Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => General Discussion => Topic started by: dutch206 on July 27, 2016, 04:54:19 PM
-
Monte Cook says Cubicle Seven Publishing will be releasing a Middle Earth guidebook for 5th edition DnD.
-
That should be good for their bottom line. Although the problem has always been that Middle-earth doesn't have much in the way of fantasy spellusers (let's face it, there were five and they were, effectively, lesser divine beings).
-
That should be good for their bottom line. Although the problem has always been that Middle-earth doesn't have much in the way of fantasy spellusers (let's face it, there were five and they were, effectively, lesser divine beings).
This is always why I start folks out using MERP.. They can get the feel of actions and combat. Then I move them to my RMFRP campaign where we add spells.
-BP
-
This is always why I start folks out using MERP.. They can get the feel of actions and combat. Then I move them to my RMFRP campaign where we add spells.
-BP
I use the MERP adventure modules and source books for maps and campaign ideas. But I've always found the lack of magic to be a negative. Especially given the lethality of the RM combat mechanics.
Not having healing spells readily on tap makes for short lived adventuring parties.
-
This is always why I start folks out using MERP.. They can get the feel of actions and combat. Then I move them to my RMFRP campaign where we add spells.
-BP
I use the MERP adventure modules and source books for maps and campaign ideas. But I've always found the lack of magic to be a negative. Especially given the lethality of the RM combat mechanics.
Not having healing spells readily on tap makes for short lived adventuring parties.
Why the early stuff I use is easy for them. See the wolf ...Run! Run!
-BP
-
I use the MERP adventure modules and source books for maps and campaign ideas. But I've always found the lack of magic to be a negative. Especially given the lethality of the RM combat mechanics.
Not having healing spells readily on tap makes for short lived adventuring parties.
I tend to think that's why RM2 had such a wide assortment of herbs. You could get by without a healer in many cases so long as the GM was liberal with herb availability.
-
I tend to think that's why RM2 had such a wide assortment of herbs. You could get by without a healer in many cases so long as the GM was liberal with herb availability.
Ahh, but there is the rub. Being overly generous with herbs throws off the balance of economy when you are relying on several thousand gold pieces worth of stuff to stay alive. And that isn't even counting the difficulty of having herbs available from widely different areas or climates.
A party could use this 150gp herb in the hopes of staying alive, or they can hire a cohort of mercenaries to do the job for them at zero risk.
It is also hard to preserve the herbs long enough to be of use without the use of magic.
I find that using the full RM system, magic and all, is preferable.
I also tend to view the ME setting as a great backdrop...for a great series of novels. But as a RPG location, it is much to restrictive. As are many, if not most novels.
-
The best part about running in ME is using your MM bonus to do it- so, inevitably the wolf catches you anyway......
-
Off topic a bit, but there doesn't seem to be a Harry Potter RPG. There are some online things, including one based on LotGD but that seems to be it.
-
You can still use the mighty spell casters for a RM/MERP/HARP based Middle Earth campaign. Just adapt the Risk Factors and Corruption rules from ICE's old MERP, or if you don't have that, use the "Adapting HARP to Middle Earth" article from Other Minds Issue #15. It is a free e-zine.
-
They are taking something great and mixing it with something I think is hideous - 5e rules. It's all about the money I guess. I guess their TOR isn't making enough money. The TOR fans that I have seen always put down high magic systems. As not fit for the Tokien world. I wont be going near it.
-
They are taking something great and mixing it with something I think is hideous - 5e rules. It's all about the money I guess. I guess their TOR isn't making enough money. The TOR fans that I have seen always put down high magic systems. As not fit for the Tokien world. I wont be going near it.
I played 5E once. After about an hour I saw all of the old "bad" stuff creep aback in and the new "good" stuff had been stripped. I asked why the list of skill was greatly reduced and was told "keeping track of that is too hard". *Sigh*
-BP
-
I played 5E once. After about an hour I saw all of the old "bad" stuff creep aback in and the new "good" stuff had been stripped. I asked why the list of skill was greatly reduced and was told "keeping track of that is too hard". *Sigh*
-BP
I played 4e once. After that, I swore off the franchise.
-
In fairness, 4e is pretty divergent from the other editions. I don't think it's a good basis to judge. That said, obviously I still prefer RM....
