in the successful ambush scenario) you are at least getting a C crit, if not a D (really an E, as you negate the target's DB significantly). What are the odds (moving the 66 up) then? (Really, what are the odds? I am not going to do that math! ;D)
I have always felt that the 66 phenomena was weird, to say the least. When everything else about the system says: Rolling higher is better, to have a single thing go the other way gives it a hiccup - at the very least. IMO.
-
IMO I think it was another way to make RM different than D&D and the other games back then. But I am just guessing.
MDC
Also if you do not like it just extend on of the two results on either side of it and ignore the 66 result.
MDC
-
I probably use the ambush skill incorrectly as it is. (I use RMSS rather than RM2)
How I adjudicate that particular skill is much the same as I would a spell list, i.e. the bonus determines chance of success with the skill and the number of ranks determines effectiveness or power.
That is to say that each skill rank counts as +3, with each category rank being +2. (i.e. Standard progression)
That gives you a basic skill roll, if successful you can modify the result by +1/-1 to achieve a desired result or hit on a specific location.
Where my interpretation of the skill definitely differs is the application of difficulty to the roll and the situations in which it can be attempted. I allow positional modifier to affect the chance.. and more importantly allow additional levels of difficultly in situations where the attempt could not normally be made. I.e. In standard one-on-one melee or with missile weapons/spells. Therefore the skill has a far wider range of applications.
Incidently, I don't use the skill as an additional roll, rather the character chooses the MINIMUM of either the weapon skill or the Ambush skill bonus to determine the OB of the attack and the MINIMUM of the weapon or ambush ranks to determine the effect. (edit: If they wish to make an ambush attempt..otherwise simply the OB of the weapon skill as normal)
So in effect I use the skill as a combination of Ambush, Sniping and Targeting skills.
-
Rand,
roughly, average A crits take you out of a fight 8% of the time, B-D 10% of the time, and E 12% of the time. . .I used 6% as the dinkiest possible A critical, but really, the variation involved is minimal.
E crits are only slighly more lethal than A crits, what they mostly do is really ruin your day with stuns, bleeds and injuries.
GB,
You are using the skill essentially exactly correctly AFAIK, but the mods to OB and Ranks are a bit different. (They make a lot of sense though, so a terrible ambusher gets weak OB, and it's hard to major crit modification with a weapon you have few ranks in.) . . . .but all of that is IMO aside issues to the structure of the Crit table with a 66 being an out of sequence peak of overdamage compared to 65 or 67 results.
That 66 isn't there arbitrarily, it's very specifically there for use with ambush, to make critical modifcations more dangerous. It was placed in a position with mathmatical precision. . .the fact that the 51-66 space is as close to 1/2 the 67-96 space as possible is no quirk or annomaly, it's a carefully calculated positioning that makes 51 + X = 66 AND 81 - X = 66 and 81 + X = 96. . .it seems like someone arbitrarily picked 66 out of a hat, but really, X = 15 creates a situation where with an overlap of 1, the 51-00 on the crit table are all fight ending results. . .it wasn't done so by hapenstance or accident or whim. . .Ambush is intended to be that lethal.
Really, to be used properly, it's not easy either.
Ambush was intended to take the place of the AD&D thief backstab ability, which if I recall back that far accurately, was quite nasty for AD&D. . .multiply that against the ratio of lethality of regular AD&D combat to RM combat and you get Ambush.
-
I think one key item to remember is to ambush you must approach your foe undetected, I use a successful stalk to accomplish that. That is common to both RM2 and RMSS/RMFRP. After that, there is divergance on how it is used. But, the fact is, the ambusher will almost always be alone. He better have the ability to kill/incapacitate with one shot or he won't be around for very long.
-
I can't read the minds of those who designed the system... but 66 is an easy number to remember. ;)
Rolemaster is superior to AD&D, D&D in many, many ways. The AD&D backstab ability was a class dependant ability, rather than a skill. It had many conditions which needed to be met before it could be used. And the major stumbling block was the presumption that the name and the differing opinions as how (and when and what on) it could be used.
