[Where I Read] A Mythras cultist reads RMX for the first time

[Rasyr]

Yes, in RMX, all the stats were from 1-100 and they had bonuses (which, as Akrasia mentions, differs from Against the Darkmaster), and they Temp values, Potential valus and then Bonuses (based on the temp values)

Racial modifiers adjusted the Bonuses, not the actual stats so, an Elf with a 100 Self Discipline would only have a stat bonus of 10, instead of 25 due to the racial mod of -15. But his stat would still be 100...

 

[pawsplay]

This reminds me of the time I tried to run RM Classic for my college buds. We went through the first round of skill development. Then I said, "Okay, now time for a second round." They rolled their eyes. Then I found out that they were spending DPs as though they were in the same round, i.e. at the higher cost for a second rank. I explained the issue, and they had to start over.

"Why didn't you say the costs reset?"
"I said it was a second round. Did you think it was divided up into two phases for no reason?"
"Honestly, yes."

And at that point, they bailed out on me. I was very disappointed.

 

[Mankcam]

One change that Against the Darkmaster makes from earlier versions or RM/MERP, is that it eliminates the distinction between stats (typically, 1-100) and bonuses (-25 to +25 within the 1-100 range). It just goes right to the bonuses and calls those the stats (ability scores).
So a 100 Strength in RM/MERP = 25 Strength ("Brawn") in VsD (and 50 in MERP/RM is 0 in VsD).

It's a good change, IMO, as the stats are mechanically superfluous (although I guess it's easier to conceptualize a character's relative competencies on the 1-100 range, with 50 being "average").

Yeah one of the many reasons why I prefer Aganinst The Darkmaster these days

 

[Sable Wyvern]

The two rounds of spending is avoided elegantly in RMSS and MERP with the adolescent development table.

 

[Akrasia]

The two rounds of spending is avoided elegantly in RMSS and MERP with the adolescent development table.

Likewise in Against the Darkmaster, which provides skill packages based on the character's "culture" (so, despite being based most directly on MERP, VsD distinguishes between race/kin and culture, whereas MERP combined them).

 

[Sharrow]

One change that Against the Darkmaster makes from earlier versions or RM/MERP, is that it eliminates the distinction between stats (typically, 1-100) and bonuses (-25 to +25 within the 1-100 range). It just goes right to the bonuses and calls those the stats (ability scores).
So a 100 Strength in RM/MERP = 25 Strength ("Brawn") in VsD (and 50 in MERP/RM is 0 in VsD).

It's a good change, IMO, as the stats are mechanically superfluous (although I guess it's easier to conceptualize a character's relative competencies on the 1-100 range, with 50 being "average").

It depends on the value you place on rarity of high bonuses, and on the stat increase system RM had. If those aren't of interest, dropping the d100 stat makes sense. If they are of value, keeping it probably actually makes things simpler.

 

[AsenRG]

Now, for "The Tactical Combat Sequence"...

"You get one attack roll per round, period". Fair enough, it's a common abstraction. But then what does the shield do? If you always get one attack, why does it say "attacks from one opponent", and not "one attack"?

But if you decide to make "half-assed" attacks, you decide on a range of how much of your activity you're using (say, for a melee attack, 50 to 100%), but then get a penalty based on how much less than 100 % it is.

Ahem, that's fucking unclear. If I have theoretically a 50 attack rating, and attack at 60% power... (say, I'm using an action worth 40% activity, like opening a door), am I getting to attack at +30 (50 x 0,6), at 10 (50 - 40) or at -10 [(50 x 0,6) -40]?!?

The example suggests option #2, but that still sucks donkey balls if your rating is <100...


Carrying on: Initiative is defined as "the order in which actions are resolved", again pretty standard. List of initiative modifiers, going down on the list from fastest to slowest...again, pretty standard
2d10 + Quickness Bonus + Modifiers. Again, there's a table. The name ChartMaster ain't in vain...but that's a good thing if you're not trying to play from memory.

Oh, wait, monsters have a Monster initiative table?!? OK, that's a bit much...


Then we get to Combat Resolution. There are three steps...only? I expected something like 7!
Step 1: Declare Initial Action(s), i.e. declare the initial action(s) of the character and what percentage activity is devoted to each.
Ahem, there's a table (no surprise) which actions require how much minimum activity, too. Well, we expected it from the previous page.

Step 2: Roll Initiative - Once both players and the GM have declared the actions of PCs & NPCs and creatures, it is time to determine the order in which the characters actually perform these actions.

Step 3: Resolve Actions - after deterimining initiative, it is time to actually start resolving actions (indeed it is, I agree). The actions are resolved in two steps; in order of the character's initiative.

Step 3A: Resolve Short Actions: Starting at the top of theinitiative order, the GM resolves the actions ofcharacters who have declared actions that require less than 50% activity. The GM will then repeat this cycle for those players whose characters have completed their initial actions, allowing them to declare another action and resolve it, so long as the total activity percentage for the newly declared action does nothave the character meet or exceed a total of 50% activity for the round. Otherwise, you wait for Step 3B to complete it.
Note: Instantaneous Spells are considered Short Actions, no matter how much activity is required.

Step 3B: Resolve Long Actions: The GM now beginsagain from the top of the initiative order, resolving thecharacter's actions as they occur. The GM then repeats this cycle, allowing characters that have notused 100% of their activity to declare and resolve new actions, so long as those actions do make the character exceed 100% activity for the round.

Actions such as reloading missile weapons or specific uses of skills, which take multiple rounds, are also allowed; they merely carry over from one round to the next until the percentage of activity needed is reached. Other actions such as spell casting, melee attacks and other actions that require less than 100% activity cannot be carried over from one round to the next.

Step 3C: Upkeep: The GM resolves any ongoing effects after 100% activity has been reached. This includes applying any hits per round from Bleeding or marking off rounds of stun. Refer to Critical Damage Resolution under Special Situations.

OK, then, given the sub-steps, that's actually 5 steps. Well, that makes more sense for a game with RM's reputation!



Continuing on, we also get Special situations, from charging and cancelling an attack, to full-round dodging.
"Variant actions and clarificaitons" would have been a better name, IMO, seeing as it clarifies things like "the decision to parry is made after deciding on how to split actions as percentage".


And then we get to Attack Resolution. This one is going to be a separate post, methinks...but at least I hope to finish the chapter in the next post, and get to Running the game.

