Author Topic: Revised Profession: Healer(s)  (Read 845 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,582
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #60 on: January 12, 2022, 11:32:15 PM »
I've read through your draft of your list, Eladan, and have a few bits of feedback.

My thinking is that if we reduce the number of injury treatment lists to three, we can group them as superficial healing (Surface Ways), tissue and bone healing (Flesh & Bone Ways), and deep injury healing (Nerve & Organ Ways).

I was thinking of grouping them according to Concussion and Blood; Muscle and Bone; Nerve and Organ. Is there a reason you grouped flesh with bone?

Quote
  • The scaling system is not yet balanced, but the theory behind it is that you first choose the damage type you want to heal, and then can add elements to the spell to empower it. Some examples - You cast Muscle Healing VIII
    • You could heal a -60 muscle injury (6 options) and reduce the recovery time from hours to rounds (2 options), on yourself, OR
    • You could heal a -40 injury (4 options) and reduce the recovery time from hours to rounds (2 options), on a target up to 50' away (2 options), OR
    • You could heal a -40 injury (2 options) on a target up to 25' feet away (1 option), and another -20 injury (1 option) on another target (2 options + extra PP) up to 50' away (2 options)
I'm trying to get the math to add up. The list says that injuries are healed in -20 increments. The first example says that to heal a -60 injury is 6 'options' though. Then the second example you give says healing a -40 injury is 2 options. Can you explain how that works? Why does healing a -60 injury cost 6 options but a -40 is only 2?

One other question: why are you assigning Roman numerals to damage types in the bottom of table x.x? If giving a symbol for damage types is necessary (and I'm not sure it is), I would probably want to use a different system for damage types than for scaling options, to prevent confusion.[/list]
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #61 on: January 13, 2022, 08:57:06 AM »
@Jdale - I actually think that the scaling mechanic I'm trying to implement is kind of a combination of both, and like you I lean towards lists, if only because they are more familiar to me. My lists give you access to a range of spells, and then the mechanics within the spells let you tweak the effects. There is a precedent for this already with the summoning spells.

@Hurin - You actually pointed out some of my concerns with these mechanics... they can be a little convoluted. I obviously screwed up the math. Let me do another example now that I've tweaked and rebalanced it — You cast a 6th level Muscle Healing IV (down from VIII):
  • You could heal a -40 muscle injury (2 one-point options @ -20 per increment) and reduce the recovery time from days to hours (1 two-point option @ 1 recovery time increment), on yourself. This matches what a RMU Healer can do with his level 6 spell. OR
  • You could heal a -20 muscle injury (1 one-point option @ -20 per increment) on someone else (1 one-point option to cast at range), and reduce the recovery time from days to hours (1 two-point option). This matches what a RMU Lay Healer can do with his level 7 spell.
That seems a little more in-line with the existing power levels of the primary healing classes, rolled into one profession. I don't know how I messed up the math so badly (I teach English...), but as I said this list is really rough right now and I haven't gone through all the various levels to test comparative balance.

Quote
why are you assigning Roman numerals to damage types in the bottom of table x.x? If giving a symbol for damage types is necessary (and I'm not sure it is), I would probably want to use a different system for damage types than for scaling options, to prevent confusion
You point out an important issue here. I'd like to avoid more symbols, so I was using the Roman numerals to denote how many points each option costs, but admit it doesn't read well. Any suggestions on how to word it better would be welcome!

Quote
Is there a reason you grouped flesh with bone?
Honestly, I like the sound of "flesh and bone" and just ran with it. I also tried to group the lists into three major categories: Surface Ways (superficial healing – hits, bleeding, stun relief, regen), Flesh & Bone (moderate injuries – flesh, muscle, bone), and Nerve & Organ (deep healing – nerves, organ, skull). This lets me fill spell slots in a relatively simple progression.
You can see my rough organization of the spells of this Google Sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ANpez5slGpa_JHV6LoZAOiL1gBQm05DkLJy4Q5M4kkg/edit?usp=sharing
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #62 on: January 13, 2022, 11:07:42 AM »
Actually I see what I did in the original model... I have tendon repair listed as a 1-point option, and muscle repair as a 2-point option. So my original math was actually right. Now I have to go back and look at the balance again. Gah!
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline Ecthelion

  • ICE Forum Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,450
  • OIC Points +0/-0
    • Character Gallery
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #63 on: January 13, 2022, 11:36:11 AM »
I find the Concept of HARP spells a better fix than spell slots. It allows customization and change of parameters without going overboard on cost due to spell slot allocation.
I really like the way the HARP spell system works, however it would need the profession uniqueness (Base lists) and selection that RM has for me to want to fully utilize it.
In the old TGC article about scalable spells for Rolemaster I tried to bring this idea of scalable spells from HARP into the RM system without giving up the profession uniqueness.