Some people have cited the lack of hit location here as an issue, personally in the majority of cases I believe it is irrelevant and a GM can always simply subtley alter the crit discription to suit the logical possibilities of a blow. (e.g. a leg critical has been indicated... though the attack roll had already been modified to take account of the cover provided by a waist high stone wall... a successful hit still happens, therefore he can't have been hit in the leg..). Many other systems get around this problem by having a "called shots" modifier, i.e. the attack roll is made at a penalty, if you miss you miss completely, otherwise you hit what you aim for.
This methodology can be applied in Rolemaster, you could simply determine the modifiers for attacking specific locations. However, I've always considered the hit or miss called shot rather illogical. What if in attempting to hit an arm your swing is blocked by the body? It makes sense in occasions where you are deliberately attempting to avoid hitting other parts of the body (like shooting a target in the leg to immobilise them...rather than kill them.) but not otherwise.
In most cases I would simply re-apply the modifier to determine the hit as normal and then modify the crit result to suit. Therefore hitting with the modifer means you hit the specifed location (and any crits are modified to represent that location being hit), hitting without the modifier means that any crit resulting from the blow is modified NOT to include that location.
Bearing this is mind we then come to the "Ambush" skill (which I'd rather call the Aimed blow or Precision Strike). This should not be affected by the modifiers to hit a specific area but effectively can be used in the same fashion but to greater effect. Failure indicates a complete failure to hit, a hit indictes a skewing towards a more controlled application upon the specfied target area. (i.e. It has a greater chance of achieving a specific critical result than a called shot)
-
LM, I have to say that those numbers don't reflect the experience I have had playing RM. I remember way more single-or-double hit killing, a lot more. Heck, my "Batman" style character didn't have Ambush, but when I was able to attack from hiding, well more than half of the time I was able to kill in a single blow.
Maybe it was the GM, but he wasn't known for being uber player friendly, so I don't think so....
-
Some people have cited the lack of hit location here as an issue, personally in the majority of cases I believe it is irrelevant and a GM can always simply subtley alter the crit discription to suit the logical possibilities of a blow. (e.g. a leg critical has been indicated... though the attack roll had already been modified to take account of the cover provided by a waist high stone wall... a successful hit still happens, therefore he can't have been hit in the leg..). Many other systems get around this problem by having a "called shots" modifier, i.e. the attack roll is made at a penalty, if you miss you miss completely, otherwise you hit what you aim for.
This methodology can be applied in Rolemaster, you could simply determine the modifiers for attacking specific locations. However, I've always considered the hit or miss called shot rather illogical. What if in attempting to hit an arm your swing is blocked by the body? It makes sense in occasions where you are deliberately attempting to avoid hitting other parts of the body (like shooting a target in the leg to immobilise them...rather than kill them.) but not otherwise.
In most cases I would simply re-apply the modifier to determine the hit as normal and then modify the crit result to suit. Therefore hitting with the modifer means you hit the specifed location (and any crits are modified to represent that location being hit), hitting without the modifier means that any crit resulting from the blow is modified NOT to include that location.
Bearing this is mind we then come to the "Ambush" skill (which I'd rather call the Aimed blow or Precision Strike). This should not be affected by the modifiers to hit a specific area but effectively can be used in the same fashion but to greater effect. Failure indicates a complete failure to hit, a hit indictes a skewing towards a more controlled application upon the specfied target area. (i.e. It has a greater chance of achieving a specific critical result than a called shot)
In my experience, systems need to be built from the ground up to accept the mechanics of hit locations and appropriate effects resulting from using them. D&D and Rolemaster were both built with the idea that damage interpretation was secondary to the results of the die roll. You roll high, you do a lot of damage and the narration of that damage is made appropriately from that result. In that paradigm, aiming for a specific location is a moot point. It is assumed that, when attacking, your character is always going for the most effective strike he can obtain and narrative input from the user prior to the roll has little mechanical affect on the results of that die roll. If he rolls well, he hits a vital location. If he rolls poorly he hits a minor location. What the attacker wants out of that situation ("I want to aim for the head because I want to cause more damage") is moot. In both cases (D&D and RM) the entire mechanic of attacks and damage is built around this idea from the ground up. Therefore, if you start to add hit location systems to them you must reconcile a number of cascading problems that begin to spread through the logic of the entire game.