-
I played 5E once. After about an hour I saw all of the old "bad" stuff creep aback in and the new "good" stuff had been stripped. I asked why the list of skill was greatly reduced and was told "keeping track of that is too hard". *Sigh*
-BP
I played 4e once. After that, I swore off the franchise.
I never played 4e. I picked up the players guide and read a passage that more ore less said this...
"If <some action>, then <some result>, else if <some different action>...."
I thought to myself "Holy <expletive deleted>, they are writing in algorithms. I have enough of that in Real Life!!!" I put the book back and never went down that dark path.
-BP
-
4e is a board game simulating an online game, of course it uses computer logic. But, again, it's unlike all the versions before and after.
-
I've played D&D longer than I've been playing Rolemaster. It's just the nature of the beast when that is the system that most GMs run. Although the switch seems to have been made over to Pathfinder. And I have many fond memories of our old D&D sessions back in the day.
But what Wizards did to the D&D franchise in their vain attempt at wooing WoW players was so horrid and blatantly a pitiful cash grab, that I actually swore off the franchise.
I'll almost always prefer RM. But when I'm the only GM at the table (we take turns GMing in rotation) that runs RM, I'm stuck playing what the other GM's choose to run.
But I won't be playing 4e, 5e, 6e, ad infinitum. Even if it leaves me staying home. 4e left that much of a bad taste.
Fortunately for me, our group is fairly diverse in the systems that we play, so I'm not left out in the cold.
-
I notice Hasbro that owns WotC has published LotR & Hobbit boardgames, cardgames, and some other toys and action figures. Cubicle7 might be generously throwing them some more customers via the RPG, since it's 5e. It depends on how far they depart from the source document.
-
Yeah, I believe D&D 4.0 was trying to appeal to the online game crowd which, in theory sounds like a great marketing idea, but in practice... not so much.
-
5e basically is 4e, but with a few significant changes that lead to it being more palatable and even deceives many that the game has changed back to the 3e days.
The main thing they've done is to make every class unique, als they have come down from the powers system to a split betweens spells, abilities and tricks. This seems to console the 4e haters and most of the playerbase has returned.
I did like 4e and now also 5e since it supports pure roleplay more than any other system. The focus lies not in mechanics but in story telling and action. 4e, with its standardized classes, already did this. When it no longer matters what kind of class you are (a warlock just wielded a different kind of sword/ attack implement, and its attack noises were different from a fighter's), but basically every character was a He-man doll with different dress up but with a button in the back (literally) that did a specified amount of damage per level. That meant that players HAD to roleplay to make a difference.
Sadly not many players saw the potential and liked to play "the rouge (error intentional)" or "the cleric". 5e does facilitate this kind of "roleplaying". Also many supporters on new media were very vocal and helped the franchise get "back" (Actually 4e and later 5e were their best selling products of all time).
I play Rolemaster since that facilitates any style of play. You can mold a magician to be a great fencer and a fighter to cast spells. I like its complexity and how that always leads to character differences due to personal preferences and how the dice fall at character creation. Construct a party of 5 fighters in 5e and you will see that the majority is the same (optimized), but make a party of 10 RM fighters and you will end up with all different concepts.
I have been producing my own adaptation of MERP to D&D for close to 20 years. It allowed me to make my own vision of ME and craft my own stories in the best of all campaign settings. I do allow access to magic, because it is so visible in the books, eventhough in hindsight it is all divine magic, but you don't know that when you just read LotR and the Hobbit. I think my players have a great understanding of the living and breathing Middle Earth and its history and they read and enjoy the books (and hate the movies) more for it.
It is great to see a new generation get introduced to the inner workings of Tolkien's life's work and hopefully do him justice in his wishes: to give the story to other hands and other minds to expand it. The adventures people have had in ME are beyond count and add to the legacy of Tolkien and it is just awesome.
-
I've played and enjoyed every edition of DnD. 5e is my least favorite, because, like BPowell, I feel that many of the problems that plagued earlier editions have returned.