...
Scaling instead of a list also undermines the sense that every single rank will get you something new (because probably some won't).
I tried to avoid this in my variant of the scalable spells for RM because I tried to create a scaling variant where the end result is close to 100% to what the spell lists without scaling do contain. In a sense it's only a condensed representation of the spell lists where the higher level variants of a spell, e.g. Healing III and Healing V, get represented via a scaling option. But, even though there might be the same or sometimes even more scaling options getting available in a level, a new ranks in a spell list might feel different.

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #64 on: January 13, 2022, 12:01:46 PM »
@Ecthelion
Quote
In the old TGC article about scalable spells for Rolemaster I tried to bring this idea of scalable spells from HARP into the RM system without giving up the profession uniqueness.
This article is fantastic. Exactly what I'm going for.

I suppose a way to simplify my "option cost" method would be to reduce effectiveness. Make tendon healing -20 increments, make muscle healing -10 increments, skull -5 increments, etc. Then everything can be worth 1 option.
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2022, 08:20:12 PM »
Announcement! After some serious use of spreadsheets, multiple tabs, bookmarks, and carpal tunnel, I've completed a draft of the new Revised Healer lists. Based on the conversations in this thread and my own desire to see the Healer and Lay Healer class merged, this is the first step in that direction. Here is the link to a pdf which compresses the old 5-6 core healing lists down to 3. Attachment is also coming, pending moderator approval.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/181K-lrJI1wXPHVXLZTsFeKZcTat6_J5b/view?usp=sharing

Some notes:
  • One key concept was to get down to three lists so that Healers can have some diverse Base list choices (coming later);
  • These lists use the scaling mechanic found in some other lists, such as summoning, which allow the caster to choose more options based on the strength/level of the spell;
  • I went through and tried to balance the spells based on what Healer and Lay Healer spells can do at comparative levels, and adjusted the amount of options for each spell accordingly;
  • The fundamental philosophy when balancing is that spells cast on oneself will be more effective than when selecting options to cast healing spells on others, which preserves the old RM Healer concept.
I'd welcome thoughts from the braintrust, and remember it's a rough first draft. I'm sure there's some mistakes in there.
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,111
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #66 on: January 17, 2022, 10:17:23 AM »
Eladan, could you provide an actual example or two of how to read and interpret your spell lists? For instance, let's say I cast "Heal IV". What may I actually do?
"100 lives, 1000 lives. Despite their past promise, the gods didn't seem to forget about Solange.
10000 lives, 100000 lives. Or mayhap they did, thus forgetting to add to her curse and pain.
1000000 lives, 10000000 lives. But, as such, they also forgot to cancel the one they put on her.
An eternity.
This is the story of a girl cursed by the gods because they needed a scapegoat. This is the story of heroes whose duty was to realize the one they needed to save was said girl, and not the world."

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #67 on: January 17, 2022, 11:28:46 AM »
Surface Ways (Revised) Summary
@OLF - Yup... full acknowledgment that the way it reads may be clumsy. The table on each list provides what abilities you can choose with a casting and how many points each one costs. In my examples I'll put the option costs in parentheses. Bear in mind that the base range of these spells is "self".
Let's say you cast level 5 Heal IV and have 4 points to now mix & match:
  • Heal self for 20 hp (5 hp per point x 4), OR
  • Heal a target (1 point to make it ranged) for 15 hp (5 hp per point x 3)
This matches up roughly to the power levels for spells as they exist now. A RMU level 7 Healer and Lay Healer can heal 25 hp. My ranging cost makes the self-healing slightly more effective (or ranged healing less effective), which I think is important.