By comparison, systems that are readily built with hit location systems must be able to accept narrative input of damage interpretation prior to any die rolls (they attack a specific location because they want a specific result) and still make sense after the die roll. This is a mechanical feat rarely achieved in RPG design.
In defense of Ambush, it is generally assumed that hit locations that will cause more damage are more difficult to hit. RM's core mechanic makes this assumption difficult to reconcile because making a location more difficult to hit (imposing a penalty on the attack roll) inherently decreases the amount of damage you're going to inflict. The Ambush skill was designed to circumvent that paradox in the core mechanic by creating a mechanism by which the damage can be altered on the critical level. So, the Ambush is a method by which the attacker can gain some measure of control in situations where hit location does make a difference, it is assumed that by taking extra care a more vital location can be hit in comparison with the frenzied attempts of a stand-up fight, and in the end the actual location hit is still left to interpretation of the final roll results. In that respect it is a good tool for obtaining the effects of a hit location system without the 'mess' of attempting to build a hit location system.
All this is staying consistent with RM's (and D&D's) core assumption that interpretation of damage is done after the results are obtained and that narrative input prior to the attack roll has little mechanical affect on the outcome. So Ambush is a pretty clean way of having your cake and eating it too.
On the flip side, one could argue that such ability is already assumed in the core combat mechanic and that Ambush is superfluous at best. A character who is attacking from a hidden position is generally going to be less worried about defense because his target is not going to be able to return an attack until the following round. So the ambusher can simply apply his entire OB to his attack (leaving nothing for DB) which is an act that is assumed to happen with each round of a stand up fight. Everyone's OB is assumed to be lower than it actually is because only the foolish or crazy actually attack without some attention to defense. In an ambush situation this isn't the case. So simply by virtue that defense is not as much of a concern until after the attack is delivered the effects of the Ambush skill could be trumped by the simple ability to devote everything to the attack.
Possible evidence of the superfluousness of Ambush is the fact that a lot of what was designed into RM at a very early stage was done so with the primary goal of taking what AD&D did and making it more detailed and more accessible to general PCs. From that perspective, the Ambush skill was designed with the goal of working with the crit system they already designed in order to emulate the backstab ability of the AD&D thief (giving the transitioning AD&D players what they would expect to find) and, as a skill, to be available to anyone who wanted it (living up to RM's claim that it is more flexible than AD&D). The reason I mention this is that any conversation regarding the "realism" or "appropriateness" of any trait in RM must take into consideration that, in many, many cases, the designers were making choices simply based on its association with another system that itself may not have been consistently "real" or "appropriate."
-
Fumble not tied to competence of combatatns.
This idea I like a lot. Is there anything in RM about this? From all my experience, no, but I could have been missing something blatant.
-
Swashbuckling can be used to negate a weapon fumble.
-
D&D and Rolemaster were both built with the idea that damage interpretation was secondary to the results of the die roll. You roll high, you do a lot of damage and the narration of that damage is made appropriately from that result. In that paradigm, aiming for a specific location is a moot point. It is assumed that, when attacking, your character is always going for the most effective strike he can obtain and narrative input from the user prior to the roll has little mechanical affect on the results of that die roll. If he rolls well, he hits a vital location. If he rolls poorly he hits a minor location. What the attacker wants out of that situation ("I want to aim for the head because I want to cause more damage") is moot. In both cases (D&D and RM) the entire mechanic of attacks and damage is built around this idea from the ground up. Therefore, if you start to add hit location systems to them you must reconcile a number of cascading problems that begin to spread through the logic of the entire game.
