Topic: Combat Companion Question

[bbrophy75]

Hi All!

I purchased the Combat Companion over the weekend. Overall, I like it, however I do have one question.

It appears now that Ball Spells are rolled on the 'Fire' Attack table. Is this indeed correct? And if so, what attack bonus is used?

Bob

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=7092.msg92054#msg92054

[pastaav]

Actually Rasyr you did not answer the question in that thread either....look at Dark Schneiders final comment in the other thread that pretty well describe why you either need a OB skill for balls or a customized table (like Spell Law does).

[bbrophy75]

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=7092.msg92054#msg92054

FWIW, I did see this post regarding my question before I asked it. However, it appears that some others have posted that balls spells are now a skill, and should be developed as such. so I wanted 'official' clarification. From what you've written, it appears that Ball Spells are not a seperate skill, but instead use the BAR for the list in question for their resolution.

On a related note, going with the ruling that ball spells are handled exactly as before, under the new tables it seems much more difficult to affect a target. Here is an example:

Under core rules, a fireball does an A crit on a modified 13 vs AT 1, and an A crit on a modified 41 vs AT20

Under Combat Companion rules, fireball does an A crit on a modified 83 vs AR1, and an A crit on a modified 115 vs AR10.

This is a pretty wide spread between the two systems.

Bob

[Dark Schneider]

Yes, it can be easily summarized in that you must include 'ball' spells in your 'directed spell' styles.

Another question, and I don't remember if I began a thread or I discussed it with a pal, is that the system needs some adjustments, as I use a magician I quickly saw the problem in spells, but looking in more detail I discovered that problem in some weapons too.

The problem are the bonuses applied to attacks, so for spells we usually have 0 or negative modifiers, and that is wrong, they should have positive modifiers compared to non-magical attacks, I'll explain it from another viewpoint:

- The OB system has not changed, using CC you usually have the same OB than before using it, so comparing old 'fire bolt' table and the new one 'fire table', we have that we need a positive bonus of about +10 ot +15 (I don't remember well sorry) to equalize them. If not, you have that some attacks (spells in this case or weapons) are less effective than before.

I think (I am not sure at this moment) that 'war hammer' is other good example of attack with less effectiveness in CC. In the other hand we have that 'broad sword' has no loss of effectiveness.

So, as summary, I like much the CC system as it simplifies the system in the same way than RMFRP simplifies RM2 (see bellow), but it needs some adjustment to really fit the combat system, in the way of changing some attack bonuses.

The simplification is good as now, for a new weapon, we only need an attack type, range (I to IV) and modifier. For more detail, we can add too armor modifiers (+5 light and -5 heavy armor, etc.). RM is able to be modified easily.

[bbrophy75]

Yes, it can be easily summarized in that you must include 'ball' spells in your 'directed spell' styles.

Except rules as written, and clarification from the author of the book, has indicated that Ball Spells are not developed using a directed spell skill. Ball spells are resolved as 'normal' which would imply you would use the bonus in the given spell list as a your 'OB'. A cursory glance of the Cold and Fire tables shows that this is a signficant loss of power for ball spells.

Bob

[markc]

 I know that there is no skill in RMC for ball, wall or other placement spells but in RMSS/FRP there is and it is called targeting. The info for this skill can be found in RMSS Essence Companion.
MDC

[Arioch]

I know that there is no skill in RMC for ball, wall or other placement spells but in RMSS/FRP there is and it is called targeting. The info for this skill can be found in RMSS Essence Companion.
MDC

No, Targeting is used only for non-attack spells, so it can't be used as OB for ball spells.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Okay, please note that some of the thoughts behind the use of Ball spells on those tables included using option 2.2 from spell law, and using the number of ranks (and the realm stat) as part of the casting bonus (which would mean a higher casting bonus on the spell than in the core rules -- and granted, I possibly made a mistake in doing it that way, but RMX was the post recent thing I had worked on, so those rules were top-most in my mind). Anyhow, the basic resolution method remains them same (see next paragraph for the only difference).

Also, the attack roll was made into an open-ended roll as opposed to a static 0-100 roll like is the core tables. But, the max damage are approximately the same (the 125 row (Type III -5) on the CC tables versus the 93-95 row (the last of the non-UM rows) -- which was the intention).

