Topic: IYO Does Multip. attacks make Arms even vs Spell Casters

[pastaav]

I think it is good like it is. Those group that are experienced enough to handle the matter by ingame balancing are most likely also experienced enough to adjust the costs to their liking. Basically it is not about designing for the crowd but to follow the game concept when your designing rules. Can you imagine a RM with weak archtypes? Indeed I can...it stands in my bookcase and is named HARP.

I am all for adding new game styles to both HARP and RM. Super heroes/comic book adventures would for instance sound like loads of fun. Super heroes like Wolverine is very much spot on for a gritty damage system and toons tend to hurt each other quite a lot. Still adding those play styles to game need to be done without killing the design concepts of the games. With RM and Harp we have both weak and strong archtypes and the trick is to match them with game styles rather to try to catch some ever elusive "a RM that does not include options that some unspecified player might have an issue with".

[RandalThor]

I really hate to say it, but when I worked for WotC I wouldn't tell people in gaming stores (or that I wrote a gaming book) because all the freakin nut jobs would try to talk your ear off.
And, to be fair, when I say "nut jobs" I mean socially inept, immature boys who are having a hard time not looking at the cashiers breasts.

Hey, I think I knew that guy!  And the one that was too shy to dare look. OK, to be fair, I can be pretty shy - and sibtle enough to get a way with it. 

That's one of the things I've always enjoyed about the ICE forums.  They just aren't like most the gaming (let alone any other) forums out there... people here tend to be a lot more mature and well mannered by in large.

Yeah, I definitely know that I am going to get a different type of conversation here than at RPG.net.

You know what I did yesterday? I spent a couple of hours converting the Iron Heroes classes (only the Archer, so far) to HARP. (I am putting together a sword & sorcery game.) One of their abilities is Storm of Arrows - I think it is OK if I assume you get the idea of the ability - and it came out pretty-good I think. One thing I noticed when doing this (transferring a D20 class ability to an ICE game) is that it is not a bad idea to make certain abilities be level dependent. Like the above Storm of Arrows, it can only be learned once the character has reached 10th level. You can just as easily make it about the number of ranks in the relevant skill, like 10, 20, 30, etc... That might be a good way to incorporate the ability to attack more than once in a single round. Whatcha think?

[intothatdarkness]

This touches on something that I have come to think is wrong with RM (any incarnation): DP costs vary too much. I understand the reasoning of making the professions different. (Though I believe that there was also a subconscious "reasoning" going on in trying to stay in line with AD&D.) But I feel it went too far.

Should/would it cost a magician more to develop weapon skills? Yes/I am not sure. In other words: Game-wise I get it, but would it really? But, for the sake of argument, we are going with it does cost more. I don't think it should cost so much more though. 1/5 vs. 9. I think the real cost needs to be in game, as in monetary and time costs. Now, a group  characters can teach each other, provided they also train in teaching which costs them DP to do also. What I am saying, is that when a character trains outside of their professions main focus, no matter what, they slow down their advancement in their main focus, & it doesn't seem right to punish them again - and quite so severely - for doing so. (I much prefer the HARP method of 2 or 4.)

*Specially since past rank 5 the cost doubles - at least in RMFRP/SS.

I guess I never had a problem with it, because I took DPs to in part represent the time and attention a PC had to develop a skill. It also goes back to some of that "behind the scenes" training and education. Learning spells is in part easier for a Mage because of their training and experience, while swinging a sword might be something they never paid attention to. For the fighter, the reverse is true. Their muscles and reflexes are conditioned to learn combat skills, but the mechanics of spellcasting are difficult for them to comprehend because they're so different from what they usually do.

[Marc R]

It's back to that "Does balance mean we're equal, or does it mean we equally need each other?" Archetyping, the strength which with the system forces you to take a corner and hold it, is a part of the logic of attempting to force you to need each other. "I'm a mage, I'm never going to be a strong combatant in melee, I need an arms character to keep the goblins off me while I cast."

1) Weak archetypes can be found in RM "No profession" style, where all characters are the "No profession" profession.

2) Middling archetypes can be found in HARP, where the low cost is 2, and the high cost is 4.

3) Strong archetypes can be found in RM, where the low cost is 1, and the high cost is 20+.

You still have archetypes in #1, but it's based in choices. . .I choose to purchase a lot of spells, so I'm a caster, you choose to purchase a lot of combat skills so you're arms, and he chose to mix, so he's semi. . . . .but it's chosen, and it's weak, because if I choose to develop arms, I'm paying just what you are.

It's harder to go across type with #2 (though with profession changing not terribly so)

Once you get to #3, it's punitive to try to cross type. . .choosing to play a caster built from the fighter profession is folly.

Over the years, I've played RM all three ways (even before HARP came out). . . .all you do is:

#1 Only allow one profession (best to pick the "No Profession" or one of the semis)

#2 Only allow Semi professions, but come up with a mechanism to change base lists. (So say a "Cleric" in this version would be a paladin profession but with the Cleric base in place of paladin base).

#3 Play with all professions per core.