Topic: New player question: invincible rats!

[ciderman9000000]

Hi, I'm new to RM and indeed the whole RPG genre, I'm trying to prepare to GM a game along with 3/4 other complete noobs and need a little help with combat rules!

Having read and mostly understood the RM2 red-spine boxset rules I decided to have a little practice session with myself and my girlfriend, make a couple of characters and run through some basic combat, just see how well I had the rules figured out, nothing fancy.

So we made a Fighter and a Wizard, all good, that went smoothly enough I think:

Fighter lvl1 — DB19, OB33, wielding a broad sword
Wizard lvl1 — DB0, OB16, wielding a mace

Next I drew a little dungeon room on some blank paper, handed both PC's to my girlfriend to control and took on the role of GM myself, spawning 10 ordinary rats as detailed in Creatures & Treasures with which to test out the combat mechanics.

That's when the problems started.

According to C&T rats are AT1 DB30/OB20Tbi (that's from memory, I've not the book in front of me here). If 6 rats attack as a group they have OB20Sbi. The issue we had was that these rats proved really difficult to land even the slightest hit on with either the broadsword or mace on the AT1 column, like an 83 roll or something  was the minimum for either weapon IIRC — this meant that the Fighter would only land 1/5 blows and the Wizard 1/20! Does this sound right? Surely killing rats ought to be easier than this!

Looking through the weapon hit charts it seems that this pattern followed across most if not all of the available weapons. The whip would have been somewhat more effective against rats, but our PC's didn't have one. So how does one kill rats then if not with ordinary weapon attacks?

Whilst talking after the game my girlfriend suggested that perhaps it's just intentionally difficult to hit small creatures with weapons. What alternative methods of attack are there though? The wizard being lvl1 had no attack spells available. She suggested perhaps she could have tried to stomp the rats instead, and that the wizard's lvl2 skill in dancing might be helpful there. I thought this a good idea and said that perhaps she could have used a maneuver to try stomping rats, but upon consulting the rules the next morning I couldn't find anything to suggest that a maneuver might be used as an actual attack (which stomping rats would be, it'd definitely be an attack on the target rat!). Am I reading this correctly?

Another suggestion of hers was that she might try whirling her sword around as the fighter and try to attack all rats surrounding him at once (a Whirlwind attack she called it, after a similar move available in an Xbox game we're playing called Divinity). Again, this sounded reasonable, but again the rulebook seems to rule out such a possibility — it's an attack, not a maneuver, and melee attacks must have an identified target!

So what's the deal here? Am I right in thinking that stomping rats wouldn't be a maneuver roll (possibly with Agility stat bonus + dancing skill modifier)? If so then, is stomping just not a viable option?

And what about the whirlwind attack? If a player specifies that she wants to attempt something like that, do you just have to say no, that it isn't possible since melee attacks must have a single target? I understand that the GM is at liberty to allow or disallow anything he likes regardless of the actual rules, but I really want to get these rules down and play the game as it was intended, at least whilst I'm new to the whole experience.

Any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

[Hurin]

You're not doing anything wrong; in fact you seem to be doing everything right. But RM2 makes some assumptions that you may not be aware of:

1. Low level characters are notoriously weak in Rolemaster (it has a grittier and less heroic beginning than say Dungeons and Dragons), and level 1 characters are not really fully matured yet. They are barely out of adolescence. So they are intentionally weak. Most average fully adult people in the game worlds I've played in like Shadow World and Middle Earth are I would say around level 3 to 5. Your characters skills are even weaker: they have just started learning how to use their weapons.

2. The best weapon to attack the rats with might be Martial Arts: Strikes. It starts to get hits and criticals at relatively low results. While your characters are poor at weapons, then, they might be better just stomping the rats.

3. Positional bonuses are very important, and can help you land hits more frequently. Flanking, attacking from behind, and using height advantages can all add more to your OB.

So, in sum, Rolemaster tends to start its players at a less heroic level than some other games. Wild animals can be fearsome at lower levels especially. Some people who like their characters to feel more heroic begin the game at level 3 or even higher. You will notice your characters become stronger quite quickly, though, with the first four level advances (from levels 2 to 5) bringing the quickest gains. If your characters were level 5 or even 3, they probably could have laughed at those rats.

[ciderman9000000]

Okay, that makes sense, I guess. Perhaps I should have started with ants! 

