Topic: Thoughts on Combat Companion

[Arioch]

Overpowered in the way that you can do all those thing for free, in spells you need to PAY for all that. So, all combat maneuvers?, of course, versatility is the best, but for free and everyone?, that is the overpower, with a DP cost of 1/5 you can do all what you want, and that is unbalanced.

Unbalanced? Everyone can use them, even spell users! Arms users would be just better at it (after all, they're Arms users...).
It would be unbalanced if only arms users gained them, but since everyone get the same options I can't see how it can be unbalancing...

Then it is very easy and cheap to be a perfect archer with very low cost, and you can brace, killing shot, etc. Too far from being a perfect spell caster, where you need the spell list, spell mastery and surely other skills like magical language to increase your spell casting bonus for the SCSM derived from the spell mastery use.

Come on, what can an archer do, other than shooting arrows very well? How much versatilty there's in that?
I understand that you like spell users, but you can't really say that as they are they're balanced compared to non spell using professions! They're obviously much more powerful, and the fact that they have to spend PPs to use spells is not a balancing factor IMHO, as when they have no more PPs to spend (and it's a rare occasion, save for low-level characters) they can still use normal skills, like all the other characters...

You say that Spell users need a lot of skills compared to non spell using characters? Ok, let's look at how actually things work.
Let's analyze a random list, say the first from Spell Law, Essence: Delving Ways.
2 ranks in it and you get Text Analysis I, which gives you 2 ranks in ANY written language you want.
A few more ranks in the same list (which means the same skill) and you get spells that gives you more information than the skills they mimic (stone lore, metal lore, etc) and with NO chance of error!
How many skills would have to develop a non spell using characters to reach the same level of versatility??
Oh, yes but the poor spell user has to spend PPs to use those spells! So he will be able to cast them only say, seven to ten times before... having to rest! 
And that is just an example, you could take every spell list (and there's a lot of them) and draw the same conclusions.

So sorry, but your arguments in defense of spell users don't convince me at all.

To make it all free seem a little on the generous side to me and I'd personally prefer some sort of restrictions.

IMHO you forget that PCs wouldn't be the only ones to receive these options, even monsters and NPCs would be able to choose freely among them. As a result, combat will become overall:
- more tactical: with these options aviable you really have to think when choosing your round action!

and

- deadlier (which also means potentially quicker)

Also, higly skilled combatants would be a lot better than unskilled ones, as they could take full advantage of maneuvers (and high level foes would become really frightening, think of what a Dragon could do!).

[Dark Schneider]

Saying that spell users can use those combat maneuvers too as balanceing factor is not realistic. A spell user favored for using combat maneuvers?, not much really, with 20-30 OB...

Well, to see the balance, it is easy, compare:

- Before:
  - Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost.
  - Arms users: need to dev. weapons and combat maneuvers. Reasonable DP cost.

- After (with the suggestion using maneuvers it for free):
  - Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost. (it is the same!)
  - Arms users: need to dev. weapons. How cheap!.

As summary, if before in any RM version you needed to develop the maneuver you want to use (RMFRP as combat maneuver, RM2 as skill, CC as more DP cost for the combat style), why now all that must be for free?.

If the old system, we can take RMFRP as base that needs to develop combat maneuvers, how can be using ALL the combat maneuvers for free balanced?. In RM all you want to learn must have a cost, is a RM system basis.

Do you think yet that is balanced?.

[Arioch]

not much really, with 20-30 OB...

Even with Directed Spells?

Well, to see the balance, it is easy, compare:

- Before:
  - Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost.
  - Arms users: need to dev. weapons and combat maneuvers. Reasonable DP cost.

- After (with the suggestion using maneuvers it for free):
  - Spell users: need spell list, spell mastery and maybe others. Reasonable DP cost. (it is the same!)
  - Arms users: need to dev. weapons. How cheap!.

I think you forgot something in you little analysis:
- weapon skills can be used only in combat
- the only limitation to spell lists is a player creativity

Do you think yet that is balanced?

Yes

[Dark Schneider]

Right, I forgot about directed spell styles, but in any case is unbalanced to use for free something than before you needed to pay for it.

You can apply some relax to rules, but making things free is not the best method at all.

