Author Topic: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)  (Read 11034 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline dutch206

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,019
  • OIC Points +0/-0
realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« on: September 16, 2013, 11:31:40 AM »
IMO, the professions in the realm of Arms get the short end of the stick at high levels.

At level 20, they have max hit points, maxed out armor skills, and absurdly high offensive bonuses.  What do they have to look forward to after this?  Nothing. (Unless they join a monastery and study the martial arts intensively.)

Pure, Hybrid, and Semi spell users (on the other hand), get new spells every level.  They are always growing, changing and evolving because of the additional powers they gain.

So, how do you keep arms users fresh and exciting in a campaign?
"Cthulhu is the bacon of gaming." -John Kovalic, author of "Dork Tower"

Offline Badger

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2013, 01:16:49 PM »
Ooooh,

As Cohen the Barbarian would say, 'that's a toughie'.

I don't know if there is a solution. I think that gamers that play for the accumulation of power have a sort of built in use by date. Gamers who are in it for the role playing can go a bit longer.

Most systems have a 'high end' where the rules kind of max out. You get to the stage where the character has so much wealth, power, etc that they can't really get tougher.

What makes a character interesting to ME is their evolution as a personality. Did the character start off with arrogant certainty of their glorious destiny? By the time they are 20th level have they won fame and fortune but buried a wife, two sons, and seen their kingdom burn as the Orcs swept over it like an acidic wave? I am interested in what makes the character tick. How are they changing as their adventures are... survived.

In any case, I'd expect the player to try to find a way to keep enjoying their character. The GM has a campaign to run, they can't do all the work.

So all that I'd suggest is to focus on personality, not stats.

Badger

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,359
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2013, 01:28:02 PM »
I generally agree with you Dutch, though we are still waiting to see what the new version of Rolemaster will hold for the arms users. In terms of general power, I put the semis first in RM2, followed by arms users and spell users. In the first version of RMU, however, I put spell users first, arms users second and semis a distant third. So in no version of Rolemaster were the arms users severely underpowered; it was just that at higher levels, their abilities started to fade relative to the power of one of the other groups.

One other observation: the great strength of the arms user in comparison to the semi is that the arms user has more flexibility than the semi in terms of weapon and armor selection, due to the semi's higher costs. Whereas a semi can usually wear only one type of armor and wield a single weapon, the arms user can choose the right tool for the job. An arms user can certainly buy the maximum ranks in both a ranged and a melee weapons, and can further probably buy multiple melee weapons (e.g. a sword for lightly armored foes and a mace for heavily armored foes).

Other things the Arms user can spend DPs on to give him/her more capabilities in combat:
--Riding for mounted combat (just too expensive for semis).
--Adrenal moves
--Fighting styles
--Stunned maneuvering (RM2)
--Movement skills (climbing, swimming, acrobatics)
--Unarmed skills (especially important if you're using breakage)
--Quick draw (again even better if beakage is used)
--Two-weapon combos
--Multiattack (if that is a skill in RMU)
--Shield as a skill (RMU)

'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Thom @ ICE

  • Aurigas Staff
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,810
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Thom@ironcrown.com
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2013, 03:19:13 PM »
Continuing Badger's initial thoughts.... Cohen the Barbarian (actually I'll go with Conan the Barbarian).

Throughout the books he began as simply a warrior, but as he progressed he became a thief, a tracker, a sailor, a military leader, and a king.  Other than a few instances where he used enchanted weapons (mostly unknowingly) he never really took on the use of magic.  He represents the ultimate arms user and he did so by expanding his skills and continuing to improve his skills with more and more weapons, styles and supporting skills (see Hurin and Badger's responses for more details there).
Email -    Thom@ironcrown.com

Offline markc

  • Elder Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 10,697
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #4 on: September 16, 2013, 03:50:18 PM »
 In my game I use the rules (modified) in the RMSS MAC with the skilled person gaining specific abilities at specific skill points, or I let them pick from a list that the style has to chose from.
 Now to pick up other style abilities they have to lean that style, find someone to teach them, will they teach them (as they are proficient with another style, ie my style is the best and you cannot lean it) and all of that good stuff. Spell casters at high level also have to start finding spells after rank 20 as well they just do not get them.