So would stomping necessarily be a martial arts attack then?  Never a maneuver? I confess I've skimmed over most of the martial arts rules thinking that we'd keep things more simple than to include kung fu characters in our noob game, but if I'm reading you correctly then any character would use the martial arts attack tables if they need to make an unarmed attack on something, yes?

What about the 'Whirlwind' attack my GF suggested then? Am I right in thinking that just would not be possible? If so then what if a player insisted on attempting it? After all, it wouldn't be physically impossible, just not ruled upon as far as I can tell.

Would this GM response be reasonable? 

"Okay, you can make a maneuver roll to attack all enemies at once. It's a 'hard' maneuver and the % success result will dictate how many you hit, you'll roll for each rat hit separately and these rolls will be -20 and no criticals would be allowed, plus you'll have to make an orientation roll after the maneuver is complete."

If I'm understanding this correctly then, strictly speaking, the above would be breaking the rules of the game (since maneuvers cannot be attacks), but in spite of the rules the GM needs to be flexible to the players' intentions, and so this would represent a viable compromise?

 

[Hurin]

Okay, that makes sense, I guess. Perhaps I should have started with ants! 

So would stomping necessarily be a martial arts attack then?  Never a maneuver? I confess I've skimmed over most of the martial arts rules thinking that we'd keep things more simple than to include kung fu characters in our noob game, but if I'm reading you correctly then any character would use the martial arts attack tables if they need to make an unarmed attack on something, yes?

Yes, most of my characters (the fighter-types at least) usually try to take a few ranks at least in Martial Arts: Strike or Martial Arts: Sweeps and Throws, for those times when they are disarmed or unarmed or want to get into a bar fight or whatever. It comes in handy sometimes, like when trying to stomp rats. I would rule that trying to kick them could be considered a strike attack, though you might also rule it a fall/crush attack (the table for which is even deadlier).

What about the 'Whirlwind' attack my GF suggested then? Am I right in thinking that just would not be possible? If so then what if a player insisted on attempting it? After all, it wouldn't be physically impossible, just not ruled upon as far as I can tell.

Would this GM response be reasonable? 

"Okay, you can make a maneuver roll to attack all enemies at once. It's a 'hard' maneuver and the % success result will dictate how many you hit, you'll roll for each rat hit separately and these rolls will be -20 and no criticals would be allowed, plus you'll have to make an orientation roll after the maneuver is complete."

If I'm understanding this correctly then, strictly speaking, the above would be breaking the rules of the game (since maneuvers cannot be attacks), but in spite of the rules the GM needs to be flexible to the players' intentions, and so this would represent a viable compromise?

Yes, in the end it is up to your judgement as GM. I wouldn't say you are 'breaking' the rules; rather, you are making a judgement call on how to interpret them.

You are being a little kind I would say in allowing such a low penalty to OB for hitting so many rats, but on the other hand removing the potential for criticals is a significant penalty.

Overall, though, you are right: even normal animals can be a threat to very low level characters. I think there was a famous case where a single wolf took out a whole low level party or something. That is a little Monty Python-esque, but the point is that low level characters are just rather weak in Rolemaster: at the start of level 1, you are just a normal, young person, and far from the hero you might become. Some people like this as a grittier/more realistic style of game; others just start their characters at higher levels so they never feel quite so weak.

[Dalewarrior]

   Hi Ciderman,

There's a character generation option in a RM2 supplement named Heroes & Rogues, which was a character database, and gave players a Hobby, namely 6x free skill ranks in any skill.

If you put a full Hobby in the weapon you choose, then your first level character will have 6 skill ranks plus the 2 he's allowed; add to that a Background option that gives a +10 in any skill; and a stat of 101 in Strength that gives a +30 in the OB if you think your character is a hero; plus a high steel weapon that gives a +10 OB; and your level bonus of +3 and you total a +93 OB in the weapon. But as Hurin said, you'd be advised to start at a higher level.

As to Maneuver attacks I know there are some that allow attacks. I use RM2/RMC but you might find in a supplement of a later edition called School of Hard Knocks, The Skill Companion  that for example in Tumbling there is the option

Very Hard Maneuver: Tumbling into an opponent. If this maneuver is successful, the target must make a RR of his level versus the Tumbling skill ranks, or be stunned for 1 round/10 of failure (Difference that the foe failed the roll / 10).

or in Acrobatics, there's the option to choose a

Medium Maneuver: A swing onto or into a combatant. A successful result forces the victim to make a RR of his level versus the Acrobatics skill ranks or take an Unbalancing critical of 1 severity/20 failure (Difference that the foe failed the roll / 20). If the acrobat lands on the victim, the victim resists at -20, but the acrobat falls if the target makes the RR. Add the feet dived to the maneuver. This is a Very Hard maneuver if the acrobat has a weapon or other object in one hand.