For create another examples, think that is as integrating 'spell mastery' in spell lists (so use the SCSM table for 'spell mastery' check rolls'), or allowing any tier rank for MA with no penalty (I can try to hit with my puch harder any time).

Then, in arms is the same, when you develop weapon bonus, that only includes the basic use (think that weapons DP cost are relatively low compared with other skills, because is thought to be purchased with other skills together, if not, look at tech/trade - vocational or maybe urban as examples of other skills cost), that is, hit and parry normally, so if you want to use it in a more sophisticated way, you need to learn, and this implies you need to pay for it, for what you want to be that increases your skills (better spells, better combat, anything).

So, obviously you can use what you want in your game, but think in RM is a basis that anything that makes you more skilled, requires a pay. So you can set the skill more wide (the relax I taled about before, i.e. we use the 2-weapon combo for categories and not for single weapons combo), cheaper, everyman for some professions, etc., but finally they require a payment in any case.

[pastaav]

On the other hand it is not very hard to make the argument that the majority of those moves is ignored today when it is an extra skill.

The cost benefit analysis clearly say that the maneuvers costs far to many DP for the added benefit of having the option. It would not surprise me if the majority of the players out there prefer to spend the DP on different things. If Arioch players are so inclined then his change does not change the balance at all between arms and spell users.

[Marc R]

$0.02 here. . .or it does indeed shift the balance in favor of arms, but the balance as is, is already tipped so far in favor of casters, that you would have to move very far in the other direction before you could honestly complain about arms being overpowered in relation to casting.

[jolt]

My experience is that, in most fantasy games, magic is the great equaliser.  Spell-users don't start off overpowered in most games (many are quite weak to begin with), it's only as the levels get higher and higher do spell-casters come into their own.  However, unless your playing a low magic setting, a fighter type at those same levels is usually a walking golem of magic items making him just as potent, if not as versatile, as a spell-user.  If you aren't giving the fighters those types of items then the spells should be scaled back as well, IMO.

jolt

[Marc R]

I find that in high magic item games, the casters tend to be covered in items too. . . .

[Arioch]

So, obviously you can use what you want in your game, but think in RM is a basis that anything that makes you more skilled, requires a pay. So you can set the skill more wide (the relax I taled about before, i.e. we use the 2-weapon combo for categories and not for single weapons combo), cheaper, everyman for some professions, etc., but finally they require a payment in any case.

Hmmm, the fact is that I've no problem with weapon costs, it just seem silly to me that a fighter with 50 ranks in his weapon cannot disarm an opponent because this option isn't included in his style, while for example a mage with 50 ranks in one spell list can choose among dozens of options when using that spell list.

My experience is that, in most fantasy games, magic is the great equaliser.  Spell-users don't start off overpowered in most games (many are quite weak to begin with), it's only as the levels get higher and higher do spell-casters come into their own.  However, unless your playing a low magic setting, a fighter type at those same levels is usually a walking golem of magic items making him just as potent, if not as versatile, as a spell-user.  If you aren't giving the fighters those types of items then the spells should be scaled back as well, IMO.

jolt

First, I really can't see why some profession should be more powerful/versatile than others, no matter at what level.
Second, magic items aren't a solution since:
a) even spell users get them (and often are more proficient in using them, as they have lower costs for skills like attunement or runes)
b) RM isn't d&d and doesn't require that characters receive X magic items each level (and this is not something I want to see in RM, too). By the RAW a GM could decide to give no magic items at all, without having to adjust spell lists in any way
c) givin a lot of magic items to non SU is just a palliative, is like giving them a limited acces to spell lists to make them less underpowered compared to SU. I don't think this is a good idea, spells are for spell users, Arms users should be better at doing other things rather than gain some minor magical power.

[GrumpyOldFart]

First, I really can't see why some profession should be more powerful/versatile than others, no matter at what level.

A Channeling spell caster is presumed to be borrowing the power of a God, yes? How are you going to make him no more powerful than someone who is not, yet still keep setting logic in your magic?

I can understand the "everybody should be equal" thing..... but unless you drastically change the premise of magic entirely, I don't see how it's possible.