 Without using the MAC and combat arts I would not let spell casters simply be able to buy spells. The casters have to find someone willing to teach them for $, favors, etc. This means that spell casters can max out also if they do not cultivate contacts or have some other source of spells.


MDC
Bacon Law: A book so good all PC's need to be recreated.
Rule #0: A GM has the right to change any rule in a book to fit their game.
Role Play not Roll Play.
Use a System to tell the story do not let the system play you.

Offline intothatdarkness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,879
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2013, 04:00:58 PM »
Continuing Badger's initial thoughts.... Cohen the Barbarian (actually I'll go with Conan the Barbarian).

Throughout the books he began as simply a warrior, but as he progressed he became a thief, a tracker, a sailor, a military leader, and a king.  Other than a few instances where he used enchanted weapons (mostly unknowingly) he never really took on the use of magic.  He represents the ultimate arms user and he did so by expanding his skills and continuing to improve his skills with more and more weapons, styles and supporting skills (see Hurin and Badger's responses for more details there).

It's also helpful if your setting is relatively magic-poor (as Howard's arguably was). In a high-magic setting I'd agree that arms can be underchanged, but in other settings (like those which apply all the limits on magic to the letter...including no armor, limits on inorganic material carried, etc.) arms tends to balance fairly well.
Darn that salt pork!

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2013, 05:27:16 PM »
A lot also depends on the skills that are developed, especially if you use skills that expand the repertoire of combat options for an Arms-based character. At that certain level (if I may) the Arms-based have the chance to leisurely develop skills (such as the RM2 'Reverse Stroke') that impose penalties to the base OB but which make them capable of slicing & dicing almost anything withing a 360 degree radius. Sure the Spell-users are at arrogance-level in power, but there are ways to counter that, no?

And then there are the skills like 'Leadership' or its analogues, which help the Arms-user command vast hordes, while the Spell-user is less inclined to command armies.
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline Badger

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2013, 06:17:04 PM »
Sounds like there are a lot of different strategies.

While reading the various (generally excellent) replies, I recalled what one GM did to me (and my party) when we became 'too' tough; he changed our location. We ended up in a place where the laws and social conventions were totally different. Same world, different country.

When you go from a largely lawless place to one where the law will hang you if you kill a common bandit in self defence... Everything changes. All of your strategies, your load out, everything.

Badger

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2013, 08:38:35 PM »
That's a great point, Badger, and a great reminder that we can rely on more than heavy-handed attempts to knowck the characters on the head then rummage around in their pockets. It's part of being a great GM, no?
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline Badger

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2013, 09:25:10 PM »
Absolutely. We also have sock puppets and interpretive dance to fall back on. :)

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2013, 09:46:25 PM »
So, how do you keep arms users fresh and exciting in a campaign?
So all that I'd suggest is to focus on personality, not stats.
That was basically what I was going to say, so there is that part of it. Also, a part of that is getting your character to have in-game political & social power. Nothing like having a few hundred knights at your disposal to even the odds with the mage, huh?!? (Not to mention your own house-mages...)

But, if you must have rules-ways of keeping your character "fresh and exciting" then branch out. Start grabbing some spells; there are tons of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells that could increase a fighter's capabilities. I had a 7th level fighter with the Mentalism spell list Anticipations to 2nd level, giving him Anticipate Missile and Anticipate Melee, granting him +50 DB for a 10% action (-10). He also had Cloaking to 2nd level giving him Blur (-10 OB for 1 minute/level) and Shadow (+25 to +75 Stalking/hiding bonus). He was effectively a fantasy Batman and I would have loved to see him at 20th+ level.

Sticking with just Mentalism, you got the Moving list with Leaping* & Landing* which would mean you have a very mobile fighter. (I would have been getting those 2 spells in the next couple of levels if I had been able to continue that campaign.) Having trouble getting close to your target? Try Illusions to distract them. Need some healing? Self Healing spell list. Take a few levels and get a whole bunch of different 1st - 3rd level spells, and the best thing is, they are so low level that all you need are 2 or 3 ranks in PP development to be able to cast them all day long without getting tired.