Additionally, the CC tables are combined tables, and that alone is going to account for some strangeness and oddities cropping up.

And finally, please keep in mind that the CC tables specifically change the paradigm on which attack tables are created. The thinking behind the CC tables IS different from the thinking that created the Arms Law/Spell Law so that will also cause differences.

[pastaav]

Why not simply post the comparison between what a magican casting a fireball will achieve in both systems with equal dice? (you must have done such during the development of the CC)

Then the customers can do the same and we hopefully will be able to deduct the cause of the differences in interpretation of the usefulness of the ball attacks.

[markc]

I know that there is no skill in RMC for ball, wall or other placement spells but in RMSS/FRP there is and it is called targeting. The info for this skill can be found in RMSS Essence Companion.
MDC

No, Targeting is used only for non-attack spells, so it can't be used as OB for ball spells.

You are right. I housed ruled the spell to be used like directed bolt skills for ball spells and just targeting for other types of spells.

MDC

[thrud]

Rasyr> Please clarify how you calculate the OB for casting a Fireball?

Am I correct in assuming the following. Let's look at a human magician with EM90 (10 stat bonus) for example.
1. 7 ranks in Fire Law will net a OB45? (7x5+10)
2. 13 ranks in Fire Law will net a OB66? (10x5+3x2+10)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

pastaav -- Sorry, but I am swamped with other things at the moment and do not have the time to go digging around to see if any of the small group of playtesters posted any comments about it. If you want to try to do an in depth analysis comparing both systems (which I basically consider the same as comparing apples to oranges), then go right ahead.

thrud -- No, I was figuring a +1 per rank  and the addition of the stat bonus - and don't forget the actual level bonus either (as opposed to the core rules - which consist of just the level bonus).

Thus, an 8th level caster with a Empathy stat of 90 (+10) would have the following:
1) Casting Bonus for all spells  on a list known to 7th level would be 25 (8 lvl + 7 rnks + 10 stat)
2) Casting Bonus for all spells on a list known to 13th level would be 31 (8 lvl + 13 rnks + 10 stat)

But don't forget, the range of the Ball attacks table only changed from 1-100 (technically 1-95, as the higher results could ONLY be achieved on unmodified rolls) to 1-130 and from static roll to open-ended (which also means/includes the rules for breaking the damage cap that a GM wishes to use/include).

Personally, I don't think that any simple comparison is going to help much (especially comparing a stand-alone attack table versus an attack table that actually tries to combine several tables into one). These (Spell Law and Combat Companion Tables) are two very different systems built using two very different approaches. If you don't like the CC approach, go back to using the Spell Law one, it is that simple - and one of the reasons why RMC is filled with Optional rules.   

[pastaav]

Thus, an 8th level caster with a Empathy stat of 90 (+10) would have the following:
1) Casting Bonus for all spells  on a list known to 7th level would be 25 (8 lvl + 7 rnks + 10 stat)
2) Casting Bonus for all spells on a list known to 13th level would be 31 (8 lvl + 13 rnks + 10 stat)

Basically the situation here is that you give a 8th level character a extra bonus between 25-31 and require that the player use an attack table that need about 70 more in dice result to get a critical at all. Is it really so hard to see why people are questioning the design?

[Dark Schneider]

I think the problem is really to allude the old rules for these new tables, I see it more like an errata of using an improper reference, this can be typical and not rare at all, as there are many rules it is very common to make a 'for "this", rules from "that" book are used', but I think in this case is not appropiatted because, if tables changed, then rules should change too.

IMO for using a table clearly created for the usual OB/DB system, then use the usual OB dev. and modifiers. Then for 'balls', in this case, we use the same modifiers than 'bolts' (use the target QU, shield, etc.), and develop as 'bolts', in styles. We pay the radius with less power (range III instead IV) and, if adjustement is made as I mention in the previous post, then apply a modifier lower than the 'bolt' one.

Another solution is add a modifier to roll like in RMSS to SCSM, that added a fixed +50, then compute what you need to equal the old table results aprox. and use it.

But as I say, I like more the solution of dev. 'ball' OB in styles because with the old system based on list ranks and levels, the resistance/weakness to an element achieve unbalanced results.

