Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Dragonking11 on August 11, 2017, 07:02:54 PM
-
As the title says
In my 20 years of gaming, i only had a handful of characters created as spell casters
Players in my group were completely burned out by spell casters in our early years of gaming playing D&D. Spell casters were terrible in those times I won't deny it.
I always thought of RMSS spell casters as pretty cool and powerful characters but my players continued to stay away from them ..... even now
What about you guys ?
-
Prospective characters in my upcoming RMSS game are looking like:
Barbarian
Rogue
Arcane Elementalist
Warlock
Paladin
Magent
Healer
One undecided
I don't recall anyone voicing the opinion that RM spell casters are best avoided, nor do I think its remotely accepted as objective fact that OD&D/AD&D/BX/BECMI spell casters are terrible.
In general, I'd say that, in RM, semi-spell users are the weakest initially, and the most powerful within their area of specialisation at higher levels. Pure spell and hybrid users tend to have the greatest raw power and can be quite versatile. Non-spell users are the most versatile, although they can be overshadowed by spell users at very high levels.
-
In early D&D years, mage had only a single cast per day and 1 to 4 life points at first level ... they usually got killed in the first game unless they hid the whole fights
In RM, a first level pure spell user is fairly balance by having access to some great utility spells and a semi can at least be proficient with one weapon
But i agree with your assessment of RM casters and think your next roster seems like a very interesting group !
-
In our group Semi Spell Users are the most popular type. Then Pure/Hybrid and Non-Spell Users are the least popular ones.
-
I will definitely have to speak to my players and tell them to stop living in the past :)
I would really like to try a game with a mix and match of professions like Sable next game !
-
My current starting party in my campaign:
Rogue
Nightblade
Bard
Warrior Monk
Cleric
I'm running RM2, and so the first level characters generally have 1 PP/day, though all of mine ended up with 2 PP/day/level. One thing I also do is put each player through a 1-session solo adventure, through which they reach 2nd level. This brings the spell casters closer to the other professions, in power.
Another way to coax them towards adding a spell caster is, have them encounter a party that is balanced, with a spell caster and fighters. Working together, that party should be able to really give them a run for their money, and someone may decide to go for a caster, next time around.
-
Another way to coax them towards adding a spell caster is, have them encounter a party that is balanced, with a spell caster and fighters. Working together, that party should be able to really give them a run for their money, and someone may decide to go for a caster, next time around.
I just realized that a I rarely put my players in front of a dangerous spell user.
It is a great idea and I will absolutely try to use it ;D
-
I've usually had a mix, with the bias running more toward semis and arms users. But I also run a fairly gritty campaign and my world is tailored for a more subdued magic style. I also have players roll for origin when they create their characters, and in some cultures spell casters are much less common than they are in others.
-
My players tend to avoid pure spellcasters. Whilst they're, on the paper, very powerful, they're also a pain to manage, with lots and lots of spells to know, heavy dependance on spells, PPs, spell-ability boosting items, etc. But for a couple players, a few who tried concluded they implied too much management for what they were worth.
-
I told my players I was going to be restrictive with magic by making spell lists harder to learn and making spell bonus items very rare and in spite of that the group they came up with is cleric, sorcerer, warrior mage, elemental warrior and mystic.
In a game were I am a player I am a lay healer and the rest of the party are magician, bard and noble warrior.
So there is a mix of semis, hybrids and pures but no solely arms users.
-
It seems like there are a mix of opinions
Personally I would take a semi or pure spell user any day but I'm the only GM in my group !
In a game were I am a player I am a lay healer and the rest of the party are magician, bard and noble warrior.
So there is a mix of semis, hybrids and pures but no solely arms users.
I'm wondering how do you build your Lay Healer ? It is hard to come up with something original with that profession as all their spells deal with healing
-
Our RMSS game has a fighter, nightblade, mentalist, animist, and two paladins. So, one arms character, three semis, and two pure casters. Our RMU game has a rogue, one semi, two pure casters, and two hybrid casters.