At lower levels, the point costs keep it from being too abusive in terms of ranged or extra targets. Now let's look at level 12 Heal XI:
  • Heal self for 55 hp (5 hp per point x 11), OR
  • Heal a target (1 point to make it ranged) for 50 hp (5 hp per point x 10), OR
  • Heal self for 20 hp (4 points), then heal a target (1 point + 2 points to affect an additional target) for 20 hp (2 points)
The power levels for the first two still match up fairly well — a RMU Healer can heal 50 hp at level, while a RMU Lay Healer can heal 50 hp at level 11. My system skews it back in favor of self-healing. It also gives the possibility of multi-target healing which is (and should be) less effective. 3 of the 11 points provided by Heal XI which could go to healing damage now go to making it affect a 2nd target, plus it has the cost of extra PP, per the option description (still debating whether this is too punitive).

Alright, now let's do a quick look at another spell set — Flowstop. For the purposes of these lists only, I've dropped the weakest version of bleed repair from these lists (Flowstop, which stops the bleeding but still needs to be healed, in favor of Clotting (takes an hour to heal) and Cut Repair (heals instantly). So the default bleed repair effects are those of Clotting, which takes 1 hour, but can be accelerated through spell options. Here we go...
You cast Flowstop III:
  • Stop 3 bleed per round on yourself (1 bpr per point x 3) which takes an hour to become permanent, OR
  • Stop 1 bpr (1 bpr insta-heal x 2) which becomes permanent instantly. Technically you still have 1 point left, so you could choose to cast this on a target instead.
Again, these power levels match up fairly well, and at higher levels give the caster some flexibility to have effects that used to be attributed only to different versions of the same spell (i.e. Mass Clotting True, etc).

My versions of Regeneration and Stun Relief work under the same basic premises.
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #68 on: January 17, 2022, 12:05:30 PM »
Flesh & Bone (Revised) Summary
I went over the premise of this 2nd list earlier in the thread, but have done some rebalancing and hopefully cleared up some of the confusion in the language (or not...).
Let's try the muscles first. Bear in mind that tendons cost 1 point per -20 healing increment, while muscles cost 2 points. You cast level 6 Muscle Healing VI, giving you 6 points for optioning:
  • You heal a -40 injury (2 points per -20 increment x 2), and reduce the recovery factor from days, which is the default, to hours (2 points per recovery reduction factor x 1). OR
  • You heal a -20 injury (1 point per -20), reduce the recovery factor by 1 (2 points), and cast it on a target (1 point to make it ranged)
Power levels are dead-on accurate to current RMU versions — A Healer's level 6 Medium Muscle Healing has the same effect as the first example, and the Lay Healer's level 7 Light Muscle Healing as the same effects as the second. Obviously healing tendons are less costly in terms of option-points, but the power levels are relatively accurate.

What about bones? Well, it's pretty close... Lets say you cast level 9 Bone Healing VIII:
  • You heal a -60 bone injury (2 points per -20 for bones x 3), and reduce the recovery factor from days to hours (2 points per recovery reduction factor x 1). OR
  • You heal a -40 skull injury (3 points per -20 for skulls x 2), reduce the recovery factor by 1 (2 points), OR
  • You heal a -60 bone injury (2 points per -20 x 3), don't reduce the recovery other than the default +50 to the recovery roll, and can cast it on a target (1 point)
For the most part, this balances out against the current RMU versions. In the 1st example, the RMU Healer can affect ANY penalty of bone damage at level 9, so the RMU version is slightly stronger, although injuries past -60 might be quite rare making this somewhat moot. In the 2nd example, this matches exactly what a level 8 healer can do with Medium Skull Healing. In the 3rd example, my version is slightly weaker again in that an RMU Lay Healer can heal any bone damage at no accelerated recovery with Severe Bone Relief, but my Revised Healer could treat a -40 bone injury with the same spell and reduce the recovery rate to hours, so it balances out.

Where RMU system noses mine out is when it has the treat "injury incurring any penalty" language, but I actually think this is ok. It means that someone with a -100 injury might not be able to be healed to full strength right in the field, or that doing so will require a more standardized recovery time. Also, I still don't know how many injuries are inflicting above a -60/-80 penalty, which most of my spell versions can handle in some capacity. At higher levels, this isn't a factor as you can heal -120 and still have accelerated recovery of some kind. 

