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

[markc]

 IYO does the ability of multiple attacks make Pure Arms Professions even vs Pure Spell Casters? If not what in YO would/could you do to make it more balanced?
MDC

[Fornitus]

I dont think so..... the balance issue is more an effect vs. time issue.
casters can do much more damage in the same amount of rounds.
adding extra attacks for the fighter would just speed all combat up even more to a silly level.

our solution has been in place for 3 years now an adds a lot of realism.
we give a 100 pt penalty to all spell casters. (50 for channelers )
This means prep rounds become useful and needed again. we also allow some components to help, +1 to +20 per component. limit of one component per level.

basically, a 10th level pure caster can pull off a shock bolt every round nut at 1st lvl one every 6 rounds or so. works very well... even as a player.   

[VladD]

In the lower levels I'd say there is reversed balance issue. Fighters slay enemies with single strokes while spell casters seem to prepare 2 rounds and spend one casting to see their spell resisted, botched or fumbled.

So I'd say there is no need for such in the lower levels, but when casters reach 10th lvl there might be something to say for allowing fighters faster swinging, say perhaps 3 strikes per 2 rounds, or perhaps even 2 every round. Maybe take a clue from D&D 3 and apply a -25 to -50 to the second attack.

In my game I use weapon speeds. Those with fast (and less damaging) weapons may swing more if they got enough points.

On a last note: spell casters can use 2nd lvl spells once per round already at lvl 8. Shockbolts tend to hit pretty hard with 80-100 OB, but a fighter with a broadsword and shield will still have more OB, more DB and better damage potential than that magician at that level.

Perhaps at 12th lvl will the balance strike over with casters able to cast spells like firebolt and icebolt every round, doing significant damage and using those nice energy crit tables. The one balance factor is that the better energy bolts can only developed at higher levels than one so that keeps the OB from getting overly high.

[dutch206]

I would say things are about even at 10th level.  However at 30th level, a magician can really open the hurt locker.  (We're talking earthquakes, firestorms, ice storms, death clouds, etc....)  Nothing a 30th level fighter can do to compete with that...

[Ecthelion]

IYO does the ability of multiple attacks make Pure Arms Professions even vs Pure Spell Casters? If not what in YO would/could you do to make it more balanced?
MDC

Two things:
1. IMO Pure Arms professions in general have an edge over Pure Spell users at low levels, where the spell users often have limited PPs, less powerful spells and a smaller repertoire of spells. The downside is that the are weaker at higher levels. That's just the price they pay for this advantage at lower levels.
2. Multiple attacks help making Pure Arms users stronger. I think a Pure Spell user is, at least at high levels, still stronger than a Pure Arms user wielding two weapons. But this changes as soon as the spell user runs out of PPs...

[MariusH]

What is "stronger"? Does that mean: Who'd beat the other in a one-on-one fight? I guess that question might make sense. But apart from that, I'd simply say they have different strengths. A spell-user have lots of utility spells that are very useful in many situations. Like Teleport. That is in my opinion the main advantage of most pure spell-users. But then again, they have very few skills at decent levels, while a fighter might. And in combat? As long as the spell-user is left undisturbed to cast his spells, he can cause lots of trouble for his opponents, obviously. But he'd HAVE to avoid melee, almost at any cost. The fighters greatest usefulness is, in my opinion, in his ability to stand his ground, and stop and block any foe. And even more so with two weapons, since he can now parry two opponents.

Also, in a party, you'll need versatility. In a party of two, I'd rather have one fighter and one mage, than two pure spell-casters. So, in a sense, I'd say that after the mage already was in the party, the fighter would be better as the next team-member. The team needs balance.

As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.

[GrumpyOldFart]

This conversation reminds me of a session way back in the day, before I switched to RM from The System That Shall Not Be Named(tm). A high level party taking on a lich. And yes, the lich was a nasty piece of business, and badly injured or took down 3 of 5 party members (including the healer) before they ever managed to close with it, and when they did close with it they found that it was only a projected image, which was an exceedingly rude surprise.

But once the fighter found the actual lich and ran it down, for all its spells, protections and tricks, the lich lasted a grand total of.... one round.

In many ways it's the same problem as fighting a high level rogue whose core skills are concealment and archery. Arrows appear in your companions, with no real indicators of where they came from.

In pretty much any high level game, if you can't overcome (or bypass) your opponent's strengths, you're going to die, it's just that simple. If you do overcome or bypass them effectively enough, your opponent's remaining lifespan will probably be measured in seconds.