One change that Against the Darkmaster makes from earlier versions or RM/MERP, is that it eliminates the distinction between stats (typically, 1-100) and bonuses (-25 to +25 within the 1-100 range). It just goes right to the bonuses and calls those the stats (ability scores).
So a 100 Strength in RM/MERP = 25 Strength ("Brawn") in VsD (and 50 in MERP/RM is 0 in VsD).

It's a good change, IMO, as the stats are mechanically superfluous (although I guess it's easier to conceptualize a character's relative competencies on the 1-100 range, with 50 being "average").

I agree it's a good change, if the stats are mechanically superfluous. At the very least, it won't allow you to make mistakes regarding the impact of racial bonuses.

Yes, in RMX, all the stats were from 1-100 and they had bonuses (which, as Akrasia mentions, differs from Against the Darkmaster), and they Temp values, Potential valus and then Bonuses (based on the temp values)

Racial modifiers adjusted the Bonuses, not the actual stats so, an Elf with a 100 Self Discipline would only have a stat bonus of 10, instead of 25 due to the racial mod of -15. But his stat would still be 100...

I don't see why that would be desirable, though, unless raising attributes, if it's even allowed, progresses/costs differently for higher stats? Thus the elf would not only have a lower SD stat, but also a harder time overcoming this with XP.

Because of course, fuck elves!

It depends on the value you place on rarity of high bonuses, and on the stat increase system RM had. If those aren't of interest, dropping the d100 stat makes sense. If they are of value, keeping it probably actually makes things simpler.

Indeed, as noted above...sorry for repeating you, but I wrote it before you posted. It's just that the actual post of the WIR takes time to type out!

 

[Rasyr]

The thing to keep ion mind is that while wrote RMX, I did not write the system overall. It is almost all Rolemaster Classic (the cleaned up version of Rolemaster 2)

And after 17 years (and after having authored 3 games since then), I can see your points and the flaws in the rules much better...... hehe

 

[AsenRG]

The thing to keep ion mind is that while wrote RMX, I did not write the system overall. It is almost all Rolemaster Classic (the cleaned up version of Rolemaster 2)

And after 17 years (and after having authored 3 games since then), I can see your points and the flaws in the rules much better...... hehe

And a thing to remember for you is that I'm an editor as my job. I haven't worked in the RPG industry yet, but I do look for flaws and point out ways to make them better almost by habit...
OTOH, I'm fully aware that even my favourite systems aren't perfect!

FWIW, so far I'm actually rating RoleMaster overall as "orders of magnitude better than something like D&D". I'd play it* even as-is, even if I'm noting things that I see as deficiencies.

*And yes, there are systems that I refuse outright to even consider.

 

[Sharrow]

Now, for "The Tactical Combat Sequence"...

"You get one attack roll per round, period". Fair enough, it's a common abstraction. But then what does the shield do? If you always get one attack, why does it say "attacks from one opponent", and not "one attack"?

Because there are spells that let you cheat, and monsters that just plain cheat.

But if you decide to make "half-assed" attacks, you decide on a range of how much of your activity you're using (say, for a melee attack, 50 to 100%), but then get a penalty based on how much less than 100 % it is.

Ahem, that's fucking unclear. If I have theoretically a 50 attack rating, and attack at 60% power... (say, I'm using an action worth 40% activity, like opening a door), am I getting to attack at +30 (50 x 0,6), at 10 (50 - 40) or at -10 [(50 x 0,6) -40]?!?

The example suggests option #2, but that still sucks donkey balls if your rating is <100...

Yes. Low-level RM characters spend a lot of time sucking balls.

Carrying on: Initiative is defined as "the order in which actions are resolved", again pretty standard. List of initiative modifiers, going down on the list from fastest to slowest...again, pretty standard
2d10 + Quickness Bonus + Modifiers. Again, there's a table. The name ChartMaster ain't in vain...but that's a good thing if you're not trying to play from memory.

Oh, wait, monsters have a Monster initiative table?!? OK, that's a bit much...

Monsters don't really have attributes the way PCs do.

I don't see why that would be desirable, though, unless raising attributes, if it's even allowed, progresses/costs differently for higher stats? Thus the elf would not only have a lower SD stat, but also a harder time overcoming this with XP.

Because of course, fuck elves!

Raising stats was something that 'just happened' when you levelled up - assuming your stat was currently below its 'potential'. The higher a stat started, the less likely it would have a potential higher than its starting level.

As for Elves' SD, the highest a potential could normally be was 101, and that took starting with 100, or nearly 100 (I forget which). Thus the best an Elf would normally ever be would be +10 (+30 for SD 101, -20 for Elfiness), which was what 25% of humans equalled or bettered (+5 for SD 76+, +5 for Human).

Note that Hiding requires Self Discipline, so 'Wood' Elves often have a big racial bonus to Stalk & Hide to allow them to not suck at it.

 

[Sharrow]

The thing to keep ion mind is that while wrote RMX, I did not write the system overall. It is almost all Rolemaster Classic (the cleaned up version of Rolemaster 2)

And after 17 years (and after having authored 3 games since then), I can see your points and the flaws in the rules much better...... hehe

The initiative system looks like it comes from RMSS, rather than RMC.

Over the years RM had a lot of different initiative system written for it.

 

[Rasyr]

The initiative system looks like it comes from RMSS, rather than RMC.

Over the years RM had a lot of different initiative system written for it.

And RMX did implement a few options to make things run smoother, that may be one of them.

 

[AsenRG]

Because there are spells that let you cheat, and monsters that just plain cheat.

OK, that makes sense.

Yes. Low-level RM characters spend a lot of time sucking balls.

...well, that sucks.

Monsters don't really have attributes the way PCs do.

Ah well, that's an approach I don't really like. Including because it leads to stuff like "you need another table to run monsters"!

Raising stats was something that 'just happened' when you levelled up - assuming your stat was currently below its 'potential'. The higher a stat started, the less likely it would have a potential higher than its starting level.

As for Elves' SD, the highest a potential could normally be was 101, and that took starting with 100, or nearly 100 (I forget which). Thus the best an Elf would normally ever be would be +10 (+30 for SD 101, -20 for Elfiness), which was what 25% of humans equalled or bettered (+5 for SD 76+, +5 for Human).