It's a lot to process, but I really like the versatility for this scaling-option system. I think it gives a class dedicated to healing some more distinct advantages while leaving room for other lists and areas of concentration.
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,290
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #69 on: January 17, 2022, 01:01:22 PM »
I am pretty sure you will only get penalties over -60 when the critical is also lethal. There are examples at least up to -125, but also you are very dead. So those ought to be difficult to treat.

It would be more traditional to put the scaling options in the spell description rather than using a table. For example:

1) Heal II – Heals the caster 5 concussion hits, with the caster selecting one of the following options: increase the healed amount by 5 hits, increase the range by +25' (changes the target from self to 1 target).
5) Heal IV – As Heal II, except the caster may select up to three options. A given option may be selected multiple times. The caster may spend double PP and allocate two options in order to affect an additional target.
9) Heal VII – As Heal IV, except the caster may select up to seven options.

2) Bone Healing IV – Caster can treat an injury to cartilage, and may select three of the following options: treat a bone injury rather than a cartilage injury (skull injuries cost two options), increase the range by +25' (changes the target from self to 1 target), or treat a second wound on the same target. Two options may be selected to reduce the recovery time by one step (the steps are days, hours, rounds, and instant). Two options and double PP may be expended to affect an additional target. Options may be selected multiple times.
5) Bone Healing VI – As Bone Healing IV, except the caster may select six options.

I'm not sure whether that's inherently better but I think the spell descriptions as you have them are not as clear as they need to be. Note I have the basic spell description saying what it does before it has been modified by any options.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #70 on: January 17, 2022, 01:13:31 PM »
@Jdale – That's a good suggestion and I see your point in terms of it matching the more traditional format; it certainly reads a little more more cleanly. I originally was using that writing style. However, I think it becomes a bit more convoluted when you reach the higher level versions and there are now options for higher level spells that are listed separately from the others in the lower level versions. For the sake of having everything listed together, I figured the table might be simpler. Maybe I need to consider how to make the table more simplistic or intuitive.
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #71 on: January 17, 2022, 01:50:53 PM »
Changed the language and reorganized the tables. Maybe that helps...?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/181K-lrJI1wXPHVXLZTsFeKZcTat6_J5b/view?usp=sharing
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,290
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2022, 02:29:18 PM »
If you keep the tables, I think the spells need to be clear that the benefit comes from the table picks. E.g.

1) Heal II – Caster heals concussion hits on himself, and may select two options from Table X.X from the Concussion or Effect sections.

A player is going to ask "how many hits does it heal before I add the options?"

2) Bone Healing IV – Caster can treat an injury to cartilage, bone, and/or the skull on himself, and may to select four options from Table X.X from the Heal Bone or Effect sections.

It says right in the description that it will heal my skull injury plus I get to pick 4 options on top of that. I know that's not the intent, but I also know a player will read it that way.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline Eladan

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2022, 03:17:31 PM »
Fair enough and I do see your point about how the player could misinterpret the intent. I personally am leaning toward the tables simply for the tightness.
Quote
1) Heal II – Caster heals concussion hits on himself, and may select two options from Table X.X from the Concussion or Effect sections.

A player is going to ask "how many hits does it heal before I add the options?"

So how about:
  • Heal II – Caster heals concussion hits on himself by selecting up to two options from Table X.X from the Concussion and/or Effect sections.
Likewise with Bone Healing:
  • Bone Healing IV – Caster can treat an injury to cartilage, bone, and/or the skull on himself by selecting up to four options from Table X.X from the Heal Bone and/or Effect sections.
"And it may be that Eru has set in me a fire greater than thou knowest."

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,290
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2022, 04:01:02 PM »
Yes, that's better.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,111
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Revised Profession: Healer(s)
« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2022, 07:45:33 PM »
It's way better.
"100 lives, 1000 lives. Despite their past promise, the gods didn't seem to forget about Solange.
10000 lives, 100000 lives. Or mayhap they did, thus forgetting to add to her curse and pain.
1000000 lives, 10000000 lives. But, as such, they also forgot to cancel the one they put on her.
An eternity.
This is the story of a girl cursed by the gods because they needed a scapegoat. This is the story of heroes whose duty was to realize the one they needed to save was said girl, and not the world."