I understand why many people disliked 4e, but at least it attempted to solve some of the earlier problems. 5e is terribly imbalanced. A 2nd level Moon Druid can wreck a campaign (ridiculously overpowered), as can a 5th level Wizard with Fireball. The Ranger is so terrible they had to errata changes to it. There are many other things that have reverted back to their earlier, inferior forms, not because they were simpler or better, but to appeal to nostalgia. 4e for example had a simple rule, 'Attacker always rolls'. Now we're back to some attacks requiring saves from the defender, and others requiring rolls from the attacker. Now we have each class too almost having its own subsystems, with different rules for how they are handled. And yet the subclasses have very little complexity or diversity at all. Play a fighter once, and you've pretty much played them all. There are like 30 feats total or something like that; almost no customization at all. We're halfway through our second (short) campaign, and already getting bored. Items, especially magic items, are terrible. And the modules are horrible. Example: The module I'm currently playing has encounters like, '1d4 Hook Horrors'. Well, 1 Hook Horror would be a trivial boring fight, 2 would be relatively easy, 3 would be hard, and 4 would be a TPK. Do they really want me to just roll randomly for that? Terrible, terrible game design, as is clear from the reviews for the first module they released for the new system.
All of this means a game that is much harder for new players to learn. My players figured out 4e (even with the jargon) in a few sessions. My wife, who had a harder time with 3.5e, picked 4e up much more quickly. Now with 5e we're back to almost every class having its own subsystems and subrules. Yech.
And I would seriously doubt that the audience is back. Yes, 5e books sold well, but I strongly suspect that is because they are publishing something like 1/10th of the volume of products they published in 4e. At my local shop, there is literally like less than 10 5e products on the shelves altogether; Pathfinder has 3x the books or more. By this point in its life, 4e had multiple Players books, DM books and Monster Manuals. I would like to see some hard statistics that the 5e books are outselling all those combined. The fact that Wizards just laid off some of the staff (of 13 people) that work full-time on 5e doesn't bode well, and their lack of online tools (and revenue streams from them) suggests that the new edition is considerably less profitable than the old.
Opinions on these editions will vary, but my group much preferred 4e. We play a tactical, grid-based, combat-heavy, RP-lite game, and of course that is not for everyone. But for us, 4e was way more fun than the unbalanced, simplistic, and at this point downright boring 5e.
-
My current favorite rules system for ME is the Lord of the Rings RPG from Decipher. It does a good job at reflecting the setting material, I feel. (No crazy spell lists that totally don't fit, for example.)
-
My current favorite rules system for ME is the Lord of the Rings RPG from Decipher. It does a good job at reflecting the setting material, I feel. (No crazy spell lists that totally don't fit, for example.)
And I have to agree with this. I only bought the first Decipher book, feeling it may not be all that great. However, I was wrong! Now I wished I had bought the other two Decipher books that were sitting right there on the shelf. And how many times have all of us had this happen?
I loved the way Decipher did magic for ME. It is more like JRRT wrote it in his stories. Subtle (VERY when compared to all flavors RM), but can be very effective.
I only went as far as to get DnD 3e. Saw some things I liked, but it was still a game of bashing each other until one reaches 0 hits first. I love the deadliness that RM has because it is more realistically believable. As I have always preached, although systemic damage (hits loss) can kill, it is the critical damage that actually kills first.
Since Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy, I have always used the Witch King's stabbing Frodo in the shoulder as a PRIME example. The stab (systemic damage) caused only a little harm. It was the critical damage (a shard of the blade left behind inside) that was going to kill Frodo. Sometimes the critical damage is slow. More often it is quick, as with Riddick's chopping of Diaz when they were retrieving the Power Nodes in the movie Riddick.
It is the believable realism of RM combat that always makes me come back to the RM system.
I have heard alot about Pathfinder, but have never bought anything to check it out. Wished they'd give a very good "teaser" download for free.
rmfr
-
Pathfinder is apparently enough like D&D3.x to be backwards compatible with it. Certainly the 3.x supplements I have look like they could be easily converted to Pathfinder. Of course, there are waaay more optional rules and stuff for Pathfinder now, even excluding third party content.
-
Pathfinder is basically D&D 3.6e. The rules are very similar to 3.5, but they fixed a lot of things that were horribly, horribly broken.