Regards,
DW

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

ciderman9000000 , just a note but, IRL, a young adult trying to kill six (agressive) rats with a sword would probably get killed himself... As Hurin said, in RM2, a level 1 character is just that: a normal young adult.
That being said, if you play computer RPGs (especially 90s era ones, as I'm not familiar with modern ones), when your characters start at level 1, they foremost fight say, slimes, rats and this kind of creatures, and have trouble, so, heh. :p
As such, as far as I'm concerned, I think you should also decrease the number of opponents your PCs face, especially considering one is a magician, who won't be able to hold in fights until... quite some time (when he knows his first attack spell, he won't have enough PPs to cast it more than once or twice a day), as RM2 is notoriously known for making its pure spellcasters very weak until quite late.

[ciderman9000000]

Yeah that was exactly my intention with the rats! It was to be a homage to the classic RPG trope: first encounter — rats!

My setting casts the players as fledgling members of a guild of mercenaries, posted to a small outpost town named Maker's Ridge to act there as agents of the guild, undertaking whatever tasks the locals can afford to pay for.

Considering the complete noobish nature of myself and my players I figured it probably best to introduce the various mechanics of the game in somewhat piecemeal fashion, and thus their first combat encounter would occur en route to Maker's Ridge and, of course, it would be rats. Nice and easy. Or so I thought!

This works out great actually though, as my own inexperience with the rules and concept of play has taught me a valuable lesson which I can now pass on to my players — that no enemy should be underestimated,  and that success will require one to think and act as their character might were the situation real, rather than to simply bash away with a sword (video game style) regardless of the practicalities involved.

I've no issue with starting my players low level as I see that as a learning curve they'll have to overcome, and in so doing they ought to learn a lot about the game and the spirit in which it is supposed to be played. The difficulty will force players to consider and address their situation in a far less rigid manner — teach them that not all problems can be solved by repeatedly pressing A.

I appreciate the advice from you guys, thanks.

[ciderman9000000]

@Hurin, you were exactly right btw, I'd neglected to factor in the positional bonuses from flanking/rear attacks. In my practice game the rats had surrounded the wizard and were being attacked from behind by the fighter — this should have meant a +15 OB bonus to his attacks, which would have significantly increased his chances of landing a hit. Had he chosen too to use the Stomp/Trample attack table rather than his broadsword then those rats would have been ex-rats before long. The issue then would have been for the wizard to survive the ratty onslaught long enough for the fighter to do his thing.

[Hurin]

This works out great actually though, as my own inexperience with the rules and concept of play has taught me a valuable lesson which I can now pass on to my players — that no enemy should be underestimated

Sounds like you've just learned the #1 rule of Rolemaster!

Also, in regards to a rear attack: the rules don't always spell this out well, but an attack from the rear actually gets a +35 total bonus: you get +20 for rear and also +15 for flank, added together. Actually, the rules do a terrible job of explaining that: they should just say, Flank = +15 and Rear = +35, but for some reason they don't, and that trips up a lot of people. There is also an additional +20 on top of that for surprise, if the rat doesn't see the attack coming, which would make the total bonus +55.

As you can see, these positional bonuses are much greater in Rolemaster than in say Dungeons and Dragons. A Rear attack in DnD just gives +2 (or in 5th edition, Advantage), which is the equivalent in Rolemaster to only +10, whereas a rear attack in Rolemaster can give +35. It is the same for shields: in DnD, they just give a +2 (+10), whereas in Rolemaster they could give +30 or more. So those positional bonuses make much more of a difference in Rolemaster than they do in DnD.

[ciderman9000000]

Noted, and thanks.

I wonder if you could help me also with one other thing that bothered me about rats — disease.

C&T1 states that a rat has a 5% chance of carrying a deadly disease communicated by a bite. The RM rules state that an RR roll must be made by any character encountering disease, with the result dictated by the Disease Resistance Table (or words to that effect: again, I've not the rules in front of me right now!). For that though one needs to know the 'level' of the disease. As far as I can tell C&T lists no level for diseases communicated by rats, so how does a GM work out resistance success or failure in the event of a diseased rat bite?