Note that Hiding requires Self Discipline, so 'Wood' Elves often have a big racial bonus to Stalk & Hide to allow them to not suck at it.

Doesn't it require Self Discipline and another stat? They're probably better at that one. Though it won't compensate for the -20 to the modifier...

Of course, I don't see elves sucking as inherently bad, they need knocking off those high horses!

The initiative system looks like it comes from RMSS, rather than RMC.

Over the years RM had a lot of different initiative system written for it.

Yes, it did note there might be different procedures...

And RMX did implement a few options to make things run smoother, that may be one of them.

Sounds likely.

 

[pawsplay]

The two rounds of spending is avoided elegantly in RMSS and MERP with the adolescent development table.

I think RMU does pretty good with the Background tables, and then explicitly stating that many RMU games are going to start at 2nd level, with 1st level being more of an "apprenticeship" level.

 

[Rasyr]

I think RMU does pretty good with the Background tables, and then explicitly stating that many RMU games are going to start at 2nd level, with 1st level being more of an "apprenticeship" level.

That is actually one of my pet peeves......

If you have a game with levels, then Level one should be playable..... (slightly limited in what they can go against is fine), but if you have a level one, then it needs to be playable in a normal game...

To me, not having a viable character at level one means that the design has flaws.....

 

[AsenRG]

That is actually one of my pet peeves......

If you have a game with levels, then Level one should be playable..... (slightly limited in what they can go against is fine), but if you have a level one, then it needs to be playable in a normal game...

To me, not having a viable character at level one means that the design has flaws.....

There's a certain game that's been popular for a while now that only gives you some core features at, like, level 3!


(I agree it's bad design, of course!)

 

[pawsplay]

That is actually one of my pet peeves......

If you have a game with levels, then Level one should be playable..... (slightly limited in what they can go against is fine), but if you have a level one, then it needs to be playable in a normal game...

To me, not having a viable character at level one means that the design has flaws.....

It is playable. You're just not a seasoned professional. Kind of what I would "scrub" level... a 1st level AD&D character, a 100 point GURPS character. You are capable of holding your own but you really aren't on a plane above a typical, mundane adversary like a bandit.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

I've come to settle on 4th level as being the ideal starting point for RM. However, while there are a reasonable number of people who agree 1st is not the place to start, I'm not sure that means the rules are badly designed-- there are still people who do like to start at 1st (just as I do in D&D).

 

[David Johansen]

RMSS character creation is more generous. I think the highest OB I ever managed at first level was 160. Fighter, 2 +20 weapons, ST 100, stacked training packages, greater exceptional strength talent. I'd have to dig it up to remember for sure. You can also do a mage that can throw a fireball at first level. He'll spend the whole combat prepping but he can do it.

The weak first level characters issue was hotly debated on the RMU comittee. The lead really felt that you should just start at a higher level if you want more effective characters and first level should be weak for people who want that style of play. Honestly, it's a fair point. If you can build powerful characters at first level, the level becomes almost meaningless as a comparitive power tool.

If I remember right the reinforced leather armour type is generally considered the very best armour. You might take a bit more damage than you would in plate but you're harder to hit and the MM penalty isn't ridiculous.

 

[AsenRG]

If I remember right the reinforced leather armour type is generally considered the very best armour. You might take a bit more damage than you would in plate but you're harder to hit and the MM penalty isn't ridiculous.

Yeah, I'm going to have some choice words on the matter when we get to equipment, I suspect...

 

[AsenRG]

My goal is to get to the end of the combat chapter today. Wish me luck!

"To resolve an attack, the player makes an attack roll, adding the PC's OB "and any other conditional or situational attack modifiers", and subtracting the defender's DB and any other conditional or situational defensive modifiers."

As an aside, the only thing I don't like about (Attack-Defense)+Roll systems is that when you can shift points from attack to defense, the one who chooses last can simply decide with how much points on attack is everybody rolling. I.e. you have OB 50 & DB 35, the opponent has OB 50 and DB 35 as well. The attacker chooses last, and can choose whether everyone is rolling at 1d100+15, or say, at 1d100-10, or even 1d100-35, and hoping very much for a critical... live by the crit, die by the crit!
Or, even more likely, live by the opponent's fumble, die by the fumble.
This makes the fight feel like a roll-off, TBH. Avoiding this usually depends on what else is possible in the system.
Just to be clear, I first encountered this in Talislanta. Or at least it was the first time I remember.

"The net results of this roll are then looked up on the proper attack table, cross-indexed against the type of armor that the defender has."

So it's a weapon type vs armour system? Well, not bad, those have much to recommend them.

"This attack roll is a "High open-ended roll". That means that if the initial roll is between 96 and 100, then you roll a second time and add the second roll to thefirst before applying the modifiers. However, if the initial roll is too low, you could Fumble".
This depends on the unmodified roll, however, and is cross-indexed with your weapon...though why do 2-handed swords have higher Fumble stats, I'll never understand.
Also, unmodified roll means "24th level of skill users fumble exactly as often as people who never held the weapon before".

OTOH, if it's higher than that, you get to resolve the attack normally... up to a point.
"Net results that are greater than 150 are treated as if they were 150. Some attack tables have break-points indicating the maximum result possible for a given size or type of attack. In the case of such attacks, any net results greater than the maximum allowed for that attack size or type is reduced to the maximum allowed."

So, a roll of 300 and a roll of 195 are the same? Count me as mildly disappointed.

"In looking up the results, the table will give either just a number or a number and letter combination such as "4" or "16D". The number represents how much concussion hit damage is done to the defender. A result of "0" from the attack table means that no damage was done to the defender. This could be from a miss or from a hit that just was not strong enough to hurt the defender."

...wait, concussion? Rolemaster assumes that knights are beating each other to death while fighting in armour?

"It is up to the GM to describe it according to the situation at the time of the attack."
I can bet that I'd describe it a bit differently from many other GMs.

"The letter portion of the result indicates that the defender also receives a critical. There are six letter codes. "T" for Tiny, and then "A" through "E" with "E" being the highest severity critical. If the result includes one of these letters then the player makes another roll on the proper critical table."

So, the 16 D example means "you get 16 damage and if that didn't kill you, you get a D critical"...right?
Oh, and some weapons are limited to a max of, say, C critical. OK.