So I would say it is the arms professions that get neglected for us.
-
I'm wondering how do you build your Lay Healer ? It is hard to come up with something original with that profession as all their spells deal with healing
That is only true of channelling healers. Lay Healers have a varied mix of open and closed lists and only their base lists are healing centric.
-
Our RMSS game has a fighter, nightblade, mentalist, animist, and two paladins. So, one arms character, three semis, and two pure casters. Our RMU game has a rogue, one semi, two pure casters, and two hybrid casters.
So I would say it is the arms professions that get neglected for us.
Thats a very good cast of characters. It's been a while since I had a 6 player game ... I usually run at 3. With so much spell casters, are your players good at managing their spells ? (by that I mean do they know their available spells well so it does not slow the game down when choosing their actions in combat)
That is only true of channelling healers. Lay Healers have a varied mix of open and closed lists and only their base lists are healing centric.
Ahh you are right ... It is true that the Lay Healer's realm is not bad if you want to invest in some utility spells
So did you build it more versatile or more healing oriented ?
-
I am low level at present but I have some healing lists but also sense mastery and detections. The character has an interest in scrying so I want to go in that direction.
He also has adrenal move speed and strength, is armed with a spear which I tend to use from behind the noble warrior.
I think I am a good all round character. As the group healer the rest of the party have a vested interest in keeping me alive which is a good thing. I am capable in a fight, although not the best. If I get adrenal move strength working then the +10OB and double damage certainly helps.
I am a human and spent all my BGOs on the skill at magic table which gave me some very useful stat bonuses and an additional PP per level. I now have 4 PP per level so even without a spell bonus item I do not really feel too starved of power points.
-
Our RMSS game has a fighter, nightblade, mentalist, animist, and two paladins. So, one arms character, three semis, and two pure casters. Our RMU game has a rogue, one semi, two pure casters, and two hybrid casters.
So I would say it is the arms professions that get neglected for us.
Thats a very good cast of characters. It's been a while since I had a 6 player game ... I usually run at 3. With so much spell casters, are your players good at managing their spells ? (by that I mean do they know their available spells well so it does not slow the game down when choosing their actions in combat)
In the RMSS game, I'm playing the nightblade. The mentalist is pretty on the ball. The animist is newer to the group and still learning, but a lot of her spells are healing, so that's mostly outside the battle, and there are fewer to juggle in the thick of things. The paladins have fewer spell lists, and some of them are very focused (e.g. repelling undead/demons) so that's not bad.
In the RMU game, they all do ok, the main difficulty is that I keep tweaking the rules on them. :)
-
In the RMU game, they all do ok, the main difficulty is that I keep tweaking the rules on them. :)
lol ... My players have said sometimes in the past that I was changing the rules out of the blue (when that put their characters at risk) ... it was never true of course ... but in your case ... I guess they have every rights to complain :D
-
I'd say we typically have 1-2 Pure Arms, 2-3 Semi's and a 1 Pure Caster.
-
current campaign pcs:
barbarian
burglar
assassin
bounty hunter
paladin
the burglar is actually a semi spell user thanks to getting archmage abilities on a background roll.
the paladin is a bit of a healing specialist, he has a few traits from trait law that boost his healing magic.
-
PCs of the two current campaigns we are running (different sets of players):
1st group:
Ranger
Armsmaster
Healer
Magician
2nd group:
Priest (of Strength)
Warrior Mage
Dabbler
Outrider
-
You really all have a generally good mix of characters
Are your semi spell users generally focusing more on "lowly mundane" skills, in spells or an equal amount of each ?
-
That very much varies from player to player. One player ignores all character rounding skills and only focuses on OB, perceptions, spells and body dev. I try to get players to get use skills to tell a story. If their backstory says they grew up as an urchin then I want to see the skills that showed they grew up on the street. If they are of noble birth then they should have the skills to support that.