[Hurin]

Noted, and thanks.

I wonder if you could help me also with one other thing that bothered me about rats — disease.

C&T1 states that a rat has a 5% chance of carrying a deadly disease communicated by a bite. The RM rules state that an RR roll must be made by any character encountering disease, with the result dictated by the Disease Resistance Table (or words to that effect: again, I've not the rules in front of me right now!). For that though one needs to know the 'level' of the disease. As far as I can tell C&T lists no level for diseases communicated by rats, so how does a GM work out resistance success or failure in the event of a diseased rat bite?

Check out Character Law, pp. 11 and following, which explain the rules for disease (which are similar to the rules for poisons). Basically, the character rolls an RR against the level of the disease, and then, if the character fails, various effects kick in depending on how badly they failed.

[ciderman9000000]

But how do I ascertain the level of the disease?

[Hurin]

The Creature description doesn't specify, so I would make it the level of the creature. Since rats are level 0, I would just make it level 1. That's just my houserule though.

[Spectre771]

Hello and welcome to the RM2 family Ciderman.

Some good points about RM2 were made and it's those points that set RM2 worlds apart from other gaming systems.

RM2...
- level 1 PC's are weak, adolescent type, pubescent even as they've not yet reached their "potential" stats, only their "temporary" ones.
- is definitely grittier than other games and IMO, more realistic
- you don't tend to die from HP loss, you die from Crits.  I've had a player bleed to death from an 'E-Tiny' crit and it was the funniest thing ever!!!  I had another PC kill my Orc Captain in the 1st round of battle with the very first hit.  "E-Slash Crit" severed artery in leg, breaks bone, foes dies.... GM sighs in disbelief.

Hurin said it best, it seems like you are doing everything right.  There are some minor things to consider for the scenario you play tested:

1)  While you chose level 1 rats, you chose TEN of them.  It was 10 vs. 2 or at best 5 vs. 1, or (6 vs. 1 and 4 vs. 1 if you used the optional pack-attack).  Those aren't very comforting odds, even with level 5 PC's, 5v1 is daunting.

2) Spell casters are very weak early on in RM2 but get very powerful.  The fighter needs to protect the spellcaster while she preps, then casts the spell.  In your scenario.... 10 rats vs. 1 fighter while a spell caster preps a spell.  (3 rounds....  2 for prep, one to cast)

3)  Spellcasters are not fighters, as evidenced by the 16OB.  At PC creation, you get "Level 0" and "Level 1", that's two levels of development.  In another thread, it was shown that a level 1 spell caster could have access to four known lists.  Difficult to be sure, but doable.

4)  Rats hate fire..... just saying LOL  Drop some oil and make a spark. 

5)  Have you ever tried to catch a field mouse in real life?  I've tried, but damn it all, never been able to!  Never mind being attack by 10 of them!    

You had the right idea for play testing, using a spell caster and a fighter to get a good feel for the game.  You gave a nice small group, level 1 creatures.  Try the same PC's again, but send them against 2-3 goblins instead.  Don't change any stats at all or rework the skills.  Just drop the same two PC's against a different type of creature and see what happens.  I bet they'll do much better and you'll get a good comparison for the types of creatures and NPC's to use for your upcoming gaming session.

[Spectre771]

Also, in regards to a rear attack: the rules don't always spell this out well, but an attack from the rear actually gets a +35 total bonus: you get +20 for rear and also +15 for flank, added together. Actually, the rules do a terrible job of explaining that: they should just say, Flank = +15 and Rear = +35,

Which book is this listed in?  I really need to read that up again.  We've always used +15 Flank and +20 Back and add +25 for surprise.  We've been playing it wrong for 25+ years, damn it all.  We never had +35 for back attack.  I'm prepping another campaign and I have a new player who is a Rule Lawyer and I need to CMA. 

[ciderman9000000]

Thanks for the reply, Spectre, much appreciated.

I've a query with regard to your oil/spark/fire suggestion: how exactly would that come to pass, in terms of ruling, during a combat situation?

Let's assume my fighter had an oil flask and there was a lit torch on the wall, say:

—Throwing the flask at the rats: would this be a movement maneuver? Agility based?
—Grabbing the torch: a movement action (to the torch) followed by a static maneuver to remove it from the wall? Strength based perhaps?
—Throwing the torch: same as the flask above? Is there a skill for throwing random objects?

Does that sound about right?