I played D&D 4e with a very tactical group, but the sameness overwhelmed them. It seemed appealing at first but wore off very quickly. Personally, what I liked least was the removal of utility magic. E.g. there was only one class that even had plain old light spells! Utility magic is great for encouraging creative thinking. 4e did a fantastic job of providing clarity, but at the expense of creativity. Of course D&D's fire-and-forget magic system has always limited that to some extent, since you are working with a small pool of spells at any given time.
-
Pathfinder is basically D&D 3.6e. The rules are very similar to 3.5, but they fixed a lot of things that were horribly, horribly broken.
I played D&D 4e with a very tactical group, but the sameness overwhelmed them. It seemed appealing at first but wore off very quickly. Personally, what I liked least was the removal of utility magic. E.g. there was only one class that even had plain old light spells! Utility magic is great for encouraging creative thinking. 4e did a fantastic job of providing clarity, but at the expense of creativity. Of course D&D's fire-and-forget magic system has always limited that to some extent, since you are working with a small pool of spells at any given time.
There was some utility magic in 4e; there were utility powers (not just the 'Utility' type but actual utility spells like fly), and beyond them much of the other utility magic was moved to rituals. Two things limited the appeal of utility magic in 4e though: there was definitely less of it than in previous editions, and the combat-focused approach of 4e meant that utility magic was less directly useful. The rituals were specifically non-combat because they took so long to perform. So I don't think it is entirely accurate to say utility magic was removed, but I do agree with your general point that it was much reduced in appeal.
-
I went on ahead a purchased both the Player's Guide and the Lore Master's Guide for "Adventures in Middle Earth". Although the system is 5e D&D, it is more akin to their "The One Ring" RPG. From what I have read so far, I think this system has definite possibilities. I am thinking of giving it a try with my HARP group since some of them like 5e.
-
Hello friends! I am planning to make a HARP party in Middle-earth using MERP adventures. I'm building the characters using the rules of Other Minds # 15 (fantastic adaptation!), but I find it difficult to convert the original statistics. Do you have a quick and easy method?
For example, this NPC from "Raiders of Cardolan" (1988):
Harnekil
Lvl 10
Hits 28
AT No/2
DB 5
Melee OB 30da
2ndary/Missile OB 5da
Mov M 5
Ancient Petty-dwarf Evil Animist.
4 Lists to L10, 40 PP +20 Directed Spell.
+15 Dwarven dagger
Also the stats. I can feel that are a little higher than the HARp stats.
-
Stats in ME are deceiving- a stat from 75-89 yields a +5 bonus and there is 1 stat per skill. IN HARP you gain a bonus (however small) for being above 50 and use 2 stats per skill so most skills get at least a minimal +2 to +5 in stat bonuses. If I recall correctly there is a breakdown of how the NPCs stats are allocated in the ME core book- something along the lines of a 90 in the prime stat and 75 in all others.
-
Personally, I have lost all interest in the D&D system. I find it too limiting and down right boring, you are basically ultra powerful and virtual unkillable, and combat takes forever. Roll, damage, repeat. Yes, most systems are that same thing, but as a GM you need to upgrade your telling slightly. D&D just doesn't do it any more.
For playing in Middle Earth (which was the question) I prefer the Rolemaster system, pick your RM type, all are good, but again you have to watch the combat, yes RM does allow faster combats, critical hits take away some of the roll the dice and do damage only. Still there are ICE products for so much of ME that you can't help but find guides for every area you desire (EXCEPT THE EAST, why ICE do we still not have anything about the East?) :)
In all cases be sure your players can handle the quest they have undertaken, I mean at level 3 you should probably not try to kill Smaug, but to sneak in and steal a bag of coins from the Goblin King? Maybe, if you are stealthy enough and have the module for Mount Gundabad (Product 3110).
-
Personally, I have lost all interest in the D&D system. I find it too limiting and down right boring, you are basically ultra powerful and virtual unkillable, and combat takes forever. Roll, damage, repeat. Yes, most systems are that same thing, but as a GM you need to upgrade your telling slightly. D&D just doesn't do it any more.