-
That very much varies from player to player. One player ignores all character rounding skills and only focuses on OB, perceptions, spells and body dev. I try to get players to get use skills to tell a story. If their backstory says they grew up as an urchin then I want to see the skills that showed they grew up on the street. If they are of noble birth then they should have the skills to support that.
I agree with this. The main difficulty as a GM I think is to put those skills in use in a way that do not seems forced in order to encourage the players to spend DPs on them. The majority of my players also focus on the more combat efficient skills. I'm partially ok with that because I know my group just loves RM tactical combat. Because of that, in that campaign, I don't put too much effort to promote skill diversity.
It may also be that I'm becoming a lazy GM :-[
-
If you want skill diversity to be useful, you have to create adventures allowing them to make use of those skills. When I'm developing adventures I start with a template of sorts, but then make adjustments based on the party's composition. If there's a character with a particular background, I'll put in some opportunities for them to use skills only they have to advance the plot. My players know this, and look for those chances now. There's plenty of combat to be sure, but there are some situations tailored for non-combat skills possessed by certain characters. This is especially true for my non-fantasy games.
-
We're a rather hack and slash group, so combat oriented stuff tends to be focused on.
When I characters in my own setting I'll actually provide some non-combat oriented skills for free based on character histories, which the players create largely based on information provided for the setting. Due to our play style this won't unbalance anything and can only help in encouraging more non-combat play or, at the very least, explain how the party can function better when left completely to their our resources.
So, instead of a Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, Monk, and Magician they'd end up looking more like a Fighter/Smith, Rogue/Sailor, Paladin/Diplomat, Monk/Healer and maybe Magician/Scholar.
-
This thread is interesting! Despite the long accepted arguments of the dominance of pure spell users and the argument that semis were constrained, party makeup (albiet a small sample), it seems like semis are the dominant profession. This calls into question objective feedback on RMU?
In our no-profession game, semi is the default drift so i would argue that a free-market approach simplifies the process to the eventually result.
-
In the long haul, Pure Arms users tend to dominate at first, then the Pure/Hybrid Casters leave them in the dust, then the Semi's leave them both in the dust. Eventually everyone gets to a high enough level that it doesn't matter anymore, but that's pretty high (mid 20's or higher maybe?). Problem is, from what I've seen over the years here, most RM groups don't get beyond the point where the Pure/Hybrid Casters are dominant.
-
I agree, it almost goes in steps of 5 levels. 1st to 5th most problems can be solved at the point of a sword, 6th to 10th your stealth/skills based characters come into their own as adventures become more sophisticated. 11th to 15th your pures come into their own. By 20th the semis start to take over.
I run different rules for different groups and my stripped back no profession based game also has semi as the default option. It is also level-less as character skills improve depending skill usage and training. If we play hack and slash then combat skills dominate but if things take a political aspect then those skills start to improve naturally.
When playing using professions and levels we almost never get to 20th level.
-
Problem is, from what I've seen over the years here, most RM groups don't get beyond the point where the Pure/Hybrid Casters are dominant.
I concur with this ... my own groups never got higher than 8th level.
The party members were constantly changing at that time and we liked to start new characters when the party changed.
I agree, it almost goes in steps of 5 levels. 1st to 5th most problems can be solved at the point of a sword, 6th to 10th your stealth/skills based characters come into their own as adventures become more sophisticated. 11th to 15th your pures come into their own. By 20th the semis start to take over.
That could very well explain why in my case, my original players prefer non spell user professions as they were always in the level range those professions shine over the others
-
Are your semi spell users generally focusing more on "lowly mundane" skills, in spells or an equal amount of each ?
I'd guess our semis invest on average 25 DPs per level on spells and the rest goes into skills. Hope that answers your question.