"The roll that the player makes on the Critical Table is adjusted by the severity of the attack. The table contains a list of the modifiers to be used at its bottom."
What denotes severity, though? The unmodified attack roll? The number before the letter? We'll see.

Larger creatures do not receive criticals like other creatures. There are separate Large Creature Physical Criticals & Large Creature Spell Criticals tables...and because the SIZ stat can actually go up almost indefinitely, "Rolemaster Classic contains creatures that receive Super-Large Criticals in addition to creatures that receive Large Criticals".

Also, a note that if the result doesn't make sense - the example used is "an ankle wound by an arrow for someone who was crouching behind a wall" - the GM should rule some similar result. That would be a wrist instead of an ankle, or some such.
It warns, with good reason, the GM that this doesn't mean avoiding the damage altogether, because the cover already gave a defensive bonus, and the roll indicated a hit despite that.
Destroyed items get an RR to resist destruction if they're magical/extraordinary enough.

What follows is a list of effects used on crits - from "must parry", to knocked in a direction, to penalty, to stunned but able to parry, to stunned&unable to parry, to K.D., to K.O. Characteristically, the game actually explains what a K.O. means in mechanical terms, noting it makes the target "helpless".
Oh, and it also denotes the effects of bleeding. Constructs and undead are immune to this.

And then of course, we have an "Attacks on Helpless, Unconscious or Sleeping Targets", for this game tries really hard not to let the GM decide such matters. (I can see the logic, and many GMs are probably going to be happy with this, though maybe not OSR ones).

OTOH, "Damage to structures" is there to prove me wrong. It says "there's no fixed mechanic, just play it out in non-combat time, or let the GM jury-rig something". The example given is giving a door an armour rating and HP and attacking normally.

"En garde, door! My magical armour-defeating rapier shall make short work of you!"
"But it's a door!"
"But you gave it a rating of plate! And I've got a rapier that has an Armour Piercing rating!"

And then we get to the combat example. It is fine, though it ends with a single round (on 3 pages), during which the party almost destroys a small party of goblins, orcs and a hobgoblin. It ends with the words "things seem to be turning in favor of the PCs, but you never know"!

After which we have weapon tables. And then...
OK, let me start with the dagger having a -15 OB against chain/plate. Actually it was a rather convenient tool for finding the weak points of the armour! The reason nobody fought with dagger at first was simply that people would bash him from a safe distance, but that relies on the other side having a longer weapon, not on the other side being armoured...
But then the handaxe has a +5 bonus vs chain/plate, and the shortsword has a -10 against chain/plate, but +10 against everything else! Obviously the game means to suggest you carry a shortsword and a handaxe. Start with the sword, switch to handaxe when you get to tougher enemies.

The club has a -10 to OB. OK, if we assume the "basic" one-handed bashing weapon is the mace, which it seems to be, OK.
The Warhammer has a +5 OB. Also good.

...but the spear has a -5 OB. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, anyone?!? One of the most versatile weapons has an attack penalty?
What's almost worse, the halberd (written "halbard") also has a -5 OB penalty! Why?!?

Oh, wait, a battle axe has a +5 attack bonus. Why? Because it's shorter than the halberd?
And the two-handed sword...doesn't have a bonus? I guess the battleaxe is...I don't know, faster? More manoeuverable? Makes it easier to stab at weak armour points? Oh wait...

Last but not least: the sling has a restriction to criticals no higher than D type. I can't take this seriously, honestly, so I'm just going to answer this:
"Ask Goliath if that's true".


Animal/natural attack types, and then we get to attack tables.
The first they tell me is that 1-handed concussion attacks have an easier time hurting you when in plate/chain, compared to 1-handed blade attacks, which have an easier time hurting people in reinforced or soft leather, and not wearing armour. (Of course, people with no armour are probably not combatants, outside of fantasy games where wizards don't wear armour).

The type of critical seems to mostly determine the modifier for the crit roll (-50 for Tiny, +20 for E).

The bonuses and penalties are pretty standard, bonus for flank, rear and surprise, penalties for the target having cover. Though for some reason covers don't seem to give a bonus against spells?

Regarding spells: bolt attacks are treated like attacks, but ball attacks seem to only use the unmodified roll. OTOH, different types of "bolts" are capped at different parts of the table, so a "shock bolt" wouldn't be able to use a result over 90.
Too, I find it kinda funny that the shock bolt hurts you worse if you're in reinforced leather or plate, compared to chain or soft leather.
Both the shock and the lightning bolt have +10 bonuses vs chain/plate. Makes sense!


OTOH, I can't seem to parse out the other rules on P.57 which seem to denote that:
1) shields aren't useful against ball spells, but are against directed spells. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shields look like they'd always clash first with a ball-type attack...
2) the "base" spell attack, depending on the unmodifed roll, gives penalties to the resistance rolls.

...oh, yeah, and resistance rolls have a complicated formula to calculate their odds.
I'd welcome an explanation, here, but I ain't gonna reread it: the next tables are Criticals, so I just want to dive right in!

...Well, now I know why you guys said the RoleMaster criticals are "darkly humorous" (does anyone need a spatula?)
But that's a style of writing criticals that I approve of, anyway!

 

[Sable Wyvern]

...wait, concussion? Rolemaster assumes that knights are beating each other to death while fighting in armour?

Concussion hits model fatigue, bruising, shock and blood loss. It is nearly impossible to die from the loss of concussion hits, unless you're bleeding (and "bleeding" also includes ongoing shock from burns and similar).

Last but not least: the sling has a restriction to criticals no higher than D type. I can't take this seriously, honestly, so I'm just going to answer this:
"Ask Goliath if that's true".

This would be a limitation of trying to jam lots of weapons onto the one table. The proper sling attack table goes up to 10E vs plate and 28E vs no armour, which is plenty lethal.

OTOH, I can't seem to parse out the other rules on P.57 which seem to denote that:
1) shields aren't useful against ball spells, but are against directed spells. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shields look like they'd always clash first with a ball-type attack...
2) the "base" spell attack, depending on the unmodifed roll, gives penalties to the resistance rolls.

I assume the thinking is that a bolt spell comes at you just like an arrow -- if you're positioned correctly, you can use your shield/

Ball spells are likely to explode laterally or behind you. This may also include some carry over from AD&D, where fireballs expand to fill volume and could thus be assumed to wrap around shields.

