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

[Cory Magel]

Semi-side comment.

I don't think the major issue with caster vs non-caster balance is mainly how often they can cast, although it is obviously a factor to some degree.

The major issue, imo, is that casters have a much more versatile primary ability.  Caster and non-casters both get all the various random skills with their various leanings, however their primary ability is Spells (for the casters) and Weapons (for the non-casters).

The non-caster has, as their primary ability, a far superior weapon ability.  The benefit is they can do damage, with a weapon, either in melee or with a ranged weapon.

The caster has, as their primary ability, far superior access to a large variety of spells that encompasses much more than just "cause physical damage to your target".

Add to this that casters, surely at least by higher levels, will start developing at least one weapon skill.  The caster needs to spend (in RMSS) 9dp on a weapon and, aside from profession bonuses, will eventually get halfway decent at that weapon skill.  Yes, it will take some time only being allowed to develop one rank at a time, but I think it's not too unrealistic to say that a non-caster would be doing this each level.  By 10th level they'd be ok at it and by 20th they might be pretty decent.  So, eventually the caster becomes mildly effective with a weapon.

Now take the non-caster.  In order to develop skills they, at best (if I remember correctly) must pay 12-25 points on a single rank in a single open spell list.  Developing 10 ranks in a single weapon skill is cheaper for the caster than developing 10 ranks in a single spell list for the non-caster.  The non-caster also has to pay a lot for Power Point Development.  Also, having a low casting ability is more dangerous that having a low weapon ability when trying to use those respective skills.  Also take into consideration that a caster developing a single weapon skill bring them closer to be able to perform a non-casters function than developing one spell list brings to non-caster to performing a casters function.

Yes, the non-caster can develop lots of weapons, but all they do is cause physical injury to the target.  The caster has a vastly larger array of abilities as a result of the variety of spell lists they can develop.

The result is that the non-caster outperforms the caster at low level because their function is more specialized while, in the long run, the caster ends up much more diversified.  This is one of the ways in which I often end up with slightly more 'powerful' characters in our gaming group.  I rarely buy up skills multiple ranks at a time, I buy a lot of single ranks in all the skills I'm interested in and, as a result, end up with superior skills over the long haul.  This happens pretty much unintentionally with casters vs non-casters due to the nature of their primary ability.

[kevinmccollum]

in fact,  with careful choosing in RM2, I could gain a talent providing a big bonus to ESF rolls, enabling casting of spells three levels higher with little to no risk

Actually true. You would in fact, have one list where you couldn't ESF on it. allowing a level one character to cast a level 50 spell (if you had an adder and the list to that level).

that is why I regard the BGO in RMCI to be a terrible idea. I had played with those at one time but eventually weeded it out.

[rdanhenry]

IMO there is no problem. If Arms users have an advantage at lower levels and are at a disadvantage at higher levels, then on average (over low, mid and high levels) they are on par.

That would be a horrible way to design a system, even intentionally, and would largely result in unhappy players, which will result in the failure of a system commercially.

You don't knowingly create a biased system and you make efforts to fix an unintentionally biased system when it comes to team effort processes UNLESS you want friction (not the good kind) among the team members.

I remember a game that had that form of balance designed into it that was popular when I was a teen. Advanced Dragons and Dungeons or something like that. Well, the company that made it is out of business now, so I guess you're right.

[Cory Magel]

I think the only real balance issues we had with D&D was multi-classing.  I recall us banning the Ranger/Cleric combo after a particularly nasty inner-party combat.  The Ranger/Cleric and the Mage killed the other 5 party members pretty handily.

Most the problems we had with D&D were mechanics problems that didn't really relate to balance.  We ended up re-writing about 50% of D&D 2nd Ed (using the original RM stuff early on and eventually using some of the RM2 stuff) before moving over to MERP then RMSS.  But then, we never played D&D beyond 2nd Ed, so I can't speak towards 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0 even though I actually worked for WotC duing the 3.0/3.5 time frame.  I read through some of it, but saw that the issues I had with it weren't resolved as well as continuing to use RM.