-
In the long haul, Pure Arms users tend to dominate at first, then the Pure/Hybrid Casters leave them in the dust, then the Semi's leave them both in the dust. Eventually everyone gets to a high enough level that it doesn't matter anymore, but that's pretty high (mid 20's or higher maybe?).
Interesting. I would agree that Pure Arms users dominate for the first few levels, but then I would have said its the semis that start dominating. And at high levels the Pure/Hybrid users are strongest. At least in our group it were the Pure/Hybrid users and their powerful spells that sometimes made use retire the group because it became hard to balance adventures for them.
-
In the long haul, Pure Arms users tend to dominate at first, then the Pure/Hybrid Casters leave them in the dust, then the Semi's leave them both in the dust. Eventually everyone gets to a high enough level that it doesn't matter anymore, but that's pretty high (mid 20's or higher maybe?).
Interesting. I would agree that Pure Arms users dominate for the first few levels, but then I would have said its the semis that start dominating. And at high levels the Pure/Hybrid users are strongest. At least in our group it were the Pure/Hybrid users and their powerful spells that sometimes made use retire the group because it became hard to balance adventures for them.
Brian Hanson is doing a lot of work on adventures for high level parties over on the Rolemasterblog. I don't think it is an easy task balancing groups like that.
-
I don't know if the semis have a power advantage over the pures, but they do have an advantage in terms of story share, because they have something to offer in more situations.
As a semi (nightblade), I'm averaging 3-4 spell list ranks per level. Magic + martial arts + stealth does not leave a lot of points, but I have developed a lot of languages and sense/awareness skills. One paladin is averaging 4 spell list ranks/level and has developed a fair amount of lore and languages (she's a paladin of a goddess of knowledge, so...). The other paladin is more martial with only 2 spell list ranks/level, not a whole lot of skill breadth either.
In the RMU game, the one semi is the party shield wall (the rogue is an archer, and the rest of the party is pure or hybrid casters) so he has had to be very martially focused. A lot of points in adrenal skills, fortitude, footwork, etc. He's developed four spell lists to his level. He does have some ranks in culinary and survival, even a little social awareness, but definitely has to rely on the other party members for knowing stuff. That suits the character, who is a half-orc.
-
I think the trick with getting spell casters in the party is making sure that they have a chance to shine due to skills as well as spells. Make sure to use attunement, read runes, power perception or any other magical skills enough that they can be useful beyond their spells. Something simple like having magically sealed doors that can be attuned to then be opened or clues that can be deciphered with read runes can add a layer of utility to the spell caster while focusing on their core skills too.
-
Current regular party is:
Rogue
Fighter
Paladin
Druid
Sorcerer
Playtest party is:
Fighter
Sorcerer
Paladin
Mentalist
Nightblade
I used to steer new players towards arms, but the new simplified spellcasting rules should make casters easier.
-
The spell development is very costly at level up. Do you guys use the rules as written for calculating the available DPs or give a bit more ?
In the past, I used the RAW but in my soon to be next campaign, I wanted to try giving a 25% increase of the base DPs to see where it leads.
-
In the past, I've always used btb DP, sometimes with 40ish additional points for "hobby" skills.
In my upcoming RMSS game, I'm using a flat 80DP, and I've stripped out many redundant skills, or skills required if you want to be the best you can be at a completely different skill, so that there are more than enough to points to become proficient in a reasonable number of key areas and still have enough points to throw around wherever.
-
The spell development is very costly at level up. Do you guys use the rules as written for calculating the available DPs or give a bit more ?
In the past, I used the RAW but in my soon to be next campaign, I wanted to try giving a 25% increase of the base DPs to see where it leads.
We are playing RMU so everyone gets a flat 60.
-
The spell development is very costly at level up. Do you guys use the rules as written for calculating the available DPs or give a bit more ?
In the past, I used the RAW but in my soon to be next campaign, I wanted to try giving a 25% increase of the base DPs to see where it leads.