In any case, I think a table with critical results at about 70+ can't use that low OB based on levels and ranks.

[thrud]

Rasyr> Thank you for the clarification. Now I can join the rest of the people posting here and agree wholeheartedly. With the ball spells using the same table as the bolts their OB should be developed in the same manner as with bolts.

[vroomfogle]

Personally I would give a flat bonus (of say 50) or so rather then use a trainable skill to increase OB since I think area effect attacks should be less reliant on skill.     If you're in the area of effect then you in the area and the damage dealt shouldn't be based on your aiming skill.   For hitting the centerpoint I can see, but for everyone else I don't. 

YMMV

[bbrophy75]

Ok here is some quick analysis based on the difference between the fireball table and the Fire Attack table from CC:

Spell Law vs CC against lowest Armor Categories

AT1: 'A' crit done on a modified 13
AR1: 'A' crit done on a modified 83

Difference is 70 points. In addition, there is a -5 OB per the Fire attack table from Fire Ball. Net difference is 75

AT 20: 'A' crit done on a modified 41
AR10: 'A' crit done on a modified 115

Difference is 74 points. In addition, there is a -5 OB per the Fire attack table from Fire Ball. Net difference is 79.

Assuming the option rules presented in the character creation for spell modifiers is used, an 8th level magician could theoretically have 24 ranks in the list Fire Law for +24. He/she would get +8 more for level and +20 from a base stat of 95 and a racial bonus of +5. So this is a total of 24 +8 +20 = 52. In otherwords, the spell caster has lost about 20 - 25 points off his/her attack, which is significant.

So lets look at this apples to oranges comparison a little bit further:

Under the core rules, a spell caster would have a +8 to spell rolls for being 8th level. A +8 roll on the Ball Attack tables from spell law aren't too bad; not great, but not game breaking either. A +52 however would make fireballs more like little nuclear bombs. Unless you have really good cover, a great quickness stat, or both, you are probably getting destroyed by fire balls.

Under Combat Companion, a +8 is just about worthless on the Fire Attack table. First, there is a -5 penalty just for using a Fireball. Then you have to deal with the targets DB, which is generally higher than under core rules. So unless you roll open-ended high, you're just not doing any damage.

Using the optional spell mod rules with a +52 is better; but still 20+ points off the difference as noted above between the two systems. And dropping 24 ranks into a spell list for which you can only use the first eight of just to get a +16 higher mod may not be the best use of DPs. However, even with this bonus you are scoring A crits less than 50% of the time.

So ultimately, what I see is that ball spells should probably have a +20 modifier to the roll, not -5 if they are to have similar power as under core rules, assuming the bonus to spells should be calculated under the character creation guidelines.

Of course if the intent is to have a paridigm shift under combat companion that is fine too. This simply means spell casters are less effective and it is up to individual GMs to figure out what the 'right' balance should be. I personally don't like that answer much, but if that is what it is, well then, that is what it is.

Bob

[pastaav]

Assuming 24 ranks dropped into the list is not reasonable IMO. The spell need to be useful for a character that did not min max his fire ball attack. Assigning a flat bonus of +40 or +50 seem to be the right thing to do.

I am also very curious about the reasoning for having ball attacks to be trainable in the first place. The PP costs for spells like Triad of Flame becomes really strange if fireball basically does the same but give the character a trainable OB against all targets.

[bbrophy75]

Assuming 24 ranks dropped into the list is not reasonable IMO. The spell need to be useful for a character that did not min max his fire ball attack. Assigning a flat bonus of +40 or +50 seem to be the right thing to do.

I would agree. I used it for comparison purposes, but forcing characters to min/max is just a bad idea

I am also very curious about the reasoning for having ball attacks to be trainable in the first place. The PP costs for spells like Triad of Flame becomes really strange if fireball basically does the same but give the character a trainable OB against all targets.

Its not under the rules as written, unless you consider that taking ranks in the spell list is "trainable".

I personally don't like the house rule that makes ball spells trainable. All it does is add new skills that require DPs, but with no coresponding increase in DPs. And your point about it messing up other spells, such as Triad of Flame is a good one.

Ultimately, giving a flat bonus of somewhere between 20 - 50 seems like the best fix to this problem.

Bob