My sentiments exactly. Fourth Edition DnD, for all its faults, at least tried to spice things up with some special moves (powers) for both players and monsters. Fifth Edition though has gone retro and gotten rid of all that, meaning Fighters just do essentially the same (basic) attack ad nauseum, and the monsters are mostly just sacks of hit points-- the higher level monsters are just bigger sacks. Class customization is extremely limited (even feats are an optional rule), meaning if you've played one fighter, you've pretty much played them all. It is odd to see people gushing over the new system out of nostalgia; after a campaign or two, the incredible shallowness of the system is obvious and the boredom palpable. I think some groups are finally starting to realize this.
-
Hello friends! I am planning to make a HARP party in Middle-earth using MERP adventures. I'm building the characters using the rules of Other Minds # 15 (fantastic adaptation!), but I find it difficult to convert the original statistics. Do you have a quick and easy method?
For example, this NPC from "Raiders of Cardolan" (1988):
Harnekil
Lvl 10
Hits 28
AT No/2
DB 5
Melee OB 30da
2ndary/Missile OB 5da
Mov M 5
Ancient Petty-dwarf Evil Animist.
4 Lists to L10, 40 PP +20 Directed Spell.
+15 Dwarven dagger
Also the stats. I can feel that are a little higher than the HARp stats.
Animist is like a Cleric - sometimes like a Druid.
I only have HARP Lite. Does HARP full version have NPC list in intervals of 2 or 5 lvls by profession? I know MERP and RM had those where you could just use a level 10 cleric or druid NPC as the basis.
If it don't I noticed this conversion of monsters in the vault which has generic NPCs at the very last page. Can maybe start with the level 9 basic stats and adjust. http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item386 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item386)
-
Hello friends! I am planning to make a HARP party in Middle-earth using MERP adventures. I'm building the characters using the rules of Other Minds # 15 (fantastic adaptation!), but I find it difficult to convert the original statistics. Do you have a quick and easy method?
For example, this NPC from "Raiders of Cardolan" (1988):
Harnekil
Lvl 10
Hits 28
AT No/2
DB 5
Melee OB 30da
2ndary/Missile OB 5da
Mov M 5
Ancient Petty-dwarf Evil Animist.
4 Lists to L10, 40 PP +20 Directed Spell.
+15 Dwarven dagger
Also the stats. I can feel that are a little higher than the HARp stats.
Kullervo,
In the ICE Vault Downloads there are two files in the Conversion Resources (HARP) folder entitled "RMSS Creatures and Monsters Conversion to HARP" and "Rolemaster to HARP Conversion Guide" which could be very helpful. I use both of them for my Middle Earth campaign that I am running with HARP.
-
Hello friends! I am planning to make a HARP party in Middle-earth using MERP adventures. I'm building the characters using the rules of Other Minds # 15 (fantastic adaptation!), but I find it difficult to convert the original statistics. Do you have a quick and easy method?
For example, this NPC from "Raiders of Cardolan" (1988):
Harnekil
Lvl 10
Hits 28
AT No/2
DB 5
Melee OB 30da
2ndary/Missile OB 5da
Mov M 5
Ancient Petty-dwarf Evil Animist.
4 Lists to L10, 40 PP +20 Directed Spell.
+15 Dwarven dagger
Also the stats. I can feel that are a little higher than the HARp stats.
Animist is like a Cleric - sometimes like a Druid.
I only have HARP Lite. Does HARP full version have NPC list in intervals of 2 or 5 lvls by profession? I know MERP and RM had those where you could just use a level 10 cleric or druid NPC as the basis.
If it don't I noticed this conversion of monsters in the vault which has generic NPCs at the very last page. Can maybe start with the level 9 basic stats and adjust. http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item386 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item386)
kwickham,
Yes, HARP Fantasy Martial Law has full NPCs with stats, skills, etc. for each profession at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.
-
Than you! Yes, very useful documents! :)
-
No problem Kullervo, glad I could help. :)
-
Btw., will we have the same problem when trying to use old Middle Earth (and also Shadow World) modules with RMU? RMU IIRC suggests a starting level of 3 because in level 1 or 2 the characters are quite weak. OTOH many/all of the old ME modules suggest a starting level of 1 for the first adventures and then up to 5th level for the last adventures (at least the ready-to-run type of modules). Perhaps it's only a level conversion, perhaps not even that, perhaps even more.
-
Hi all,
after a long wait, the latest Issue of Other Minds (#18) is now out. This time we have a TOR focus again (two reviews plus an adventure), but also picked up an old-time favourite of MERP - 'The Court of Ardor'. 94 pages await your critical eyes!