A "balancing" solution that is possible is to make the use of magic much more risky. A 50+ level fighter may be able to go hammering his foes all day, literally cut a swath through his enemies... but a 50+ level channeler can affect all life on an entire continent. "Plague" comes to mind.
And I'm okay with that. But for magic and non-magic to balance, a failure should be as catastrophic as a success is beneficial. If the high level fighter badly blows it, he may give himself a D crit, he may have just killed himself outright. But if he was "on his game" that day he could still only take out one or two guys at a time. Fine and good. If the high level caster succeeds, he may change the nature of reality for tens or hundreds of miles in all directions.
If that caster does the magical equivalent of a D crit to himself, with that much power, that widespread...... the mind boggles. Casters might be appreciated sometimes.... but people would stay well away from them, especially if they started doing their weirdie dance and speaking their gibberish.

[Arioch]

A Channeling spell caster is presumed to be borrowing the power of a God, yes? How are you going to make him no more powerful than someone who is not, yet still keep setting logic in your magic?

  I can't really understand your argument.
Why can't Channeling users be balanced toward other professions? They channel their power from the gods, right but they don't have access to all of their power!

I can understand the "everybody should be equal" thing..... but unless you drastically change the premise of magic entirely, I don't see how it's possible.

Note that I don't want to make all characters equal, nor change the magic system: I just want to inject more tactical options in the combat system!

[vroomfogle]

pastaav's point is a good one.....most of these maneuvers are simply ignored because they are often too specific to warrant spending DP's on them.   I've also made similar maneuvers free just like parry.  I use my own style system, but anyone can parry, disarm, subdue, and a few others.

 Is anyone arguing that parry is a maneuver that should be paid for?    I don't see the difference between parry and disarm or any of these other basic maneuvers.  They are all learned as a matter of course when learning to fight.   None of them seem to define a specific style of fighting.   To make style defining abilities and moves I use talents (one-cost, not figured into the style cost), but these are unique abilities rather then any of the basic maneuvers that I see here.

[Arioch]

Hmm... seems that we have lost a couple of pages of posts here, but I think that Vroom summarizes my thoughts well.


Oh, and BTW, I don't think that making those maneuvers free will make non users more powerful than spell users, nor do I care about it very much (so we don't have to repeat the arguments made yesterday and that went lost  ).

[thrud]

  I can't really understand your argument.
Why can't Channeling users be balanced toward other professions? They channel their power from the gods, right but they don't have access to all of their power!

Holy Bridge and Unholy gate channel ANY spell from the chosen god. So Clerics and evil channelers do have the full might of their god at their disposal. GM discretion of course... (since GM is the one taking the role of the god)

[Arioch]

  I can't really understand your argument.
Why can't Channeling users be balanced toward other professions? They channel their power from the gods, right but they don't have access to all of their power!

Holy Bridge and Unholy gate channel ANY spell from the chosen god. So Clerics and evil channelers do have the full might of their god at their disposal. GM discretion of course... (since GM is the one taking the role of the god)

Let's talk about balance/unbalance of the magic system in another thread, please...

[thrud]

Hey buddy, you were the one who started it. 

[Arioch]

Note that I don't want to make all characters equal, nor change the magic system: I just want to inject more tactical options in the combat system!

[Fidoric]

You can also consider it the way Harp does.
Use a maneuver with a full skill bonus for those trained in a specific manuever and let others use a less efficient method using the sum of two stats (and maybe add their rank in the weapon style).
Example from Harp :
Disarm exists as a skill (for those trained in it) and could be translated by the disarm maneuver integrated in a specific style thus using the full style bonus against the opponent.
Disarm is also a basic maneuver that anyone can use providing they have at least one rank in their weapon but it uses only Agility+Quickness stat bonus + number of ranks in the weapon as a bonus. Anyone can attempt a disarm maneuver but with a much lesser bonus.

[Arioch]

It would be the same thing as having those maneuvers as separate skills, which is something that I don't like.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I just want to inject more tactical options in the combat system!

I'm all in favor of that. But does it follow that "injecting more tactical options in the combat system" means giving those not trained in feints, disarms, etc. the same chance to succeed as those who are?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that seems to be what you're suggesting.