[jdale]

D&D had lots of balance problems that shifted with level. For example, early versions applied level limits to some races in some classes. So at low levels an elf wizard was clearly superior to a human wizard. But at high levels the elf wizard would hit a wall and be unplayable. Horrible design. (They got rid of it in 3rd edition, which was also the first point where they realized (not coincidentally) that humans should have their own racial benefits.) It's basically an extreme example of what is suggested here - that you can balance things by breaking them in one direction for low level games and the opposite direction for high level games.

D&D did a lot of things first, and succeeded because of that. But there are a lot of things that other games then came along and did better. If that wasn't true we wouldn't be RM fans.

[Cory Magel]

Oh yeah... I forgot about level limit on Elves (and similar rules). We tossed stuff like that pretty quickly.  It seemed beyond idiotic that a long lived 'fey' race would be inferior spell users.  I have to be careful about what I recall from our D&D days since we re-wrote so much of it (often using RM materials).

[RandalThor]

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?

Wow, this thread really took off, didn't it?

I don't really mind the imbalance between the professions; I look at it like a Jedi in Star Wars: At first you are a bit weaker, but as your skills and abilities go up, you will bypass non-Jedi. That is the way it is, and it is OK. Each Player just needs to understand that.

I don't agree that it swings at 10th level, I would say more like 15th (minimum) to 20th (more like it).

There are just some "rofessions that are more powerful than others: The elite knights of the Dark Lord of Ghurthan should/would be tougher than a peasant of the same level.

With that said, I don't think that allowing pure-arms users (or anyone that gets to a high enough proficiency with a weapon - or weapons) multiple attacks/defenses is a bad thing; it helps promote a bit more heroism in the game, IMO. (Which is a good/fun thing, also IMO.) Specifically for the ability to defend one's self against multiple attackers with greater ability - that is a very, very good thing.

[Ecthelion]

IMO there is no problem. If Arms users have an advantage at lower levels and are at a disadvantage at higher levels, then on average (over low, mid and high levels) they are on par.

That would be a horrible way to design a system, even intentionally, and would largely result in unhappy players, which will result in the failure of a system commercially.

You don't knowingly create a biased system and you make efforts to fix an unintentionally biased system when it comes to team effort processes UNLESS you want friction (not the good kind) among the team members.

I am not a game designer, so I don't know whether implementing a biased system where Arms users as superior at lower levels and inferior at higher levels will mean commerical failure. OTOH Rolemaster and ME RP always had this biased system and AFAIK were - at least during the 80s - quite successful. Given this I think things are not as simple as your above statement implies.

One more thing: If it is necessary - which I doubt - to create a system where the professions are more or less balanced over all levels, then it should not only be discussed (as is the usual case) how to improve the balancing in favor of Arms users at higher levels, but also how to improve the balancing in favor of Pure Spell users at lower levels.

Just my 2 cents

[kevinmccollum]

they made a system in which all the classes were balanced. It was called 4th edition. It was terrible. Balancing classes isn't a good way to go either. I don't mind being a speedbump on the way to a spellcaster as long as I know this going in. On the other hand, i don't mind taking time to cast my spells as long as I know this going in. Even at higher levels when you are going against some tough opponents, the caster NEEDS that melee type and that melee type NEEDS those casters or they all get killed. It has always been about needing "a party" and the teamwork that has to exist for them to succeed.

Ask yourselves, how is it that a small team of diverse individuals can get into some tough places and get out mostly intact? Because they bring some diverse but important skills to the table. One healer in a group? have you seen the city makeup of some of the old MERP modules? one healer per thousand or so? and not that high a level. One essence spellcaster? One semi spell user? A couple of tough melee classes? Everyone brings something to the table that makes them OK but as a unified member of an elite team, it makes them priceless.

