Topic: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)

[Terry K. Amthor]

I suppose an easy way to show a superior fighting ability would be for a fighter at a certain level to gain an additional attack (without the use of 'haste'), since the concept of Arms Law was that in a 10-second round, the fighter would get in one good attack during a melee, mixed with a lot of swordplay. This would allow another chance, because of his superior experience. Has this been suggested before? My AL experience is dated.

[Hurin]

I am sure I am not the first to have suggested it, but earlier in the thread I did put it this way:

"Given that melee combat is I think the only thing that is treated abstractly (i.e. you can swing a sword many more times than once in a round, but only get one attack), you could certainly give multiple attacks for people with high skill ranks in melee weapons. This would represent the fact that attacks made by someone with high skill are more likely to be deadly more often."

One further thought I had is that if you give an extra attack at say a -20 for every 10 ranks, then there is actually more of an incentive for higher level characters to keep developing skill ranks in weapons, even if they are only getting a +1 per rank. That might be a good or bad thing, depending on how you think arms-users are balanced against other classes.

[RandalThor]

@#40 & 41: I agree wholeheartedly. I have said that the uber high-roll could be reflected by a "Roll-over" on the attack table allowing for multiple crits, which could be described as different successful attacks. But that doesn't cover the times when you want to attack multiple foes in a single round - which should be possible in 10-seconds. The -20 per additional attack, but only allowed after certain rank-levels have been attained is a workable method.

[PhillipAEllis]

That "Roll-over" -- would it be similar to the options detailed in the "Breaking 150" options in RMC1?

[RandalThor]

I guess, I don't know RMC all too well as I mostly played RMSS/FRP - and never actually played RMC. But, I imagine the idea is much the same: keep "wrapping" the table until you can't and apply anymore. Example: when all said and done, I rolled a 412. That would be 2 "150s" and one "112" on whatever table you were using. The method I described above would mean you consider those 3 different hits in the same round, of course on the same individual. Is that how the RMC rule goes?

[yammahoper]

At 1-10 ranks, PC may parry versus one hex facing/foe.
At 11-20 ranks, PC parry is applied against two hex facings/foe.
At 21-30 ranks, PC parry is applied against three hex facing/foe.
At 31-50 ranks, PC applies 1/2 parry to one flank/foe.
At 51-70 ranks, PC applies 1/2 parry to both flanks/foe.
At 71-99 ranks, PC applies 1/4 parry versus rear or doubles parry value versus one hex facing/foe.
At 100+ ranks, PC applies 1/2 parry to rear or doubles parry value versus two hex facings/foe.

Any foe attacking a defended hex facing may be countered attacked by PC.  Every counter attack after the first suffers a -20 OB mod, accumulative.  No counter attack may be performed if parry and counter attack penalty result in 0 or less OB.

[Terry K. Amthor]

I am sure I am not the first to have suggested it, but earlier in the thread I did put it this way:

"Given that melee combat is I think the only thing that is treated abstractly (i.e. you can swing a sword many more times than once in a round, but only get one attack), you could certainly give multiple attacks for people with high skill ranks in melee weapons. This would represent the fact that attacks made by someone with high skill are more likely to be deadly more often."

One further thought I had is that if you give an extra attack at say a -20 for every 10 ranks, then there is actually more of an incentive for higher level characters to keep developing skill ranks in weapons, even if they are only getting a +1 per rank. That might be a good or bad thing, depending on how you think arms-users are balanced against other classes.

Oops, Hurin, sorry I missed your earlier post! And actually, after thinking about it, going way back to early D&D, didn't you start to get more attacks per round as you went up levels? I confess total ignorance of any version of D&D after the 70's.

[Terry K. Amthor]

I also like the idea of being able to fight multiple foes at the same time; shouldn't necessarily be the realm of martial arts (maybe I have been watching too many old episodes of Xena and Hercules, though I think Xena was certainly some kind of Warrior Monk after her eastern training), and a high level fighter would be aware of all foes around him/her in a melee, and have multiple parrying options, dual-weapon possibilities, etc.

Still, a 20th level fighter vs a 20th level Mage in Rolemaster, I bet on the (flying/invisible until he delivers the deadly lightning bolt) Mage every time, unless the Mage craps out and the fighter can get off a missile weapon...