Beside the regular columns (Editorial, Inside Information etc.) you will find the following content:
- Review: Bree
by José Enrique Vacas de la Rosa
- Review: Horse-lords of Rohan
by Thomas Morwinsky
- The Court of Ardor and the Book of Linsûl (discussion of background info for a famous MERP module) by Tom Davie
- The Book of Linsûl (in-world background info to the previous contribution)
by Tom Davie
- The Gloomweaver Awakened (adventure for TOR)
by Paul Kirk
- The Demographics of Dor 'Wathui and Dunland (scholarly thoughts and usable extrapolations on the urbanisation of Dor 'Wathui/Dunland in 9 eras of the Third Age)
by Thomas Morwinsky
You can find the file on the OM website or under this direct link (http://www2.omzine.org/downloads/om-english/other-minds-issue-18/view). Have fun with it and feel free to comment anything you deem worthwhile :)
For the OM team
Thomas
-
Btw., will we have the same problem when trying to use old Middle Earth (and also Shadow World) modules with RMU? RMU IIRC suggests a starting level of 3 because in level 1 or 2 the characters are quite weak. OTOH many/all of the old ME modules suggest a starting level of 1 for the first adventures and then up to 5th level for the last adventures (at least the ready-to-run type of modules). Perhaps it's only a level conversion, perhaps not even that, perhaps even more.
I don't think you should have too much problem. The developers of RMU said that they are increasing the number of culture ranks characters get at 1st level to help compensate, and unlike in RM2, most races also get some extra starting development points (humans for example get a lot, due to the fact that they have no stat bonuses, and this is a way to balance the races). Races in RMU also get a bonus to starting hit points. So I don't think there will be too much difference between a level 1 RMU character and a level 1 RM2 character-- the RMU character will most likely have more starting hit points and spell points (if a spell user), at least.
-
Not sure if that is enough, because IMO still the number of ranks in the primary skills is quite limited. I just took a look at the ME adventure module "Ghost Warriors". There the pre-generated 1st level warrior PC character has 73 OB, 52 hit points and 30 DB. I wasn't able to create a RMU character just as capable at level 1. What I heard here in the forums is that the starting level for RMU characters should rather be level 3, so that the characters can survive an adventure. That's why I think there should be some kind of guideline if we want to use MERP modules with RMU.
-
Those characters in Ghost Warriors don't really follow the rules -- at least not the rules for RM2. Some seem to be MERP character classes, such as the Dwarf with 73 OB at level 1, which can be at least partly accounted for by the fact IIRC that Dwarves in MERP get an unusual amount of cultural/background ranks in 1HConcussion weapons.
In RMU, characters at first level will almost always start out with higher hits, better DBs, and many more spell points (if they are spell users).
They might also start out with lower OBs, since the most number of ranks they can spend in a weapon is 2 (though they may also get culture ranks), and some RM2 classes get a +3/level bonus in weapon skills. However, most RMU classes can get a +2/level professional bonus in weapon skills, if they buy 2 ranks in the weapon, so in terms of professional bonuses, the classes in RM2 are about the same as the classes in RMU. Also, RMU characters have access to something RM2 characters did not: knacks. These can increase two skills by between +5 and +20, depending on power level.
Stats are about the same as well, and in fact RMU characters actually could have higher stat bonuses (+15 is the highest in RMU, which corresponds to a +45 in RM2). So, the advantage here clearly goes to the RMU characters too.
RMU characters generally have considerably higher hits, since they get a racial bonus to hit points. Some of those ghost warriors characters have 20 hits at level 1. Any medium-sized RMU character is going to have more than that, barring a terrible constitution stat.
RMU characters are also capable of having much higher DBs as well. The Dwarf in Ghost Warriors is benefitting from a shield-- probably a wall shield for +30 DB. The most he could get from quickness however is his stat bonus. But a Dwarf in RMU could not only get a higher Qu bonus (+45), he could also get an additional +2 from his professional bonus to the shield skill. So again, the RMU characters have higher potential bonuses here as well.
So yes, OBs might be a little less in RMU, but hits, DBs, and powerpoints are all going to be higher. If you are worried that RMU characters might not keep up, you can also increase the power level to Epic, which would mean that the RMU characters can also increase the benefit of their knacks to +20, for an additional +20 bonus at level 1.