There are many threads on how many DPs to give out. I think the rule of thumb is the more skills in play then the more DPs you have to give out to compensate. I don't use DPs any more in my preferred game so it is irrelevant. In my RAW game I have not included all the additional skills in the companions so the standard DPs serve well enough.
-
Our current campaign has:
Wizard
Animist
Bard
Armsman
Ranger
Paladin
Rolemaster casters don't have to be as fragile as other games. Casters can wear armor to some degree. Gain HP buffs and decent defensive spells.
I guess if you put a first level fighter against a first level caster in a standup fight the caster will die quick. For me, the versatility of casters makes them more fun to play.
Mal
-
The spell development is very costly at level up. Do you guys use the rules as written for calculating the available DPs or give a bit more ?
In my RM2 times we used to use the rule that the realm stat bonus would be added when determining the chance for a new spell list. For semis this meant that we'd usually only invest one rank per level for a new spell list and then hoped for a lucky roll. And we use the system of using two stats columns and always took care that our characters had relatively high values in the stats relevant for DPs. So we usually had around 40 DPs from mid-levels onwards. That was enough.
For RMSS we use RAW and never had an issue with DPs. Our characters usually have above 90 DPs from mid-levels onwards.
-
This is a 1st lvl Magician, built with as much as RAW as I've understood of RMSS (the character has been built with the gorgeous RMOffice, I've corrected the software itself to have it be the closest to the rules). I think it's quite powerful a character to start with. A real boost (that I've not found anywhere it's forbidden) is to spend one background point to have stats increase during adolescence. It works for every kind of character.
P.S.: I've removed the attachment. Maybe it's silly, but I'm not sure it's allowed to share a character sheet. If you tell me that I'm allowed to upload one, I'll restore it.
-
The spell development is very costly at level up. Do you guys use the rules as written for calculating the available DPs or give a bit more ?
For RMSS we use RAW and never had an issue with DPs. Our characters usually have above 90 DPs from mid-levels onwards.
To have above 90 DPs you would need to have very high starting stats in Ag, Co, Me, Re and SD. I suppose you put very high values in the 3 neglected stats at character creation ? (Me, Re, SD)
-
In our RMSS game, with standard rules for stats, the paladins have 85 and 88 DP, the mentalist has 89 DP, the nightblade 90, the fighter 86. The nightblade started with abysmal Empathy which is part of why that number is higher.
I think the DP numbers are fine in RMSS. In RM2/RMC, I think the number of skills in use is more variable which might make it harder to set the optimal number of DP per level.
-
I personally always play one. We usually start games at 5th level any lower and toons tend to die easily. At higher levels spell casters can rule.
-
How do you guys handle the level up of your spell casters regarding their spell list ?
Do you allow them unrestricted spell selection of any list or do you enforce the use of external "learning tools" like books, library, university, mentor, others
Usually in my campaigns, I houserule that the first 5 ranks of any list are simple enough that players can learn them easily by themselves and past that, require some form of study from one form or another as mentionned above
What about you ?
-
This is very setting specific I guess.
For years my players wanted to use the optional rule in RM2 that allowed them to add their stat bonus to spell list acquisition rolls but that optional rule clearly says that access to the lists should be limited so that is what I did. Finding a tome or a teacher that would teach a list was an important find. Without a teacher then the characters could only improve the lists they had or research unique lists of their own devising.
More recently I have gone to the no additions to the SLA roll but lists can be learned without access to a teacher. The intention was to make lists harder to learn, to have less lists per character and therefore greater variety, not all mages could cast fireball and icebolt and lightning bolt. It was much more likely they would know one of them.
Tomes and libraries and teachers are still valuable in my games as I am a huge advocate of spell research and essence users need them but not for day to day spell list learning.
I do play in a game where the GM is very generous with spell lists, we can add our stat bonuses to SLA rolls and we can learn more than one list per level. At the rate we are going by the time we are 10th level I will have every open, closed and base list for my profession and already be learning a couple to 20th unless the dice are extremely unkind.