[Hurin]

I guess, I don't know RMC all too well as I mostly played RMSS/FRP - and never actually played RMC. But, I imagine the idea is much the same: keep "wrapping" the table until you can't and apply anymore. Example: when all said and done, I rolled a 412. That would be 2 "150s" and one "112" on whatever table you were using. The method I described above would mean you consider those 3 different hits in the same round, of course on the same individual. Is that how the RMC rule goes?

There were a few different ways of 'breaking 150' in RM2, as I recall. The one we used was similar to the one you just described, with one modification: when you break 150 and look up a second attack, you also have to add the defender's DB again as a penalty to the second attack. So the way I deal with your example above of someone rolling 412, would be like this, assuming the defender had a DB of 30:

--The first attack uses up 180 points of the attack roll (150 + 30 to eliminate the DB and reach the maximum of 150 on the chart).
--The second attack uses up another 180 (to max out again).
--There are 52 points left, but if you subtract the 30 DB from that attack then it is only a 22 on the attack chart, so pretty surely a miss.

So, basically, the way we do it is you have to keep counting the DB because you are essentially doing multiple attacks. But overall, this system has worked well for us and seems pretty logical.

[Hurin]

Oops, Hurin, sorry I missed your earlier post! And actually, after thinking about it, going way back to early D&D, didn't you start to get more attacks per round as you went up levels? I confess total ignorance of any version of D&D after the 70's.

No worries! And yes, you are right: in DnD fighter types did get extra attacks. The various versions handled it different ways. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but in 1st (and I think second) edition, characters like fighters and rangers just got extra attacks, more as they went higher in level. It would start at 3 attacks every 2 rounds and go up from there.

3rd edition did it a little differently, in that you got an extra attack every 5 levels or so, but it was at a penalty, and the penalty increased for each subsequent attack.

4th edition did it still differently, as the extra attacks came from powers.

[RandalThor]

AD&D:

Fighter 1 - 6 =  1/1 round
Fighter 7 - 12 - 3/2 rounds
Fighter 13+ = 2/1 round

It goes a bit faster for those who specialized in a weapon - for that weapon only, of course.

Also, it bears remembering that in AD&D a combat round was 1-minute long. Uber-abstract, you could say.

[Hurin]

Yeah, those one minute rounds... that was terrible. They changed that later to 6 seconds, which is what it is currently.

An aside: I am hoping RM follows suit and goes from a 10-second to a 6-second round. I find that movement rates are so high with a 10-second round that I am often having to redraw maps or use obstacles to keep the combat on the battlemat. Reducing the round would make combat slightly less abstract and help with the map issues.

[Terry K. Amthor]

I'm not sure what would be the difference between a 6-second round and a 10-second one, but I can understand the need for a super-powered fighter to be able to deal with a bunch of vastly inferior foes, as in (an extreme example) Sauron wading through the alliance with his mace and just swiping opponents aside. True he was a Maiar with the Ring, but they were powerful Elf and Human warriors.

There should be a lesser version for that for a truly heroic-power fighter wading into several regular inferior foes, or even a few unfortunate goblins several levels below him. Maybe there could be a whole new opening for 'group combat' criticals!?

"You sweep 2 of your foes and entangle them, sending them sprawling 10 feet away. Each recieves a (?) crit and is stunned 3 rounds. +10 bonus to next round against any remaining adversaries" (can you tell I used to write these?)

[Cory Magel]

The thing about making fighters tougher at high levels (and keeping up with the casters in usefulness) is that you can't just keep increasing their OB, because then you end up with a monster who can take on things the rest of the group may not be able to and if the primary fighter (the monster of the group) goes down the rest of them are hosed.  We ran into this problem many years ago.  I know, there are many nuances to how to take on a critter, but I'm sure you all see the point.  It can't just be an OB arms race for the fighters.

So the secret, I think, is coming up with those abilities that do not simply increase OB for example.  Extra attacks, reduced penalties for extra attacks, reduced fumble ranges, reduce speed factors, special attacks, defensive weapon maneuvers, called shots, special crits, and so on.  I've been working on a specialization system for a while that effectively works like a spell list for Pure Arms users utilizing Endurance as the effective power points.  You buy ranks in the specialization (which hinge on about 7-8 fighting styles) and the ranks give you access to special abilities that you usually have to pay endurance points to use (although some are passive).  One of these days I'll finalized it and send it on over to the Guild Companion.