An RMU Fighter could theoretically (with perfect stats) start the game with a 95 OB, 119 hit points, and a 77 DB. That is more than could be achieved theoretically in RM2.
-
Those characters in Ghost Warriors don't really follow the rules -- at least not the rules for RM2. Some seem to be MERP character classes, such as the Dwarf with 73 OB at level 1, which can be at least partly accounted for by the fact IIRC that Dwarves in MERP get an unusual amount of cultural/background ranks in 1HConcussion weapons.
I never said these character would follow the RM2 rules. It's a MERP module and they were created using the MERP rules.
An RMU Fighter could theoretically (with perfect stats) start the game with a 95 OB, 119 hit points, and a 77 DB. That is more than could be achieved theoretically in RM2.
At level 1??? If so then it would be interesting to get to know how this can be done. Because the RMU test characters I created had much lower values at level 1. But if these values are for a level 3 RMU character (i.e. the suggested RMU starting level), then it's just the point I want to make: We need to make clear what the starting levels for RMU characters should be when playing the MERP adventure modules.
-
Those characters in Ghost Warriors don't really follow the rules -- at least not the rules for RM2. Some seem to be MERP character classes, such as the Dwarf with 73 OB at level 1, which can be at least partly accounted for by the fact IIRC that Dwarves in MERP get an unusual amount of cultural/background ranks in 1HConcussion weapons.
I never said these character would follow the RM2 rules. It's a MERP module and they were created using the MERP rules.
Point taken.
An RMU Fighter could theoretically (with perfect stats) start the game with a 95 OB, 119 hit points, and a 77 DB. That is more than could be achieved theoretically in RM2.
At level 1??? If so then it would be interesting to get to know how this can be done. Because the RMU test characters I created had much lower values at level 1. But if these values are for a level 3 RMU character (i.e. the suggested RMU starting level), then it's just the point I want to make: We need to make clear what the starting levels for RMU characters should be when playing the MERP adventure modules.
My numbers:
OB: 24 (2 ranks bought at first level +2 cultural ranks + 4 professional bonus) + 45 (stat) + 20 (knack) = 89 (not sure where I got the extra +6 from)
Hits: 30 (culture) + 24 (ranks) + 45 (stat) + 20 (knack) = 119
DB: 45 (stat) +30 (tower shield) + 2 (2 ranks in shield skill) = 77.
-
My numbers:
OB: 24 (2 ranks bought at first level +2 cultural ranks + 4 professional bonus) + 45 (stat) + 20 (knack) = 89 (not sure where I got the extra +6 from)
Hits: 30 (culture) + 24 (ranks) + 45 (stat) + 20 (knack) = 119
DB: 45 (stat) +30 (tower shield) + 2 (2 ranks in shield skill) = 77.
Thanks for explaining. My understanding of RMU is from Beta 2 (2015). And there cultural ranks for melee were only included for one culture (and there only one rank) and for missile weapons did not exist at all. Rolling a 100 for two or more temporary stats to get the above stat bonuses is more than exceptional. And the default power level from the rules is "superior", which has two Knacks with a +5 bonus. The highest, "epic", power-level, which provides two +20 knacks, would be quite unusual for our group.
So yes, theoretically a RMU character might have such high stats (just like a theoretical perfect MERP character would have higher stats than given in the adventure module), but the normal character would - from my understanding of the Beta 2 rules - rather have values like this:
OB: 12 (2 ranks bought at first level + 2 professional bonus) + 10 (stat) + 5 (knack) = 27
Hits: 30 (culture) + 12 (ranks) + 10 (stat) + 5 (knack) = 57
DB: 10 (stat) +25 (full shield) + 2 (2 ranks in shield skill) = 37.
In terms of hits that's high above those of a MERP character, in terms of DB that's on par and in terms of OB its far below. And this is more like what I've seen in the few example characters that were IIRC posted here on the forums.
-
Current drafts of RMU will give 1 culture rank in a melee or ranged weapon skill for a little more than half of the cultures. So it's not unreasonable to add +6 (one rank and another +1 for a professional bonus), for a bonus around +33.
