Topic: RMC vs RMFRP: Bladeturn (Poll)

[vroomfogle]

In RM2 and now RMC the Deflections and Bladeturn spells were always -100.    They were changed in RMSS to be -50, they apparently felt they were too powerful.

I was wondering how people felt about that change.   What sort of penalty do you think is more appropriate and balanced for the spell?

[Arioch]

IIRC Deflection is still -100, while Bladeturn is -50...

[yammahoper]

In RMFRP, it makes great sense because the skill totals are much lower at higher levels.

In RM2, a starting level 1 OB varies from 40-50 for a fighter.  In RMFRP it is 55-70.  At level 20, RM2 OB is 165-180, while in RMFRP it is 140-150.

So I think the changes make sense.  Also, I have never experienced Bladeturn being to weak even after it has been lowered in RMFRP.

lynn

[Dark Schneider]

In RMFRP, it makes great sense because the skill totals are much lower at higher levels.

Are you sure of that?, with everyman skills and using talents that can be reversed.

I don't know why they changed the -100 to -50, because it was not unbalanced, you spend 7 PP (bladeturn I) in an instant moment, so modify the attack in -100 I think is totally normal.

[yammahoper]

Talents can throw anything off.  One talent in Character Law provides a +40 to a catagory or +60 to a single skill.  Ouch.

Yet it is the change of mechanics between RM2 and RMFRP that makes the +50 necessary.  Casting the Bladeturn requires 10% action, not 75%, leaving our spell user to attack, parry, move, apply an herp, etc.

lynn

[vroomfogle]

The % action for an instantaneous spell is a better reason to change it to -50.   The OB differences between the two systems can vary quite a lot due to talents.

Also, Arioch is correct.  Deflections is still -100, and it's lower level then Bladeturn.   Now I really wonder why the designers made this change because that doesn't make any sense.  If you were going to change Bladeturn to -50 then Deflections should also have been changed.

I think this is worthy of a poll...

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

You left out an option for "other" 

Personally, I can see having a series of such spells, each being better than the previous one in the series (i.e. like portions of an entire spell list... hehe)

[yammahoper]

I always thought the 100 DB for deflections is because it doesnt increase melee OB, so while it might protect, the protection doesn't stop a spell user from getting hit in any way, while he just blew his only spell probably helping someone else.

As for the pole, I played both RM2 and RMSS/FRP and like how both systems handle it.

lynn

[Dark Schneider]

An option could be use the following levels (II, III, IV...) as +50 additions, and you use them as you want, for example could be used as -50 for 2 attacks or as -100 for 1 attack.

This could be usefull too when combat against very powerfull creatures (high level demons, war trolls, etc.) and you use the II or III version of spell to aid the group fighter (think that are too many PPs for only 1 attack).

[pastaav]

An option could be use the following levels (II, III, IV...) as +50 additions, and you use them as you want, for example could be used as -50 for 2 attacks or as -100 for 1 attack.

This could be usefull too when combat against very powerfull creatures (high level demons, war trolls, etc.) and you use the II or III version of spell to aid the group fighter (think that are too many PPs for only 1 attack).

Actually I have exactly this solution as a houserule. It makes bladeturn a very much better spell...but on the other hand I can't imagine that anyone would be using higher level bladeturn if the effect is only -50.

[Marc R]

Missile parry is a little harder than melee parry, likely the reason for the bias. . .even in RMC there is an "aim Untrue" auto deflect, but no "swing untrue" I know about, so the bias pre-dates RMSS.

If you were say a methodical mage guild researching spells, I'd think you'd devote more effort to anti missile efforts.

but, my #1 rules logic reason comes down to:

A melee attack is attached to an attacker, a missile is not.

So, more mass behind the attack, and also, the melee weapon is enveloped in the weilder's aura. . . .so less succeptable to magical effects. (You could "heat solid" an arrow in the air as it arches overhead, you may not heat solid a sword in hand.)

[Dax]

I'm used to -100 for Bladeturn, but thought it was a good idea to lower it to -50.

A disturbance of the trajectory might bring an arrow far of target (-100).
A distrubance of the weapons path might be corrected by that person swinging the weapon (-50).

On the other side Bladeturn cost is higher ---

So I vote "None of the above", until I get more experience with that spell.
BTW I'm ready to follow your suggestions.

It is nearly the same what LordMiller stated who won initiative 

[vroomfogle]

A disturbance of the trajectory might bring an arrow far of target (-100).
A distrubance of the weapons path might be corrected by that person swinging the weapon (-50).

Another thing to consider is that melee combat is actually a series of swings, with only one assumed to have a chance of connecting with the target.   Missiles on the other hand are just one shot.

[Dax]

Another thing to consider is that melee combat is actually a series of swings, with only one assumed to have a chance of connecting with the target.   Missiles on the other hand are just one shot.

That is it !
(All the discussion of "missle attacks might also be more than one shot",
but "the arrow numbers is only reduced by one" etc).

Can't change vote,
but it seems to me that -50 for Bladeturn is the best way to do it.
(with the possibilities to stack it with Bladeturn II, III etc.
Maybe this should be an option for Deflection II, III).

[rboleyn]

I put 'none of the above', because 1) I play(ed) both RM2 and RMSS, and 2) it was okay either way. As others have said, in RMSS you can cast Bladeturn and do other stuff, and so -100 would really amp up someone who chooses to also attack while casting it. OTOH in RM2/RMC a mere -50 for something that blows a bunch of PP and is effectively your whole turn is quite weak (and if spending your whole turn and those PP doesn't do a lot more than a 100% parry, what's the point?), whereas at -100 it's worth doing - most attackers will miss.

Edit - as to why Deflections stayed at -100, consider that (assuming my memory is working right) it is your one spell for the round, and most spell casters won't have much (if any) skill with a missile weapon, so if the use Deflections for that -100, they can't counter attack, even though in RMSS the casting was only a 10% activity. Thus in RMSS it needs to remain at -100 because it still effectively prevents an attack.

[mocking bird]

Or if you have the original RMSS Spell Law some versions of Bladeturn only list +20 DB - but I think there was an errata posted about that somewhere.

-50 works fine, -100 seems a bit much.  But we have also added some houserules to the two spells - originally in RM2 but carried over to RMSS.

[pastaav]

Or if you have the original RMSS Spell Law some versions of Bladeturn only list +20 DB - but I think there was an errata posted about that somewhere.

Actually I am fairly certain that I have the original printing of RMSS Spell Law, and my book has Bladeturn as +100 DB.

[mocking bird]

Which list?  Bladeturn is on about 6.  Some list 50, there is at least one that only has 20.  I am thinking the mageant base list one.  Will have to check tonight.

PS - in the errata pdf, it lists that it should be -50 on the open mentalism attack avoidance list.

[munchy]

I think Bladeturn should eventually have a bonus of a hundred but shouldn't start with that. I think in the mentalism realm there is a spell list that starts with -20 and the slowly increases if I remember correctly. That's definitely a good way to do it.

[Ecthelion]

The Mentalism Attack Avoidance has a spell Turn Blade that add +20 to DB, but all Bladeturn spells add +50 to DB, so there is no real scaling.