I'm just trying to rationalise after the fact though, I don't actually know why it's this way.

OTOH, different types of "bolts" are capped at different parts of the table, so a "shock bolt" wouldn't be able to use a result over 90.
Too, I find it kinda funny that the shock bolt hurts you worse if you're in reinforced leather or plate, compared to chain or soft leather.
Both the shock and the lightning bolt have +10 bonuses vs chain/plate. Makes sense!

Again, limitations of jamming everything onto the one table. In "full" RM every bolt and ball attack has it's own table.

 

[David Johansen]

So the parrying and initiative thing is a common misunderstanding. The entire system hangs on the declaration of parries before initiative is rolled. I know people ditched declaration in basic D&D, it worked fine and they thought they could do that in Rolemaster. You can't because people will adjust their parry based on their initiative roll and the combat will bog down terribly . But that's not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that everyone can work out their attacks at the same time rather than sequentially. The reason people think Rolemaster is slow is that they ignore the turn sequence as written and try to run it like D&D. Things DIE in Rolemaster combat. Stuned no parry is the real killer as instant death results are generally rare. (for everything else there's the Raking table used for autofire lasers and lightsabers) There can be a hit point grind but in general fights last fewer rounds because someone's going to roll a crit and being outnumbered is really dangerous.

The damage to objects rules are in Spell Law. Don't ask me why.

Modifiers to table results have never worked as well as having actually tables. MERP used modifiers, If I understand it correctly the RMX tables looked too much like the MERP tables and caused some problems with Tolkien Enterprises.

 

[AsenRG]

Concussion hits model fatigue, bruising, shock and blood loss. It is nearly impossible to die from the loss of concussion hits, unless you're bleeding (and "bleeding" also includes ongoing shock from burns and similar).

Ah, so more assumed to be "exhaustion damage". Makes sense.

This would be a limitation of trying to jam lots of weapons onto the one table. The proper sling attack table goes up to 10E vs plate and 28E vs no armour, which is plenty lethal.

Wait, the tables were per weapon?

I assume the thinking is that a bolt spell comes at you just like an arrow -- if you're positioned correctly, you can use your shield/

Ball spells are likely to explode laterally or behind you. This may also include some carry over from AD&D, where fireballs expand to fill volume and could thus be assumed to wrap around shields.

Sure. But then a ball that is expanding around you should be basically undodgeable... at least if it's exploding in front of you, the shield provides some amount of cover.

...you know, I think you misunderstood "the other way around"?

I'm not saying that you can't parry a bolt. I'm saying the shield is more useful against a ball than being fast, so if any part of your DB is useless, it should be the Quickness bonus, and the shield bonus should stay.

I'm just trying to rationalise after the fact though, I don't actually know why it's this way.

Sure, and so am I! None of us has inside info, except maybe R Rasyr and even he has probably taken some decisions "because that's how it works in Rolemaster"!

Again, limitations of jamming everything onto the one table. In "full" RM every bolt and ball attack has it's own table.

...I really didn't think RMX has a dearth of tables!

So the parrying and initiative thing is a common misunderstanding. The entire system hangs on the declaration of parries before initiative is rolled. I know people ditched declaration in basic D&D, it worked fine and they thought they could do that in Rolemaster. You can't because people will adjust their parry based on their initiative roll and the combat will bog down terribly.

Sure, but then once you know the enemy's stats - from the 1st round or because you fought orcs before and your GM takes stats from the same binder - you can still adjust likewise.
So the issue I'm pointing out is "who declares last".

But that's not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that everyone can work out their attacks at the same time rather than sequentially. The reason people think Rolemaster is slow is that they ignore the turn sequence as written and try to run it like D&D. Things DIE in Rolemaster combat. Stuned no parry is the real killer as instant death results are generally rare. (for everything else there's the Raking table used for autofire lasers and lightsabers) There can be a hit point grind but in general fights last fewer rounds because someone's going to roll a crit and being outnumbered is really dangerous.

Yeah, crits and being outnumbered should be dangerous!

The damage to objects rules are in Spell Law. Don't ask me why.

...were they assuming you'd try to break magic items?

Modifiers to table results have never worked as well as having actually tables. MERP used modifiers, If I understand it correctly the RMX tables looked too much like the MERP tables and caused some problems with Tolkien Enterprises.

That might be the explanation why RMX isn't in print, I guess!

 

[David Johansen]

While items are covered in the breakage rules it's more doors and stone walls for spells like Cracks Call.

At any rate, GURPS has the better combat system and RMSS has the better character creation system. That said, GURPS criticals are about as dull as they come while still managing to be quite deadly.

 

[pawsplay]

RMU doesn't have maximum results or ad hoc weapons. On the one hand, you do miss some granularity in weapon types. On the other hand, some of those modifiers were overly simplistic themselves. The gripping hand is, I never liked the maximum result mechanic.

 

[Rasyr]

a common option used for the max result thingy was to allow the roll to wrap the table (i.e. you hit the max, and then subtract that max from the total roll and look again -- a result of 275 would give you a 150 and a 125 on the attack table and you would simply combine the results..

In the full RM, each crit table has 5 columns of 19 results per column and you ALWAYS wanted to roll a 66 on the critical!!! It was often better than rolling a 100....

 

[AsenRG]

While items are covered in the breakage rules it's more doors and stone walls for spells like Cracks Call.

Yeah, I just googled it, and Cracks Call is an amazingly useful one. A single wizard with this can end a siege.

At any rate, GURPS has the better combat system and RMSS has the better character creation system. That said, GURPS criticals are about as dull as they come while still managing to be quite deadly.

Well, yeah, but then

RMU doesn't have maximum results or ad hoc weapons. On the one hand, you do miss some granularity in weapon types. On the other hand, some of those modifiers were overly simplistic themselves. The gripping hand is, I never liked the maximum result mechanic.

What do you mean by "ad hoc weapons"?

I admit I'm not much of a fan of the maximum results, but OTOH, a table has to stop somewhere, or you need a way to expand it.

a common option used for the max result thingy was to allow the roll to wrap the table (i.e. you hit the max, and then subtract that max from the total roll and look again -- a result of 275 would give you a 150 and a 125 on the attack table and you would simply combine the results..

That works, too.

In the full RM, each crit table has 5 columns of 19 results per column and you ALWAYS wanted to roll a 66 on the critical!!! It was often better than rolling a 100....