If you want higher bonuses, you can start at higher level (boosts everything), use a higher power level (boosts stats and the knack bonus for a couple skills), or just let the PCs have high steel weapons (boosts only weapon OBs). Personally, I think 2nd level is a good place to start a campaign and then do fairly rapid advancement to 4th or 5th as the players get the hang of the system and their characters.
I can't really speak to the MERP modules themselves, not having read them, but I imagine given the legal issues that any guidance there is going to have to come out of the community and not from ICE itself.
-
In addition to what JDale said, I would point out that the sorts of bonuses one finds on that one Dwarf Warrior in Ghost Warriors would not normally be possible in RM2, or possibly in MERP; that is, I'm not sure that the designers of the module were even following MERP rules.
In RM2, a level 1 Dwarf Fighter (equivalent to Warrior) would have something like a 41 OB:
20 (4 ranks) + 18 (stats: +25 St and +5 Ag averaged) +3 (level bonus) = 41.
I have no idea how he got to 73.
Note that he has rolled VERY high for these stats: a 99 St and a 94 Ag.
The RMU Dwarf with the same stats would have something like a 61 OB:
18 (3 ranks + professional bonus) +38 (stats) + 5 (knack) = 61.
That is a full 20 points higher than the same RM2 character.
The main difference then seems to be in the stat generation method. I personally do not much like the RMU method of rolling two stats and making the higher one the potential, since as you note Ecthelion this normally results in much lower starting stats for RMU. (You are essentially rolling with what DnD calls 'disadvantage' for your temporary stats in RMU.) Our group pretty much gave up on the RMU method and went to just rolling the stat bonuses directly, treating them as temporaries. If you really want to make sure RMU characters are not gimped when you're using old MERP modules, I would just use the old stat generation method.
How is it even possible to have a 73 OB at first level in MERP? I haven't played it since the 80s, but it seems like the creators of some of those old MERP modules (and most especially the creators of the Lords of Middle Earth books) weren't really following their own rules when making characters. Note that the other pregen characters in the module have far lower OBs, with the exception of the Animist, at 60; but then note in addition that the 3rd level Animist's OB is the same as the 1st level Animist's OB: both are 60. So there are definitely some weird things -- possibly typos -- going on with the pregen characters there.
In any case, sorry if I came across as a bit harsh in my earlier posts Ecthelion. I thought you were essentially asking, 'If I'm starting a campaign in Middle Earth, and using RMU rules to build characters, will the characters be gimped?' I think the answer is: definitely not, if you are using the old methods of stat generation. And even if you're using the new RMU ones, I think the extra hits, spell points, and DB will help first level RMU characters to do just fine in the old modules.
-
I can't really speak to the MERP modules themselves, not having read them, but I imagine given the legal issues that any guidance there is going to have to come out of the community and not from ICE itself.
Thanks for the information. So a guideline might using the PC levels 3, 4 and 5 instead of the levels 1, 3 and 5 typically given in the modules. Or 2, 3 and 4 and starting with +10 weapons or or or... we'll see.
-
How is it even possible to have a 73 OB at first level in MERP?
The given character is a dwarf. So its 4 ranks from the race + 2 ranks for level 1 = 30 (skill) + 20 (stats) + 5 (racial stat bonus) + 3 (level bonus) = 58 without background options. If the character has a special +10 bonus for his primary weapon and the Lightning Reactions background option, which gives +5 to OB, then we have the missing +15 for a total of 73. I'd say they followed the rules.
In any case, sorry if I came across as a bit harsh in my earlier posts Ecthelion. I thought you were essentially asking, 'If I'm starting a campaign in Middle Earth, and using RMU rules to build characters, will the characters be gimped?' I think the answer is: definitely not, if you are using the old methods of stat generation. And even if you're using the new RMU ones, I think the extra hits, spell points, and DB will help first level RMU characters to do just fine in the old modules.
All is well :-). Just from my little experience with some test characters of mine I thought the suggested levels 1, 3 and 5 given in the MERP adventure modules might not be the right choice when using RMU characters. That's why I was asking.
-
Just use the orcs, ghosts and various monsters from RMU. The maneuver DRs of Light, Medium, Hard etc. should port over well. That module in particular uses a lot of spells if I remember correctly though.