By comparison, systems that are readily built with hit location systems must be able to accept narrative input of damage interpretation prior to any die rolls (they attack a specific location because they want a specific result) and still make sense after the die roll. This is a mechanical feat rarely achieved in RPG design.
I quite agree, though D&D is actually random with respect to the amount of damage (hits) done compared to the accuracy of the attack roll. Any successful hit on a "normal" roll i.e. up to 19 on a d20 does a basically random amount of damage (apart from modification for magic and ability scores) whereas RM's basic "hits" damage is representative of the effectiveness of the blow (The critical roll isn't however, unlike HARP).
The called shots option is a bit of a problem. I assume that an opponent is simply trying to hit the opponent the best he can, not necessarily aiming for the area that will do the most damage. Therefore the normal result of a critical discription naturally determines the location hit. A called shot option in such as case should be used to simply modify the description of the area hit by the critical, for whatever reason. Lets say an opponent isn't wearing a helmet, or not wearing greaves. In such cases, the attacker performing a called shot would be favouring attacking those certain locations but still attacking the opponent with the intention to hit them.
-
Swashbuckling can be used to negate a weapon fumble.
Which means developing a separate skill, yet another RM DP sink. I like the idea that for every so many ranks in a skill, the fumble range goes down by one. I like the idea of 10 ranks per -1 fumble range. Of course, the minimum being 01. That means that in order to get the minimum the character has to have 40+ ranks in the weapon. That is some serious ability/training.
-
Swashbuckling can be used to negate a weapon fumble.
Which means developing a separate skill, yet another RM DP sink. I like the idea that for every so many ranks in a skill, the fumble range goes down by one. I like the idea of 10 ranks per -1 fumble range. Of course, the minimum being 01. That means that in order to get the minimum the character has to have 40+ ranks in the weapon. That is some serious ability/training.
I think I would limit the amount that the F range would decrease by as some weapons are just unwieldy no matter how good you are with them. I can also see letting the player by a talent or let them select from a number of talents every 10 ranks per weapon skill. This way everyone is not the same as it is in real life.
MDC
-
I think I would limit the amount that the F range would decrease by as some weapons are just unwieldy no matter how good you are with them. I can also see letting the player by a talent or let them select from a number of talents every 10 ranks per weapon skill. This way everyone is not the same as it is in real life.
MDC
I think that those weapons should have a greater fumble range (if they don't already). I mean it has to be easier to flub a flail attack than a dagger or a short spear... I would image. That means you could limit the minimum, or not as it just takes more ranks to get there.
-
You could say that the minimum fumble range (after reduction) can't be reduced to less than 1/2 the original fumble range.
-
You could say that the minimum fumble range (after reduction) can't be reduced to less than 1/2 the original fumble range.
That could work just fine.
-
DeathFromAbove:
Breakage system is bad. I would even say it is broken ;) Never used it as it is a chore and slows the game down too much. I have been thinking of making some kind of simple rule of my own for this.
We have used a simple rule of adding to defence - if you want ONLY to defend and you have free space of at least 3 meters to go backwards you can add + 10 to DB (maybe I will adjust that up). If you are back against a wall you cannot get this bonus, but then nobody can you hit you from behind. Simple but works. You still have to make that +0 attack roll. Making a separate defence roll would slow things too much IMO.
OB/DB system works well I think. We write down OB/DB to paper every round and reveal it as it is our turn to hit. That I think brings dynamic feel to combat. "Oh, you decided to make an all-out attack too this round!? Gasp!! Ok, let's see who wins initiative!"
If you want your players to develop a shield skill then why not make one? Would you have shield as a separate weapon with its own OB and DB? It is true that some fighters are better with shields than others. Would you give more development points to cover this new need? Magic users would get more DP too even if they wont use shields?
If you are tired of old crit tables make your own tables or remove lethal results from A's and B's if you like. Your game is your game - modify it as you like. We others would be happy to know about your modifications.