In my PBP game I have a housed ruled version where only spell lists you have used can be improved without access to a teacher and or training. So even if you know a list, if you have not been casting spells from it during the adventure or have sought out professional training I do not allow you to improve it and that improvement is not automatic.
-
Wow. Fantastic thread and really great replies! I'll throw my 2p in as well.
A lot of the RM players I have now were AD&D players first and the cardinal sin they make is that spell casters in RM2 work just like AD&D. When they first start playing RM, I encourage them to choose a non-spell caster to get used to the system first and to see how it works. The die-hard D20 players always try to argue with me and they inevitably roll up a very poorly crafted RM spell user. Any long time player in RM will know a poorly crafted spell user; high stat values in the wrong categories, too much emphasis on non-magical skills, one or two spell lists even at level 3 or 4 PC level, spell lists from non-class spell lists, on and on.
Then three's playing the spell caster "less than ideally" in game play. They remember back to the days when D20 spell casters had 1D4 HP and they see their RM spell caster with 30+HP but they don't parry or hide, they don't realize that "2 rounds to prepare, 1 round to cast" is a long long time in RM combat, and Stunned crits are devastating in RM. Spell casting in RM is a lot more involved than in other gaming systems I've played and spell casters tend to be weaker at lower levels unless really crafted well.
Compare that to the long time RM players who know how to make a really good spell caster. They have 4 maybe 5 spell lists at level 3 or 4, they've maxed out their magical skills and spent some good points in a weapon and maybe some defensive skills. They know to plan their spell casting with the flow of the game. We've had some amazing spell casters, but they weren't the majority of the party. We would have maybe 2 spell casters in the group at most at any time. One time, we had a non-spell user who spent 20DP for a 5% chance to learn a spell list. He eventually rolled 96+ and learned the spell list!
Our gaming world is a little different as well. We start all of our players at level 5. One of the main reasons was to give players a chance to make really well developed spell casters and to give them some longevity. This also allowed them to cast level 1 spells in 1 round a little easier for them. To help with the massive amount of spells lists, we limited the magic to only Elemental Companion (RM2). Only Elementalism is allowed and I've since added Alchemy Companion to the mix as it fits perfectly with the "Age of Discovery" in which our gaming world takes place.
Something I've learned over the years "Protect the Healer/Spell caster!" Some members of the party would invariably protect the spell caster while he prepares his spell. I've found this isn't quite as imperative in the D20 system. As the RM spell casters go up in level they can be very powerful and it's the party's best interests to keep them alive and to allow them to cast spells. We learned over the years to be very careful when spell adders and PP multipliers as loot. Spell users really became powerful then.
-
When you have the chance to play with a well coordinated group of players, that are helping each other such as protecting the spell casters, it becomes so much fun to throw big baddies at them as a GM. The players like the challenge more often than not. Of course the campaigns must ideally be planned accordingly so as not to become a dungeon crawl with endless dangerous combats (that can be fun too sometimes).
A group composed of complimentary professions are really fun to GM overall
-
To have above 90 DPs you would need to have very high starting stats in Ag, Co, Me, Re and SD. I suppose you put very high values in the 3 neglected stats at character creation ? (Me, Re, SD)
That's correct.
-
How do you guys handle the level up of your spell casters regarding their spell list ?
Do you allow them unrestricted spell selection of any list or do you enforce the use of external "learning tools" like books, library, university, mentor, others
We don't restrict spell casters in learning their spell lists. IMHO it is well balanced that spell casters are a bit weaker in the beginning but then better at later levels. Restricting their spell list learning might disturb this balance.
-
We don't restrict spell casters in learning their spell lists. IMHO it is well balanced that spell casters are a bit weaker in the beginning but then better at later levels. Restricting their spell list learning might disturb this balance.
So you let your players invest DPs in any list and learn the appropriate spells right away at level up ?