[Marc R]

I think the arms vs caster logic involves a series of interlocking factors. . . .and truely bringing balance into play would require more tweaking than just allowing multiple attacks. . a lot depends on how you introduce multiple attacks, and how you do it would determine how it affects balance.

like, if you just gave free multi attacks, that's a huge push, if you charge an arm and a leg for it (like TWC) it's a lesser push, so I dunno that your question has enough data to really properly answer it.

[markc]

As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.

As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.




 Yes there is not enough data. I was just wondering how people felt about 2 or more attacks for having 10 ranks in a weapon skill. And if they felt it sort of balanced out the "fun" of playing a high rank arms PC vs playing a high level spell PC.
MDC

[Marc R]

Just allowing say 3/2 rounds at 10 ranks, 2/1 at 20, 5/2 at 30 and 3/1 at 40 is one track I've tried.

You were allowed to declare one attack with one weapon, one set of OB/DB split, but it applied equally to all combatants you targeted with it.

So if you made an 80% attack with your 100 OB it's 80 OB, you choose a 40/40 split OB/DB, and target goblins 1, and 2. You make a 1d100+40 attack on each of the two goblins, and get 40 parry DB vs both of them.

We were duplicating the attacks per round progression of fighters in OD&D.

It worked, to some degree in rebalancing things, but the major effect it really had was in defense, not offense. . .in allowing you to parry DB more people.

In the end, so your fighter can really chop the crap out of 2 people, or 3, the mage can drop fireballs on dozens. . . but being able to parry 2 or 3 people was a huge benefit.

It also ran into the problem of "If I declare twice on goblin 1, I get two attacks at +40, do I get two parries for 80, or just 40" (We went with the latter in the end).

It did work to some degree, but it wasn't a cure all fix.

[Cory Magel]

I don't think it solves the problem in the long run.

At low levels Pure Arms Users are stronger than spell users.  As they level the begin to exchange spots, with the spell users eventually gaining the advantage and pretty much staying there.  I'd say once you hit 10th level spell casters are starting to take the lead and it only gets worse from there.

There are two ways I solve this.  One, you use the RM2 version of Profession Bonuses even if you're using RMSS/RMFRP.  Pure Arms Users don't get that big chuck of OB at first level, but over time they eventually receive more of a bonus than they would in RMSS/RMFRP.  This solves the diminishing returns issue with many skills also.

The other is to have 'weapon specialization' and an adaption of combat styles (as in the Martial Arts Comp).

I tinker with idea for Pure Arms Users a lot since I think there is a real balance issue there.  I have a system with has: Dual Attacks, Multiple Attacks, Combat Styles and Weapon Specialization.

Weapon Specialization is almost a spell list-like setup where at certain % in the Weapon Specialization skill the character gains a benefit.  Rarely do you actually need to make a skill check.  Multiple attacks are a result of that skill.  Multiple attacks don't actually have you roll a second attack, they merely add on hit multipliers and secondary or tertiary critical results based on your initial roll to simulate a second strike within the same time frame.  Multiple Attacks are when you make two attacks with the same weapon - Quarterstaff is a good example.  This keeps you from rolling two attacks, two criticals, and having to look up four various results (all slowing things down).

I have the weapon specialization worked out, but I am still working on the combat styles since there six styles vs only needing one specialization skill (although it has to be developed for each weapon).  If I remember correctly I think I have styles of: 1H/Free, 1H/1H, 1H/Shield, 2H, Poles, Unarmed, Ranged.  1H/1H is where Multiple Attacks will come in and I'm still playing around with it.  I want to restrict it to keep it balanced, but I still want it to be attractive for Pure Arms Users.  I don't want a character with two weapons, Specializing in both, using a Combat Style and turning into a melee blender.

[markc]

Just allowing say 3/2 rounds at 10 ranks, 2/1 at 20, 5/2 at 30 and 3/1 at 40 is one track I've tried.

You were allowed to declare one attack with one weapon, one set of OB/DB split, but it applied equally to all combatants you targeted with it.

So if you made an 80% attack with your 100 OB it's 80 OB, you choose a 40/40 split OB/DB, and target goblins 1, and 2. You make a 1d100+40 attack on each of the two goblins, and get 40 parry DB vs both of them.

We were duplicating the attacks per round progression of fighters in OD&D.

It worked, to some degree in rebalancing things, but the major effect it really had was in defense, not offense. . .in allowing you to parry DB more people.

In the end, so your fighter can really chop the crap out of 2 people, or 3, the mage can drop fireballs on dozens. . . but being able to parry 2 or 3 people was a huge benefit.

It also ran into the problem of "If I declare twice on goblin 1, I get two attacks at +40, do I get two parries for 80, or just 40" (We went with the latter in the end).

It did work to some degree, but it wasn't a cure all fix.