Sure, they cost a lot of DP, but what else are you spending them on? Sure, in their arena, the semi's will still outshine you, but you are a full fledged fighter, meaning that you can start to dabble in their arenas and still be a 100% kick-butt combatant.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.

Offline dutch206

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,019
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2013, 03:53:39 PM »
All good answers, and food for thought.  Thanks.
"Cthulhu is the bacon of gaming." -John Kovalic, author of "Dork Tower"

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,629
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2013, 06:36:16 PM »
I've always felt the Pure Arms Users got the short end of the stick and not only is it something I've tried to resolve in my own RM modifications and with the Martial Arts Companion, but it's something I was pushing for in RMU talks.  RMU helped by implementing the rank bonus professions get (meaning a fighter with 50 ranks in Broadsword gets +50OB with it), and while the shield rules help I feel the rules ended up more complex than necessary - however, from John Seals comments it seems one of the original primary goals of RMU, that being to draw in new players, is no longer the case for the first go round of publications... so maybe in that light the shield rules are an improvement that leans in the direction of Pure Arms Users.

The problem with the profession setups are that Pure Arms Users have the advantage up front.  They are tougher, have the potential to deal more damage, don't run out of power points, etc.  Semi's can get halfway decent at combat if you focus on it, then you slowly develop them over time.  Pure Casters start slower but gain ground quicker.  At mid levels the Pure Casters move up the ladder and at high level the Semi's move up the ladder but in the end Pure Casters won hands down.  Eventually Pure Arms Users are left behind for one primary reason: Options.  As a caster I can develop a single 9DP weapon skill each level.  As a Fighter I have to spend 25DP on one spell from one Open List (of my own realm).  The caster can get good at weapons far easier than the fighter can get good at spells... and, the kicker, the weapon has, for all intense purposes, one use; to cause physical damage.  The spells have an incredible variety of uses.  So the caster really only need to get good at one weapon to realistically compete with the fighter at high levels, while the fighter has an incredibly steeper hill to climb to match the variety of options casters have at their disposal.  Fighters also suffer more from the diminishing returns problem.  A casters SKILL at casting suffers from that, but not the selection of options still open to them.

So, I feel that part of the solution for Pure Arms Users lies in weapon specialization that works in a manner similar to the Martial Arts Companion fighting styles and Spell Lists using Exhaustion Points as the "Power Points" that drive the use of such a mechanic for those weapon specializations.  I have a set of "Combat Specializations" that take a particular combination of attack/weapon usage and form a sort of limited spell list where some of the benefits are gained as constant abilities and others are treated as maneuvers you expend your Exhaustion Points on.  The base styles are things like: 1H Weapon/Free Hand, 1H Weapon/Shield, 1H Weapon/1H Weapon, 2H Weapon, Missile: Triggered, Missile: Drawn, Thrown, and Pole Arms (if I recall correctly).  These are also the manner in which I make it possible to make additional attacks with same weapon.  But there are things like lowering your fumble range, improving your initiative, drawing/loading the weapon faster, and lots of other aspects to them (I really should submit it to the Guild Companion).

While, in the VERY long run, everyone will be able to do everything I think professions need to be fairly balanced to at least the mid 20's range.  When you have 50th level spells as part of the standard rules (and due to the way the spell system works in RM) you need to be fairly evenly matched at least half way to that goal.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,359
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2013, 09:03:04 PM »

While, in the VERY long run, everyone will be able to do everything I think professions need to be fairly balanced to at least the mid 20's range.  When you have 50th level spells as part of the standard rules (and due to the way the spell system works in RM) you need to be fairly evenly matched at least half way to that goal.