Do you also let them start new Spell Lists of any kind (or realms) as they see fit ?
-
We don't restrict spell casters in learning their spell lists. IMHO it is well balanced that spell casters are a bit weaker in the beginning but then better at later levels. Restricting their spell list learning might disturb this balance.
So you let your players invest DPs in any list and learn the appropriate spells right away at level up ?
Yes
Do you also let them start new Spell Lists of any kind (or realms) as they see fit ?
Yes. No restrictions beyond RAW core rules.
-
We don't restrict spell casters in learning their spell lists. IMHO it is well balanced that spell casters are a bit weaker in the beginning but then better at later levels. Restricting their spell list learning might disturb this balance.
So you let your players invest DPs in any list and learn the appropriate spells right away at level up ?
Do you also let them start new Spell Lists of any kind (or realms) as they see fit ?
Ditto. We looked at it as the caster has a math book that covers basic math to algebra to calculus to whatever level rocket science math there is. He may have the high level maths but the can't understand or use the math until he understands the lower level stuff. We looked at the spells as the same way. Here's a list of 10 spells. They are ordered in a hierarchy and the ones at the end are pretty complex. You can't even understand the writings and directions because it's just way above your head. If the spell caster was able to find someone else who knew those spells and who could help train the person, we'd give a bonus to the spell gain roll.
As far as DP cost and access to open/close/restricted lists, it's RAW. The spell casters can be extremely powerful so giving unlimited access to every spell list would throw the balance way off.
-
When putting spell casting npcs or monsters, do you use the RAW for them or do you make them cast the spells freely in a more "narrative" way ?
I find it hard to use the RAW as things can go wrong easily with a misroll or something, making the fight really boring
-
When putting spell casting npcs or monsters, do you use the RAW for them or do you make them cast the spells freely in a more "narrative" way ?
I find it hard to use the RAW as things can go wrong easily with a misroll or something, making the fight really boring
It depends on how you define RAW.
I encourage my players to so spell research and I use that a lot with my spell casting NPCs. This means that I have a lot of spells available that are not in Spell Law for example. I tend to concentrate on making new lower level spells. For example Shockbolt is 2nd level but a version that had a range of just touch would logically be 1st level. It does mean that the magician has to get into melee which is a big decision to make. Another example could be a touch version of the Vacuum spell effecting a single target (a ShockWave spell). These lower level versions or other unique low level spells allow casters to cast spells quickly and with little chance of failure when compared to trying to rush a spell that should require 3 rounds to cast.
I have always favoured lower level spells but then in my game spell bonus items are extremely rare so managing your powerpoints is important for both NPC and PC casters.
-
When putting spell casting npcs or monsters, do you use the RAW for them or do you make them cast the spells freely in a more "narrative" way ?
I find it hard to use the RAW as things can go wrong easily with a misroll or something, making the fight really boring
I try to stick to the rules that will be governing the players. If it would take a PC 3 rounds to cast this spell, it would take the same amount of time for the same level NPC to cast the same spell. If there are special rules for the NPC in the description such as "...may cast shockbolt IV three times a day without preparation..." Then I follow the description. I'll narrate to the players "the NPC appears to be backing up and trying to position the overturned table between them, he appears to be mumbling something under his breath. He doesn't attack this round." That should be plenty of clue that there is a spell in the works. I'll also track the PP spent by the NPC. Fair is fair.
-
Current RM2 campaign:
Elementalist (RMCVII)
Elemental Archer (Warrior Mage Variant - custom class)
Dreadnaught (Paladin variant - Semi-Mentalism - custom class)
Kensai (Arms Master variant - Semi-Mentalism - custom class)
Demonologist (Sorcerer variant - custom class)
Reality Mage (Astral Traveler variant - custom class)
Lay Healer (Core class)
2 things I noticed when writing this list:
That's a lot of custom classes in this group.
ALL spell users (4 semi, 2 hybrid and 1 pure) but no Channeling!