 Thanks. That kind of info is great. I also thought of having the multiple attacks start at 3/2 and going from there but adding it to a new 1-100 based Combat Art system (boy a lot of irons in the fire at the moment.).


 As per the parry, I think I will not allow multiple parries unless it is a option in the Combat Art. So no matter how many attacks you get one parry.
MDC

[Witchking20k]

I increase the fumble range by each additional attack; that makes them think twice about attacking 3 enemies.  LOL  So, fumble 1-4 becomes 1-8 etc....

[MariusH]

As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.

As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.

I use RMSS, and you may use some other rules. As for RMSS, the rules for 2WC say this: "This skill allows a combatant to fight with two weapons
simultaneously. He is allowed to make 2 weapon attacks for each melee attack action"

Haste give you 200% activity, and a Full Melee attack requires 60%-100%, making three melee attack actions, one in each phase, possible.

Combine these rules, and to me, that means a hasted 2WC combatant may make six attacks in one round.

A good fighter obviously also uses adrenaline strength to make this round hurt a LOT.

[yammahoper]

As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.

As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.

I use RMSS, and you may use some other rules. As for RMSS, the rules for 2WC say this: "This skill allows a combatant to fight with two weapons
simultaneously. He is allowed to make 2 weapon attacks for each melee attack action"

Haste give you 200% activity, and a Full Melee attack requires 60%-100%, making three melee attack actions, one in each phase, possible.

Combine these rules, and to me, that means a hasted 2WC combatant may make six attacks in one round.

A good fighter obviously also uses adrenaline strength to make this round hurt a LOT.

And if you are using cinimatic combat rules from the MAC, then those six attacks count against 18 foes.  Thats a lurg of orcs every melee round.

[Marc R]

"What's that spinning cloud of dust and blood, a Tasmanian Devil?"
"No, that's the warrior monk."

[Nders]

We use the martial training gift rules from the express editions. essentially the same rules for multiple attacks as in combat companion and this works very well for us.

Basically the rules say that you can make one attack pr 10 weapon ranks at fixed penalties. We allow this to be used with directed spells as well.
Also something that works very well.

We combine these rulings with a ruling that says that ob used to parry a foe is applied to all attacks from that foe. This ends up meaning that you rarely make as many attacks as you theoretically could unless you're fighting inferior foes as you simply would not his your opponent.

We use no stunned manoeuvre and no transcendence but allow for ones magic stat to be added to your esf bonus which can then be applied to negating penalties for wearing armour, casting spells faster or overcasting spells depending on how the spelluser in question wishes to use this bonus.

These rulings have meant that in our campaigns both pure arms, semi spell users and pure spell users are pretty evenly balanced. The magic users are stronger at low levels if they take the time to their spells (we use a ruling saying that overcasts take three rounds to cast with an esf bonus for every additional round used to prepare up to a max of five rounds i.e. a +20 bonus).

We use a ruling saying that attacks against a character preparing spells receive a +35 bonus so the spell user needs to be protected or have done his preparations in good time.

The pure arms users gain diversity as they become able to use more tactical elements than just figuring how much to parry with. My experience with this way of running things is that the various characters end up needing each other to fully blossom.

I realise that some of the balance we experience comes from a lot of other factors that I might not be able to fully explain or even see at this moment but I figured that as things run pretty smoothly for us you might be able to use this.

The one problem we sometimes run into is that over time as the campaign grows old people tend to favour semi spell users as they can still hold their own while having access to a reasonable repertoire of spells.

[markc]

As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.

As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.

I use RMSS, and you may use some other rules. As for RMSS, the rules for 2WC say this: "This skill allows a combatant to fight with two weapons
simultaneously. He is allowed to make 2 weapon attacks for each melee attack action"

Haste give you 200% activity, and a Full Melee attack requires 60%-100%, making three melee attack actions, one in each phase, possible.

Combine these rules, and to me, that means a hasted 2WC combatant may make six attacks in one round.

A good fighter obviously also uses adrenaline strength to make this round hurt a LOT.

 I could be wrong but I thought 2WC was changed to 100% action in an errata. I will have to check some notes I have else where. I could also be remembering some discussion I had with someone about a change that never happened. 
MDC

[Nders]

I could be wrong but I thought 2WC was changed to 100% action in an errata. I will have to check some notes I have else where. I could also be remembering some discussion I had with someone about a change that never happened. 
MDC

You remember correctly but we have chosen to disregard it and instead use the ruling from CC saying that your off hand weapon can be used once/100% of activity. Combined with multipile attacks and other rules from CC this means that two handed weapons are at higher levels slightly superior to using two weapons at the same time. This works great for us.

[yammahoper]

I like the 100% rule myself.  It slows the twc craze.