[Marc R]

I think kevin hit the nail on the head there. Systems are not really balanced with the view of balanced power level for fighting between the party members, they are "balanced" with the aim that the group will need to work together and everyone has a purpose, and thus fun.

Critical imbalance problem is not "the mage can kill 100 in one shot so he's more powerful" critical imbalance is more like "The mage is so powerful I just follow him around, carry the gear and cook dinner."

I've played in a game where everyone played a Mage, and the concept was a contest in which a mob of low level Mages were competing for a job. . .competing in the "and the survivor gets the job" meaning. . . and it was tense as all hell. . .because nobody was confident they could soak damage, so everyone knew the first person to get off a no fumble attack would kill them. . .it never did get to the point where the PCs turned on each other, they were a crew of mutual convenience ala "We're in alliance until all the other Mages are out of the contest". . . .a similar "all fighter" game would have been far more laid back and less tense, simply because there's more to winning a one on one fighter fight than winning initiative and not fumbling. . . ."Different" doesn't always mean non balanced.

[jdale]

That's true. To a great extent what needs to be balanced is not power but story share. If the imbalance of power is too great it breaks story share as well: when one character can do everything, they also hog the story.

So it's not so much a mage being able to kill more things that breaks the game, it's when the mage makes the fighters irrelevant. If the fighters still have an important role, it still works.

In this sense, semi spellcasters actually have the big advantage. They are not the best at anything, but their versatility means they always have something to do. This is why I almost always play semis.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I think kevin hit the nail on the head there. Systems are not really balanced with the view of balanced power level for fighting between the party members, they are "balanced" with the aim that the group will need to work together and everyone has a purpose, and thus fun.

Yeah, that. Which ties back in to what I said earlier, that by the time a given individual of any class is high level, what has to be defeated or bypassed is their tactics. Killing off a high level fighter is easy if you can find a way to stay within your weapon range and yet stay out of his. But if you're fool enough to get within his weapon range, chances are you're toast. On the other side of the same coin is the old saying, "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between his shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." The trick is to find a way to defeat or bypass the fighting style he has developed over many levels to go with his abilities.

I've seen a pretty nasty party that consisted of only 3 people: A fighter, an archmage, and a healer.

In this sense, semi spellcasters actually have the big advantage. They are not the best at anything, but their versatility means they always have something to do.

In a way, yes, in another way, no. No number of warrior mages will have the spell repertoire, even between them all, to equal one full time mage. No number of paladins will have the spell repertoire of a healer. No number of rangers will have the spell repertoire of a druid.

[Cory Magel]

I am not a game designer, so I don't know whether implementing a biased system where Arms users as superior at lower levels and inferior at higher levels will mean commerical failure. OTOH Rolemaster and ME RP always had this biased system and AFAIK were - at least during the 80s - quite successful. Given this I think things are not as simple as your above statement implies.

I simply mean using that intentionally as a balancing tool would be a bad way to design, because nothing is ever really balanced from the very beginning that way.  Now, you'll never achieve perfect balance (if for no other reason than different gaming styles of the players), but imo you shouldn't go into it from the get-go assuming certain professions will be significantly superior than others at specific points.

One more thing: If it is necessary - which I doubt - to create a system where the professions are more or less balanced over all levels, then it should not only be discussed (as is the usual case) how to improve the balancing in favor of Arms users at higher levels, but also how to improve the balancing in favor of Pure Spell users at lower levels.

I agree completely.  Pure Arms Users need something that simulates (without actually being the same as) the Spell Casters long term benefit... diversity of tools.  The Pure Arms User will never match the sheer possible utility of a full on Spell Caster, but they should have more tools resulting from their primary focus aside from "I do physical damage to my foes".

[Kristen Mork]

I agree completely.  Pure Arms Users need something that simulates (without actually being the same as) the Spell Casters long term benefit... diversity of tools.  The Pure Arms User will never match the sheer possible utility of a full on Spell Caster, but they should have more tools resulting from their primary focus aside from "I do physical damage to my foes".