At this point, what rules govern such environmental effects as oil catching fire? I can't recall reading anything about such things in the books I have (RM2 ChL&CaL, AL&CL, SL, C&T, CI, II & III), would I have to just make something up? Even then, say the oil catches fire successfully, how do I determine whether or not the rats are burnt and to what extent?

It's situations like these that worry me the most about GMimg my first game — I'm struggling to get my head around how all this stuff works and don't want to be left looking like an idiot with my game a failure and the players losing interest. Coming from a board game background where all actions are always definitive and rigidly defined, it's somewhat daunting to say the least.

[Hurin]

Also, in regards to a rear attack: the rules don't always spell this out well, but an attack from the rear actually gets a +35 total bonus: you get +20 for rear and also +15 for flank, added together. Actually, the rules do a terrible job of explaining that: they should just say, Flank = +15 and Rear = +35,

Which book is this listed in?  I really need to read that up again.  We've always used +15 Flank and +20 Back and add +25 for surprise.  We've been playing it wrong for 25+ years, damn it all.  We never had +35 for back attack.  I'm prepping another campaign and I have a new player who is a Rule Lawyer and I need to CMA. 

Arms Law and Claw Law (red band edition of RM2, stock #1100), p. 15. Note at the bottom of chart 8.2.7, it says that 'Modifications are cumulative unless noted otherwise'; the only ones that are not cumulative are the ones with asterisks beside them. It is a terribly confusing way to express it, and has tripped up a lot of people over the years; but I'm quite sure it has been confirmed that this means a rear attack is supposed to be +35, and a surprise rear attack +55.

This is why the RMU beta clarifies all this by giving a different chart, where a flank attack gets +15 and a rear attack gets +35.

[intothatdarkness]

Much of it depends on how you're using the combat system, honestly. I did a fair amount of adjusting to the character creation rules to make first level more viable, but still weak enough to give players a reasonable challenge while they learned the rules.

For the fire scenario, I'd likely use a simply maneuver roll with the character's Agility bonus for the throw. We suck with the Phase-based combat system, so the character going for the torch would be able to get to it and snatch it from the wall (if it was solidly attached, your Strength idea is a good one, but I'd likely make it a pretty easy roll). I tried to keep throwing random objects away from skills. Once the torch was thrown, unless there was a compelling plot reason to check I'd likely just let it set off the oil and drive the rats off. Sometimes discretion is better than rolling...at least in my games. I'd look at it is a reward for the players coming up with an innovative solution to a problem.

[Hurin]

It can be daunting, Cinderman, but that is also the great strength of the game: your players can do anything they want.

In regards to throwing the oil flask, Spacemaster actually had well developed rules for throwing grenades, which is quite similar. They made it a static maneuver with the throw grenades skill (which I would say is equivalent to the 'Thrown' weapon skill in RM2). So I would have the character make a maneuver with their Thrown skill, with a result of 101+ meaning they hit their target area. Less than 101 means it is off target, and the lower the result the further off target it is. In such cases, Spacemaster made the player roll a d6 (for direction), indicating the direction the throw was off target. Then you also rolled to see how far off target you were.

As for the damage, you might use the spells in spell law as a model for how much damage the fire does. You might for example say that every creature in the area that has been lit on fire takes an 'A' or 'B' fire critical. You could also roll an attack on the Fireball table instead.

[ciderman9000000]

Much of it depends on how you're using the combat system, honestly. I did a fair amount of adjusting to the character creation rules to make first level more viable, but still weak enough to give players a reasonable challenge while they learned the rules.

For the fire scenario, I'd likely use a simply maneuver roll with the character's Agility bonus for the throw. We suck with the Phase-based combat system, so the character going for the torch would be able to get to it and snatch it from the wall (if it was solidly attached, your Strength idea is a good one, but I'd likely make it a pretty easy roll). I tried to keep throwing random objects away from skills. Once the torch was thrown, unless there was a compelling plot reason to check I'd likely just let it set off the oil and drive the rats off. Sometimes discretion is better than rolling...at least in my games. I'd look at it is a reward for the players coming up with an innovative solution to a problem.

I think I'm gonna give the 'Second by second' combat mechanics a go from Companion VI. They seem to be the most straight forward and intuitive of all those I've read so far and as such should be simple enough to teach to my players. For my practice game above I used the RM2 standard rules and it just didn't seem right somehow — too much like Advanced Squad Leader, a game I like but nevertheless can be virtually impossible to teach.