I think this should be the design goal too: all three types of characters (arms, spells and semis) should be roughly equal at least in terms of options. You don't want to get into a situation like in DnD 3.5, where casters were useless at lower levels and gods at higher ones. That just leads to class envy and player frustration.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline RandalThor

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,116
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2013, 11:22:29 PM »
The caster can get good at weapons far easier than the fighter can get good at spells... and, the kicker, the weapon has, for all intense purposes, one use; to cause physical damage.  The spells have an incredible variety of uses.  So the caster really only need to get good at one weapon to realistically compete with the fighter at high levels, while the fighter has an incredibly steeper hill to climb to match the variety of options casters have at their disposal.  Fighters also suffer more from the diminishing returns problem.  A casters SKILL at casting suffers from that, but not the selection of options still open to them.
I don't agree with this assessment.

The fighter only has to get one rank in a spell list and they can use that spell at their FULL LEVEL of ability. Like my 7th level fighter using Shadow, gets to have that spell going for 7 minutes - from a single rank. The mage on the other hand, gets a single rank in a weapon skill and they get what, a +3 or +5 for RMSS/FRP or RM1/2/C, respectively. (Not including the dropping of the -15 or -25 when not having the skill.) To have all the versatility they can get from magic a mage needs to purchase a lot of ranks in a wide variety of spell lists, quite the DP sink, and much harder to do if they are spending 9 DP/level on weapon skills - or more.

Please, don't misunderstand me here; I don't think a fighter (or any pure-arms profession) will be able to cast spells like a mage, because they won't. But I do believe, that a fighter can keep their usefulness, and playability enjoyment factor, by just grabbing a few spells and a couple of ranks in PP development.

But beyond all of that, I look at it like Jedi vs. Everyone Else in D6 Star Wars: In the beginning Jedi are weaker because they must take attribute dice for Force skills, thusly dropping their attributes - which are a serious pain to increase btw. Only after they have gone a good ways down the Jedi road do they become serious bad-dudes and dudettes. I think that is a fair trade-off. The same goes for Mages vs. Non-Mages in RM, in the beginning Non-Mages are "tougher" in just about every meaning of the word, but when they get their mojo high enough, Mages rock. I don't see this as a problem, but as a feature. The "perfectly balanced" classes (or professions for RM) comes across to me as too artificial and "gamey." I prefer flavor to gamey, so some variance among the professions is OK.

Anyway, isn't this more about what you want to (or feel like) playing and not what is just the most advantageous to "winning?" I play a fighter when I want to play a fighter, a mage when I want to play a mage, a thief when I want to play a thief, etc...
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Scratch that. Power attracts the corruptible.

Rules should not replace the brain and thinking.

Offline Badger

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2013, 06:47:36 AM »
If a pure spell caster wants 10 spell lists, that's 10DP per level for spells and not a lot for Power Development.

A fighter has to spend more than that to slightly increment a handful of weapons. Pure Spell users get way more bang for buck. Even at low levels. Spells like Sleep V are HUGE in their impact. Even more so now that Spell users get so many more Power Points.

Offline PhillipAEllis

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 599
  • OIC Points +30/-30
  • Ask me about the Rolemastery blog.
    • My homepage
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2013, 04:35:39 PM »
In most iterations of RM, the more spell lists you learn, the larger the costs after certain points. So, from memory those ten lists developed cost 15 DP (1*1 for the first five, 1*2 for the next five).

A fighter, say, developing ten weapons in their first category, in RM2, uses up 10 DP (RM2) if said fighter develops only one rank per weapon.
Formerly: ghyle.

Rolemastery blog: http://rolemastery.blogspot.com.au/

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,118
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2013, 05:19:28 PM »
So, I feel that part of the solution for Pure Arms Users lies in weapon specialization that works in a manner similar to the Martial Arts Companion fighting styles and Spell Lists using Exhaustion Points as the "Power Points" that drive the use of such a mechanic for those weapon specializations.  I have a set of "Combat Specializations" that take a particular combination of attack/weapon usage and form a sort of limited spell list where some of the benefits are gained as constant abilities and others are treated as maneuvers you expend your Exhaustion Points on.  The base styles are things like: 1H Weapon/Free Hand, 1H Weapon/Shield, 1H Weapon/1H Weapon, 2H Weapon, Missile: Triggered, Missile: Drawn, Thrown, and Pole Arms (if I recall correctly).  These are also the manner in which I make it possible to make additional attacks with same weapon.  But there are things like lowering your fumble range, improving your initiative, drawing/loading the weapon faster, and lots of other aspects to them (I really should submit it to the Guild Companion).