[Thom @ ICE]

Cory - I'm playing around with something similar for HARP though the build up of OB is critical in order to be able to absorb the penalties associated with "scaling up" the combat maneuvers.  I'd love to review with you (or others) offline if you are open to it.

[Hurin]

I was thinking about this a little more. In a way, if  you use the 'breaking 150' rules, you are already giving characters multiple attacks, and at no minus for the extra attacks; so every character is already capable of multiple attacks if s/he rolls well enough or has a very high skill. So you might not really need separate rules for multiple attacks against a single foe.

If you want high-skill characters to be able to do multiple attacks against multiple characters, you might do this: if a character breaks 150, that character can apply anything over 150 to a second attack against another adjacent character. This would represent the fact that the character's first attack was exceptionally good, leaving time for the character to swing again at the same foe or another.

[Cory Magel]

Cory - I'm playing around with something similar for HARP though the build up of OB is critical in order to be able to absorb the penalties associated with "scaling up" the combat maneuvers.  I'd love to review with you (or others) offline if you are open to it.

The problem I ran into is the build up of OB creates a Achilles Heel for the party.  If someone has a monstrous OB you (as a GM) tend to have to throw some pretty nasty stuff at it... but when that character goes down the others don't stand a chance against it (in melee).  Yes, it's possible there are other ways to try and take the enemy down, but there an only so many possibilities and you eventually have to 'create' foes that still pose a challenge.  So, by not making it a pure OB issue, and utilizing side abilities you don't get into a raw 'who has the higher OB' race.

So, forget about using the primary OB to drive multiple attacks by splitting that OB... instead create an ability that uses the 'normal' OB.  RMU sort of does this with the multiple attack skill.  It does do it in a way that doesn't require more and more OB.  The multiple attack rules/skill simply negates penalties instead.  I think a simpler way should be devised for RMU since it is trying to target new RM users, but it's not a bad method for those who like slightly more complex mechanics.

I'd be happy to send you over what I have, it's mostly finished, it just needs some testing out (and our group as been on hiatus for a while pending some semi-serious life changes going with a few of us).  It would also be useful for other groups to try it out since we all play in slightly different manners.

[Thom @ ICE]

I agree with you about using OB to drive it in RM, but I think the concept (assuming I understand it correctly) is one that could work well with HARP. The way I see it, HARP already has some built-in tools that will play well with this. If you are willing just send it over to Thom@ironcrown.com   Thanks!

[Cory Magel]

Just emailed it off to you.  There are ten forms of specialization that concentrate on a general form or style combat.  You gain abilities (that require Endurance to perform in most cases) as you buy ranks (pretty much just like a spell list).

1 Handed / Free Hand
1 Handed / Shield
1 Handed / 1 Handed (TWC)
2 Handed (2H Axe, 2H Sword, Flail, etc)
Pole Weapons (polearm, melee spear, quarterstaff)
Unarmed Strikes (includes brawling)
Unarmed Sweeps
Drawn Weapons (bow)
Triggered Weapon (crossbow)
Thrown Weapon (sling, net, lasso)

If anyone can think of one that does fit into those let me know.

[Turbs]

Just emailed it off to you.  There are ten forms of specialization that concentrate on a general form or style combat.  You gain abilities (that require Endurance to perform in most cases) as you buy ranks (pretty much just like a spell list).

1 Handed / Free Hand
1 Handed / Shield
1 Handed / 1 Handed (TWC)
2 Handed (2H Axe, 2H Sword, Flail, etc)
Pole Weapons (polearm, melee spear, quarterstaff)
Unarmed Strikes (includes brawling)
Unarmed Sweeps
Drawn Weapons (bow)
Triggered Weapon (crossbow)
Thrown Weapon (sling, net, lasso)

If anyone can think of one that does fit into those let me know.

gotta say this interests me greatly.. if pure arms users could learn these as Combat maneuvers,
Also you can implement these templates into non-fighter pure arms users like Warrior monks
or even have a 'stealth based one" that allows for snap-action lock picking without a penalty or diving cover directly into stealth maneuvers.
start implementing this throughout other skill sets like Leadership (use abilities like rally, inspire allies etc) all at the cost of fatigue instead of PP.