Why the preference for this number?

 

[pawsplay]

What do you mean by "ad hoc weapons"?

I admit I'm not much of a fan of the maximum results, but OTOH, a table has to stop somewhere, or you need a way to expand it.

By an "ad hoc" weapon I mean a weapon that uses one or two other tables, but then gets modifiers to try to change its behavior. Usually, this is because you want to capture some particular strength or weakness about the weapon, but sometimes, it seems like it was because they ran out of charts and didn't feel like making a new one. Trying to capture those strengths and weaknesses with a conditional modifier sometimes introduced weirdness. Trying to use the charts as something you could vertically adjust to reflect another weapon pretty much always resulted in weirdness.

I'm going from memory here, but I think in one version, the bastard sword would use one table one-handed, but two-handed, you would use the greatsword table, but capped at a maximum result. The thing is, I don't think the mathematics were fully explored. Chopping the top off one table is not like making a new table. Particularly in previous editions, the tables were often not smooth or symmetric, varying according to what the authors thought about accuracy or penetration. So, I'm pretty sure that wielding the bastard sword made it harder to hit things, but maybe sometimes dealt more hits, but didn't crit as well as almost any other knightly weapon.

And a club... oh, it's a mace, but -10 OB against metal armor, that's just a mess. Maybe stick that stuff in a supplemental sourcebook, but only after you've spent a lot of time thinking about the ramifications.

Some of the tables had you hitting heavier armor more easily, because you can't dodge as well in heavy armor, but then the crits were further up, because you couldn't get a telling blow. So some of the modifiers would cause you to actually hit, or miss, more often, rather than directly affecting criticals. Whereas other tables were smoother, so that heavier armor was pretty much always better. So maybe, like, the dagger hits mail pretty easily, but isn't very effective overall against that armor, but then right at the top of the chart, starts delivering criticals pretty frequently because it slips past the armor. But the axe might not be all that accurate but its hard, and is mitigated at every step by armor. I'm not saying those specific examples are accurate, but just as an example. So trying to mess with that with little modifiers can get weird.

And some of the modifiers were equal to, or exceeded, the bonuses routinely granted by magical weapons. So maybe I put away Excalibur and get out my scimitar, because it gets, like +10 against unarmored targets, and now my accuracy is significantly higher.

 

[David Johansen]

I'm always sad that the fifty additional weapon tables in The Armory are in the simpler, admittedly easier to read format that the ICE 2.0 Arms Law used. Never the less, I have all 100 of those tables printed on parchment paper with the main crit table on the back. I hand this whole plan to to a really grand campaign with all kinds of nice stuff but it never stuck. I did have two or threeish good year or longer RMSS campaigns before that but as folks had kids and divorces the groups drifted apart.

This thread has me really wanting to run RM again but I probably never will.

 

[AsenRG]

By an "ad hoc" weapon I mean a weapon that uses one or two other tables, but then gets modifiers to try to change its behavior. Usually, this is because you want to capture some particular strength or weakness about the weapon, but sometimes, it seems like it was because they ran out of charts and didn't feel like making a new one. Trying to capture those strengths and weaknesses with a conditional modifier sometimes introduced weirdness. Trying to use the charts as something you could vertically adjust to reflect another weapon pretty much always resulted in weirdness.

Ah, got you. Yeah, I agree it's not as good as having a dedicated table - but then it comes at the price of MOAR CHARTS, which scares...some people!

Obviously not me, but then I've ran Phoenix Command. (Admittedly, just once...)

Some of the tables had you hitting heavier armor more easily, because you can't dodge as well in heavy armor, but then the crits were further up, because you couldn't get a telling blow. So some of the modifiers would cause you to actually hit, or miss, more often, rather than directly affecting criticals. Whereas other tables were smoother, so that heavier armor was pretty much always better. So maybe, like, the dagger hits mail pretty easily, but isn't very effective overall against that armor, but then right at the top of the chart, starts delivering criticals pretty frequently because it slips past the armor. But the axe might not be all that accurate but its hard, and is mitigated at every step by armor. I'm not saying those specific examples are accurate, but just as an example. So trying to mess with that with little modifiers can get weird.

Yeah...it seems they did it without an idea what exactly does a particular roll represent, i.e. 50-69, means you scored a stable hit, but didn't manage to get an unarmoured part, 70-79 means you managed to hit a weak part of the armour, but lost on accuracy instead...

Something to consider for a new edition, I guess.

And some of the modifiers were equal to, or exceeded, the bonuses routinely granted by magical weapons. So maybe I put away Excalibur and get out my scimitar, because it gets, like +10 against unarmored targets, and now my accuracy is significantly higher.

I'm of two minds about that.
On one hand, the bonii of magic should compensate, says the "magic is extraordinaire" part of my thinking.
OTOH, the magic shouldn't turn a screwdriver into a hammer, it should make it a better screwdriver, says "magic improves things, but doesn't change them" part of my thinking.

So it might work for you, or not. Depends on which school of thinking you subscribe to, I guess, it's not like we can find working magic to compare!

I'm always sad that the fifty additional weapon tables in The Armory are in the simpler, admittedly easier to read format that the ICE 2.0 Arms Law used. Never the less, I have all 100 of those tables printed on parchment paper with the main crit table on the back. I hand this whole plan to to a really grand campaign with all kinds of nice stuff but it never stuck. I did have two or threeish good year or longer RMSS campaigns before that but as folks had kids and divorces the groups drifted apart.

This thread has me really wanting to run RM again but I probably never will.

FWIW, this thread made me realize that my tastes have changed - years ago, I'd have welcomed the RM approach a lot more strongly...
These days, I choke up at seeing statuses explaining what "knocked out" means.

It's not that one approach is so much better or worse, it's that my tastes have changed.

 

[AsenRG]

Running the Game is the 5th chapter.
As it notes in the beginning, not quoting exactly, a lot of the games we love have the characters in situations with strong chances for injury and death...I laughed because it's true!

Consequently, most of the chapter deals with...injury, recovery, poisons, accident, and of course - with death. Including a "when is it irreversible".

BTW, the rules for dying due to HP loss are a bit unclear, but I think they mean that if you lose your HP, you're out (K.O.ed). However, you need to lose additionally HP equal to your Con to die, which provides a nice, big buffer.
Also, it means you need to kick somebody who's down for quite a bit to kill him, barring a lucky hit. Again, I approve!