One of the nice things about this sort of approach is that you can have more complex combat options, but new players only have to know relatively few of them, and learn them one at time, not understand the whole thing right from the start.

I'm not sure how well it meshes with the core rules though. For example, I think it makes a ton of sense to handle Disarm this way, because it puts a limit on how often you can use it. Whereas in the rules as written you should disarm every round because either you succeed or get the regular effect of your roll. But then does it require the skill plus this other side of things? Or do you take it out of the skill list?



System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,629
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2013, 10:45:56 PM »
Here's an example of one of the specializations...
The skill is one developed using Combat Maneuvers group in RMSS (easily changed to a unique skill for RM2 and the like).  I make it an Everyman skill for Pure Arms, normal for Semi's and Restricted for Hybrid or Pure Casters.
Ranks are how many ranks you need to know before you gain access to that ability, like a spell list.
End is how many Exhaustion Points I make you spend to do it (you can mess with the costs to fit your preference).
You get to decide if you want to make them roll against their skill total to do any of them.  I don't.

1H Weapon/Free Hand Specialization         
Rank   End   Description   
2        1        Quickdraw   Character may bring his or her weapon to bear without using an action.
5        3        Parry   Parry is increased by 50%
8        1        Shift Item   Character may shift an item on his/her person without penalty to OB.
12   None     Iron Grip   Fumble Range is either halved or reduced by 2, whichever is higher.
16      5        Non-Weapon Attack   Character can make an unarmed attack (using the brawling skill) on his/her foe.
20   None     Expertise   Gains +1 to OB per 1H Weapon rank developed from 20th level and up.
25      4        Dodge Ranged    +20 DB vs.one ranged attack
30      6        Dodge Melee   +20 DB vs one melee attack
40      1        Adrenal Defense   Character may use Adrenal Defense using a single 1H sized weapon.
50      5        Movement Master   Character may perform a full moving maneuver (not additional attack) or move 50% normal movement and make a full attack at no penalty to OB.

The others are...
1H Weapon/Shield
1H Weapon/1H Weapon (Dual weapon)
2H Weapon
Drawn Missile
Triggered Missile
Thrown
Unarmed - Strikes
Unarmed - Sweeps
Pole Weapon
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Bruce

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 728
  • OIC Points +553/-553
Re: realm of Arms shortchanged (Any RM Version)
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2013, 12:15:22 AM »
There are some really great suggestions above and RMU is sounding more and more intriguing. I'd like to point out some things I have done in the past and some things that ICE has done in the past to help alleviate this.
Things I have done:
1. Magic is not always stable, there are times and areas when casting a spell is extremely dangerous or not very practical (this doesn't happen a lot but it does happen).
2. There are also magic dead zones in my worlds (also rare).
3. Magic is sometimes outlawed in entire countries.
4. I have used the optional rules in The School of Hard Knocks (pg 161).
Which brings me to what ICE has done:
1. The School of Hard Knocks (pg 161) had optional rules about how often magic was used and how it affected the caster and the game world. It also has creatures in it that are attracted to the use of magic. My personal favorites were Thausps and Maglins.
2.There are plenty of high level creatures that are immune to a lot of magic (Black Reavers come to mind).
3. Eog...... Anybody remember the Witch hunter? One of the items in their repertoire was a net made of either black or normal Eog, which has the side effect of canceling any and all magic, no RR.
4. Shadow World, the original (I could be wrong) RM world, had stuff like Eog and other things that affected magic a great deal. My personal favorite was essence storms. Extensive un-adultered use of magic could have nasty side effects like essence storms.
 Please forgive me for sort of repeating myself above, I simply wanted to give more than one point......

By the way, does anybody know where I can find that entry for the Black Reavers with the one page story in it? I am not sure where that was.

Bruce
When you game, game like you mean it! Game Hard!