Topic: RoleMaster 2 Companions and game balance?

[markc]

 Now I have seen a home-brew system that allows you to compute level bonuses compared to when you picked up the skill. So that the 20 level fighter with 1 rank in a weapon bought at last level would only have a level bonus of +3 or +15 by AR rule above.
 I can now see that you can also just base the level bonus off of the number of ranks in the skill. But this sort of defeats the idea if improving batches of skills just because you are more experienced.


MDC

[Zat]

Yup, +60 profession bonus at level 20, in the system I use and in the RM2 system core rules...although it's actually a +60 bonus at level 16 in my system, and only +48 at level 16 in the RM2 system.

Just to explain, the bonuses are as follows:

Level	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Bonus (Core)	3	6	9	12	15	18	21	24	27	30
Bonus (AR)	15	15	15	15	15	30	30	30	30	30

This leads to a higher bonus on average. In the example above, the average level bonus over the first 10 levels is +16.5 for the core rules and +22.5 for AR's rules.

Yes, on average (mean) it is indeed a higher bonus, in fact looking at level 1, as an example, the bonus is 5 times higher than the core rules, hence lending to the feel of specialization and individualism on a profession basis. Likewise the bonus is much higher at each 5 level increment, to give a little more to that 'feel' and, as I mentioned earlier, to offset the imbalance of spell users gaining higher level spells at 5 level incrememnts.

I must admit, I quite like the idea of a Fighter picking up a single rank at level 20 and being much more competant than a same level Magician picking up a single rank. This is my whole point, the profession bonus serves to individualize a...well...a profession, rather than a homogeneous system that exists only to cater for players who 'want to have their cake and eat it'.

I fully agree. But personally I prefer a lower bonus. IMO +60 is excessive, half or a third of this would be enough for this individualization.

The +60 bonus is at level 20, that's a possible 42 ranks (using my system) or a bonus of 142, I would also expect characters of such a level to have a reasonably good array of stat bonuses in these, focused skills, perhaps even as high as +60. The total level bonus in such a case would be less than 30% of the overall deal. Add in a few misc bonuses and those from spell buffs and that (less than) 30% becomes even lower. And I haven't even started on item bonuses (which, in my campaign are rather rare).

I beleive the core rules level bonuses end at level 20, but right now I am toying with the idea of not putting a cap on them at all.

[kevinmccollum]

Does anyone remember why the 20th level fighter got the +60 to his OB with just one rank of a weapon?

In addition to specific skill with weapons characters in certain professions can accumulate extraordinary combat knowledge that is generally applicable. Knowing where to strike an opponent in a situation where two targets present themselves, kicking dust at your opponent in a swordfight, and generally getting the maximum out of your skills and abilities are all examples of advantages that Fighters can acquire over spell users. The former concentrate heavily on learning them while the latter must devote themselves to at least maintaining their spell abilities.

By tossing away the level bonus as presented, you belittle the skills they have developed in fighting that isn't reflected in an individual weapon.

[rdanhenry]

Except that a 20th level Magician could have spent more time in combat and developed more skills in weapons than that 20th level Fighter -- who gets that +60 bonus even if he hasn't developed a single weapon rank since first level. It's much more about the label that gets slapped on at first level than the actual character history and, IMO, still too strongly influenced by D&D.

[kevinmccollum]

Are you seriously saying a 20th level fighter didn't develop any more weapons skills since level one and yet advanced to 20th level and the mage spent 9 dp per level to get ONE skill rank per level? Are you going to present that as a serious example?

[Ecthelion]

Are you seriously saying a 20th level fighter didn't develop any more weapons skills since level one and yet advanced to 20th level and the mage spent 9 dp per level to get ONE skill rank per level? Are you going to present that as a serious example?

Why not? The fighter won't develop each and every weapon. And a mage might want one normal weapon for times when PPs are low or zero. So perhaps the mage has developed fighting with a quarterstaff for one rank per level and the fighter has ignored this weapon. Still, at level 20, with developing only a single rank, the fighter will have about the same OB as the mage.

IMO that should not be the case, that level bonus alone (plus a single rank) makes a character better in combat (or other skill areas) than a character who has developed 10 ranks or more. For pronouncing a profession's specialization, combat in the example of a fighter, a lower bonus is IMO sufficient. Additionally the level bonus concept has the disadvantage that at low levels the differentiation is almost non-existant. Therefore I prefer a (lower) one-time bonus. Or, as a modification of Amethyst Rage's level bonus system, hand out a +15 bonus at level 1, another +15 at level 5 and that's it. Then at level 1 we'd have a "level" bonus that makes a difference, but it will not get into ranges like +60.

Just my 2 cents

[kevinmccollum]

I'm not sure we are speaking the same language here. In rdanhenry's proposition, the fighter apparently never developed any weapon skills since level one and the mage developed massive weapon skills. And the argument isn't about developing skill in an individual weapon but about learning tricks/skills that apply to any weapon/combat (which is what the level bonus is all about) and as to

at low levels the differentiation is almost non-existant.

that is because at low levels, that character hasn't learned the tricks yet, it is something they pick up over time, as they 'level up'.

[Ecthelion]

that is because at low levels, that character hasn't learned the tricks yet, it is something they pick up over time, as they 'level up'.

That's kind of a meta explanation for the RM2 level bonuses. I prefer the distinction between a (fixed) talent for wielding weapons (=> a one time professional bonus) and "tricks" picked up over time being part of the skill ranks. But that's just me.