Another very positive note is that heavy injuries require weeks. Granted, those are still recovering too fast IMO - Severe burns are supposed to pass in 30 days, half that if you are in a hospital setting? I'd say that you recover from those enough to reduce the injury to Medium, and after 7,5 days more, you need another 1,5 days to get healed. 24 days is still not much, but PCs are hardy individuals.

Also, there's a note that if a PC dies, in the complete rules there exist ways around that, but in RMX, it's a two-way trip to the stack with spare character sheets.

Well, that's more or less it for this chapter. I've been quite productive today in the thread!

...which is a good thing, because tomorrow I might not have nearly as much time.

 

[Sharrow]

RMSS character creation is more generous. I think the highest OB I ever managed at first level was 160. Fighter, 2 +20 weapons, ST 100, stacked training packages, greater exceptional strength talent. I'd have to dig it up to remember for sure. You can also do a mage that can throw a fireball at first level. He'll spend the whole combat prepping but he can do it.

The weak first level characters issue was hotly debated on the RMU comittee. The lead really felt that you should just start at a higher level if you want more effective characters and first level should be weak for people who want that style of play. Honestly, it's a fair point. If you can build powerful characters at first level, the level becomes almost meaningless as a comparitive power tool.

If I remember right the reinforced leather armour type is generally considered the very best armour. You might take a bit more damage than you would in plate but you're harder to hit and the MM penalty isn't ridiculous.

In RM2 and RMSS AT9 (rigid leather breastplate) or AT10 (AT9 + arm & leg armour) were generally the best - they had littke to no quickness (DB) penalty, were easy to learn to move in, and were fairly hard to hit. Oh, and they were lightning resistant.

However, they had some serious drawbacks compared to metal armour. Firstly fire attacks messed you up. Secondly, if you were in AT9/10 it was probably because you had a decent QU bonus and wanted it to count (the same applies to AT13 (mail shirt)), which is great - until you get surprised or hit with an AoE and your Qu bonus doesn't count. Then you are screwed.

AT15, 16, 19, & 20 (the full mail and plate suits) did terrible things to your manoeuvring, wiped out almost any quickness bonus, and had you taking concussion hits from low in the tables, but they made it hard to land crits on you, very hard to land major crits, and they worked even when you were surprised (though the +20 OB for attacking from surprise, and the +35 bonus for 'from behind' was bad for you no matter what armour type you were in).

Our experience in the day was that the quick, nimble types did well until they got tagged, and then they tended to go Splat. Also, if you've low Quickness and you're never going to be good at manoeuvring in armour, like a pure caster, and you can wear metal armour and still do your thing, like a mentalism user (as long as they leave the helmet off), you may as well wear the heaviest armour you can afford. Thus Mentalists and Lay Healers in full plate were a thing (and could be quite effective 'warrior mages').

 

[Sharrow]

My goal is to get to the end of the combat chapter today. Wish me luck!

"To resolve an attack, the player makes an attack roll, adding the PC's OB "and any other conditional or situational attack modifiers", and subtracting the defender's DB and any other conditional or situational defensive modifiers."

As an aside, the only thing I don't like about (Attack-Defense)+Roll systems is that when you can shift points from attack to defense, the one who chooses last can simply decide with how much points on attack is everybody rolling. I.e. you have OB 50 & DB 35, the opponent has OB 50 and DB 35 as well. The attacker chooses last, and can choose whether everyone is rolling at 1d100+15, or say, at 1d100-10, or even 1d100-35, and hoping very much for a critical... live by the crit, die by the crit!
Or, even more likely, live by the opponent's fumble, die by the fumble.
This makes the fight feel like a roll-off, TBH. Avoiding this usually depends on what else is possible in the system.
Just to be clear, I first encountered this in Talislanta. Or at least it was the first time I remember.

It is an issue, yes. In 1v1 fights parrying can often just mean "I want a longer fight", and unless you expect friends to be arriving that means "I'm turning this into a luck-based fight."

"The net results of this roll are then looked up on the proper attack table, cross-indexed against the type of armor that the defender has."

So it's a weapon type vs armour system? Well, not bad, those have much to recommend them.

"This attack roll is a "High open-ended roll". That means that if the initial roll is between 96 and 100, then you roll a second time and add the second roll to thefirst before applying the modifiers. However, if the initial roll is too low, you could Fumble".
This depends on the unmodified roll, however, and is cross-indexed with your weapon...though why do 2-handed swords have higher Fumble stats, I'll never understand.
Also, unmodified roll means "24th level of skill users fumble exactly as often as people who never held the weapon before".

OTOH, if it's higher than that, you get to resolve the attack normally... up to a point.
"Net results that are greater than 150 are treated as if they were 150. Some attack tables have break-points indicating the maximum result possible for a given size or type of attack. In the case of such attacks, any net results greater than the maximum allowed for that attack size or type is reduced to the maximum allowed."

So, a roll of 300 and a roll of 195 are the same? Count me as mildly disappointed.

There are many optional rules to 'fix this', the simplest of which is to subtract 150 and then apply the remainder to the table again. If the attack was capped at under 150, no extras like this, though.

What follows is a list of effects used on crits - from "must parry", to knocked in a direction, to penalty, to stunned but able to parry, to stunned&unable to parry, to K.D., to K.O. Characteristically, the game actually explains what a K.O. means in mechanical terms, noting it makes the target "helpless".
Oh, and it also denotes the effects of bleeding. Constructs and undead are immune to this.

The really scary monsters are the ones that are immune to stuns (some trolls, for example).

After which we have weapon tables. And then...
OK, let me start with the dagger having a -15 OB against chain/plate. Actually it was a rather convenient tool for finding the weak points of the armour! The reason nobody fought with dagger at first was simply that people would bash him from a safe distance, but that relies on the other side having a longer weapon, not on the other side being armoured...
But then the handaxe has a +5 bonus vs chain/plate, and the shortsword has a -10 against chain/plate, but +10 against everything else! Obviously the game means to suggest you carry a shortsword and a handaxe. Start with the sword, switch to handaxe when you get to tougher enemies.

The club has a -10 to OB. OK, if we assume the "basic" one-handed bashing weapon is the mace, which it seems to be, OK.
The Warhammer has a +5 OB. Also good.