I published an article recently in The Guild Companion about restricting melee options (pressing/react/full and snap/normal/deliberate) so that Arms users would gain more options as they leveled.  However, a) the article is still limited to the primary focus you indicate and b) it's only applicable to RMSS/FRP.

[jdale]

I published an article recently in The Guild Companion about restricting melee options (pressing/react/full and snap/normal/deliberate) so that Arms users would gain more options as they leveled.  However, a) the article is still limited to the primary focus you indicate and b) it's only applicable to RMSS/FRP.

I had to go look that up. http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/mar/arscerto.html if anyone else is looking. We don't use all the options, interested in this as a way to gradually phase them in without confusing things too much. I think we would simplify greatly from the article as written, but the core idea is interesting to me.

[RandalThor]

Now take the non-caster.  In order to develop skills they, at best (if I remember correctly) must pay 12-25 points on a single rank in a single open spell list.  Developing 10 ranks in a single weapon skill is cheaper for the caster than developing 10 ranks* in a single spell list for the non-caster.  The non-caster also has to pay a lot for Power Point Development.  Also, having a low casting ability is more dangerous that having a low weapon ability when trying to use those respective skills.  Also take into consideration that a caster developing a single weapon skill bring them closer to be able to perform a non-casters function than developing one spell list brings to non-caster to performing a casters function.

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.

[markc]

Now take the non-caster.  In order to develop skills they, at best (if I remember correctly) must pay 12-25 points on a single rank in a single open spell list.  Developing 10 ranks in a single weapon skill is cheaper for the caster than developing 10 ranks* in a single spell list for the non-caster.  The non-caster also has to pay a lot for Power Point Development.  Also, having a low casting ability is more dangerous that having a low weapon ability when trying to use those respective skills.  Also take into consideration that a caster developing a single weapon skill bring them closer to be able to perform a non-casters function than developing one spell list brings to non-caster to performing a casters function.

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.

 Are you talking about buying more than 5 spell lists in a level? That is the only cost x2 that I remember. I also know that the multiple goes up after that also but I do not remember the range.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

The problem with trying to balance it with time or money in-game leaves it wide open for abuse due to inexperienced or 'monty haul' gamers. I hate to say it, but I don't think the average gamer is going to have the where-with-all to know how to handle it.

[RandalThor]

Are you talking about buying more than 5 spell lists in a level? That is the only cost x2 that I remember. I also know that the multiple goes up after that also but I do not remember the range.
MDC

Yeah, looking it up shows that after the 5th rank in a spell list the cost doubles and goes up from there.

The problem with trying to balance it with time or money in-game leaves it wide open for abuse due to inexperienced or 'monty haul' gamers. I hate to say it, but I don't think the average gamer is going to have the where-with-all to know how to handle it.

Great thing you don't have to worry about the "average" gamer, you only have to worry about your game. And thanks, I guess that means that I am not an average gamer and will assume you mean above average. 

Monty Haul gamers are going to be Monty Haul gamers no matter what you do. How about we not design a game assuming the worst in people? Plus, isn't that what the GM's Guide is for in most games? Helping new GMs along with such things? I always thought so. But, ultimately, as it has been said time and time again: each group will play the game the way they want. If that means being superheroic characters, then so be it. It isn't up to me to tell them they can't. As a game designer, I would feel it is my job to try and include as many different play styles I could to get the largest group of players I could. (Both as a "I want to give enjoyment to as many as possible" as well as, $$$$$.)

So, including options to give a range of play styles would be paramount, I would imagine. If that means including rules to allow pure-arms users 3 attacks/defenses per round, then cool. (And I think it is cool, and something that should have been done from the beginning.)

[Cory Magel]

I suspect a good percentage of the people on these forums, at least the regular contributors, are part of the above average crowd.

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.

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.