[smug]

Professions are aptitude templates, not D&D-style classes. The fighter is, therefore, a guy that instinctively groks combat with weapons. The level progression reflects advancement in realisation of aptitude, it seems to me. Problems with this, I woukd say, are often really about the level system (and, personally, I'd prefer per-skill advancement a la Runequest) rather than the professions. The per-level bonus could perhaps be somehow subsumed into a per-skill system.

I'd far prefer a revision to ditch levels, personally, and make the aptitude template experienced bonus appear in some other, scaling, way that doesn't require levels. Being an experienced fighter ought to mean being able to pick up a random weapon and kick butt, surely?

[rdanhenry]

Yes, being an experienced fighter should be worth something. Which is not the same as being an experienced Fighter.

Melee combat bonus could equal ranks in highest melee weapon skill. Plus a starter bonus for Fighter Profession, if you want, but if you want to model picking up fighting skill that transfers between weapons, it needs to be based on actual skill, not Profession.

[smug]

Yes, being an experienced fighter should be worth something. Which is not the same as being an experienced Fighter.

Melee combat bonus could equal ranks in highest melee weapon skill. Plus a starter bonus for Fighter Profession, if you want, but if you want to model picking up fighting skill that transfers between weapons, it needs to be based on actual skill, not Profession.

I don't think it should depend on skill, although the similar skills system does that well enough, if you like thatbap
appoach, except then it is just about skill aquired, not the general increase in faciity that arises from being a particular sort of person; myself, I use both smilar skills and level bonuses. Being a Fighter means having instinctive facility with the skillset, though, and the level system is supposed to describe a progression in facility (as I said, I personally think that level-based systems aren't a great idea, but it's what we've got).

As an aside, I've always felt that "Profession' is a terrible name for what RM professions actually are.

[yammahoper]

Perhaps apply the level bonus to DB?  Then it would improve all combat.

I never liked the level bonus.  Much prefer set bonuses, which is how they were in RM1 and returned to in RMSS.

Of course, I used level bonuses for years because my players liked them so much.  That was Companion II's biggest impact on my game.  I didn't ditch em till, oh, 91-92.

[providence13]

I'm glad the level bonus was dropped from Professions for RMSS/RMFRP.
There is a token bonus to a few Cat's here and a skill there. (ChanCo does a great job with the +50 Profession bonus.)

It is a very different way to think about Class. You have no skill at anything. But you do have areas that are easy for you to learn and some that are more difficult to learn. But you get nothing if you don't spend the DP.
I like it now. It was an adjustment coming from other game systems..

[yammahoper]

Now adays I allow the player to assign the +50 as he chooses, max +20, with a few guidelines of course.  It creates varied characters within the professions, such as a fighter who focuses on weapos, body dev and academics.  It has never proven to be a problem.

[providence13]

Now adays I allow the player to assign the +50 as he chooses, max +20, with a few guidelines of course.  It creates varied characters within the professions, such as a fighter who focuses on weapos, body dev and academics.  It has never proven to be a problem.

You allow this with every new character?
Now that's malleable. I'll have to think about that one, before I use it..

[yammahoper]

Every character and every profession.  I believe RM2 level bonuses equaled 15, so you could do the same with those (and we did).

Some of those level bonuses apply to entire catagory groups, such as ALL weapons, or ALL athletic, or ALL awareness, or ALL scientific, etc.  Those are the ones that need to be closely watched.  Most professions that have a bonus that applies to the entire group only have that ONE group.  It has been a while since I did the analysis, but I believe there are a couple of professions with two group catagory profession bonuses, but none with +20 to both, which is VERY strong indeed.

So flexible, yes, and I recommend it.  Many times players only wish minor adjustments (-5 from lores and adding +5 t0 directed spell for example), and new players don't tend to change anything, but I have seen attempts at abuse (+20 weapopn group, +20 spell group, +10 directed spell was one I said NO to).

Eyes open and all that.

[Ecthelion]

Now adays I allow the player to assign the +50 as he chooses, max +20, with a few guidelines of course.  It creates varied characters within the professions, such as a fighter who focuses on weapos, body dev and academics.  It has never proven to be a problem.

Personally I'd probably require a background option (or Talent Points, if using these instead) to be spent before allowing such an change of the bonuses. And I'd probably only allow a modification of +/-10 from the profession's usual professional bonuses. Otherwise players might too easily abuse such an option.

Just my 2 cents

[yammahoper]

Now adays I allow the player to assign the +50 as he chooses, max +20, with a few guidelines of course.  It creates varied characters within the professions, such as a fighter who focuses on weapos, body dev and academics.  It has never proven to be a problem.

Personally I'd probably require a background option (or Talent Points, if using these instead) to be spent before allowing such an change of the bonuses. And I'd probably only allow a modification of +/-10 from the profession's usual professional bonuses. Otherwise players might too easily abuse such an option.

Just my 2 cents

Thats very fair minded.  I'm a bit more permissive though.

I like altering the prof bonuses, moving them around, and I encourage a player to do so if it fits their conception.  I'm concept driven though, and rules are ment to modified to fit conception, not the other way around.

[providence13]

I find that the RoCo's are great for concept. Sometimes it works and sometimes it has to be toned done. Occasionally I find out after it's implemented.

It is always interesting to see how the idea started and how it matriculated into RMFRP.

[Marc R]

Definitely, it's like having the rough draft and the final version, along with all the other alternate rough drafts.