...but the spear has a -5 OB. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, anyone?!? One of the most versatile weapons has an attack penalty?
What's almost worse, the halberd (written "halbard") also has a -5 OB penalty! Why?!?

Oh, wait, a battle axe has a +5 attack bonus. Why? Because it's shorter than the halberd?
And the two-handed sword...doesn't have a bonus? I guess the battleaxe is...I don't know, faster? More manoeuverable? Makes it easier to stab at weak armour points? Oh wait...

Last but not least: the sling has a restriction to criticals no higher than D type. I can't take this seriously, honestly, so I'm just going to answer this:
"Ask Goliath if that's true".

So, this is because the version of the game you're reading has a reduced number of attack tables, so various weapons get adjustments compared to the baseline weapon that table's based on. In the 'full' versions almost all weapons have their own tables. OTOH, in the full versions daggers still suck vs full plate.

Animal/natural attack types, and then we get to attack tables.
The first they tell me is that 1-handed concussion attacks have an easier time hurting you when in plate/chain, compared to 1-handed blade attacks, which have an easier time hurting people in reinforced or soft leather, and not wearing armour. (Of course, people with no armour are probably not combatants, outside of fantasy games where wizards don't wear armour).

The type of critical seems to mostly determine the modifier for the crit roll (-50 for Tiny, +20 for E).

In the full games, each grade has their own column, so they have no modifiers.

The bonuses and penalties are pretty standard, bonus for flank, rear and surprise, penalties for the target having cover. Though for some reason covers don't seem to give a bonus against spells?

Regarding spells: bolt attacks are treated like attacks, but ball attacks seem to only use the unmodified roll. OTOH, different types of "bolts" are capped at different parts of the table, so a "shock bolt" wouldn't be able to use a result over 90.
Too, I find it kinda funny that the shock bolt hurts you worse if you're in reinforced leather or plate, compared to chain or soft leather.
Both the shock and the lightning bolt have +10 bonuses vs chain/plate. Makes sense!


OTOH, I can't seem to parse out the other rules on P.57 which seem to denote that:
1) shields aren't useful against ball spells, but are against directed spells. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shields look like they'd always clash first with a ball-type attack...
2) the "base" spell attack, depending on the unmodifed roll, gives penalties to the resistance rolls.

...oh, yeah, and resistance rolls have a complicated formula to calculate their odds.

It's a BRP-style resistance table, but for level vs level rather than stat vs stat, and with diminishing returns.

 

[Sharrow]

So the parrying and initiative thing is a common misunderstanding. The entire system hangs on the declaration of parries before initiative is rolled. I know people ditched declaration in basic D&D, it worked fine and they thought they could do that in Rolemaster. You can't because people will adjust their parry based on their initiative roll and the combat will bog down terribly . But that's not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that everyone can work out their attacks at the same time rather than sequentially. The reason people think Rolemaster is slow is that they ignore the turn sequence as written and try to run it like D&D. Things DIE in Rolemaster combat. Stuned no parry is the real killer as instant death results are generally rare. (for everything else there's the Raking table used for autofire lasers and lightsabers) There can be a hit point grind but in general fights last fewer rounds because someone's going to roll a crit and being outnumbered is really dangerous.

The Automatic/Shrapnel table in SM2 is also really lethal.

 

[Sharrow]

Another very positive note is that heavy injuries require weeks. Granted, those are still recovering too fast IMO - Severe burns are supposed to pass in 30 days, half that if you are in a hospital setting? I'd say that you recover from those enough to reduce the injury to Medium, and after 7,5 days more, you need another 1,5 days to get healed. 24 days is still not much, but PCs are hardy individuals.

The full versions had multipliers for nerve damage, organ damage, and I think major burns (and if not, that's easily added) and they made recovery from major wounds very slow (though characters with high Constitution bonuses healed rather faster), and quite possibly you'd never fully recover (a rule that we always tossed out as being anti-fun).

Healing without magic or herbs was slow, and there's a neat little feature - different races heal at different rates, and the healing rate for elves is terrible. They might never scar and all that, but that comes at the cost of healing slowly.

 

[pawsplay]

So, this is because the version of the game you're reading has a reduced number of attack tables, so various weapons get adjustments compared to the baseline weapon that table's based on. In the 'full' versions almost all weapons have their own tables. OTOH, in the full versions daggers still suck vs full plate.

I'm looking at RMU, and daggers do indeed suck against full plate... until you get pretty high up the chart. They actually get a critical against full plate with a lower total than a broadsword, although they have a reduced maximum crit level ("B" versus "C"). I imagine other versions that give the dagger its own table are similar. I think something that gave the dagger extra crits, like a flaming weapon spell, might actually make it a situationally better weapon than a broadsword against plate. But yeah, don't bring a dagger to a knight fight. I know it's probably disappointing for all those misericorde fans out there. A Called Shot might help considerably.

 

[David Johansen]

Assuming it hasn't changed, RMU's tables are more consitant and less quirky. Essentially there's an algorithm and the weapons are scaled by size so a dagger will be a short, straight blade. Did they ever do the ap based 600 table system or did it prove unmanagable? (imagine that) I guess, also, did they stick with scaling damage by size so a human and a dragon might have 50 hit points but the human only does 1/8 damage to the dragon? I know that was the plan when I left but there were ten years of fan playtest since then.

 

[Rasyr]

It's not that one approach is so much better or worse, it's that my tastes have changed.

Mine as well... Hence why I prefer 2d10 over d100 nowadays....

 

[Sharrow]

Assuming it hasn't changed, RMU's tables are more consitant and less quirky. Essentially there's an algorithm and the weapons are scaled by size so a dagger will be a short, straight blade. Did they ever do the ap based 600 table system or did it prove unmanagable? (imagine that) I guess, also, did they stick with scaling damage by size so a human and a dragon might have 50 hit points but the human only does 1/8 damage to the dragon? I know that was the plan when I left but there were ten years of fan playtest since then.

While that looks like a nice way to manage scaling, it means unnecessary maths during play. Better, IMO, to give the dragon x8 hit points (calculated once, outside of play). Same maths, but done outside play time, and in a direction most people find faster (multiplication vs division). Also, having the damage you do 'reduced' feels bad. I'd have to read RMU to see if they went with that or not - I've skimmed it, but if they did that I didn't notice at the time.