Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: markc on January 22, 2012, 01:21:54 AM
-
IYO does the ability of multiple attacks make Pure Arms Professions even vs Pure Spell Casters? If not what in YO would/could you do to make it more balanced?
MDC
-
I dont think so..... the balance issue is more an effect vs. time issue.
casters can do much more damage in the same amount of rounds.
adding extra attacks for the fighter would just speed all combat up even more to a silly level.
our solution has been in place for 3 years now an adds a lot of realism.
we give a 100 pt penalty to all spell casters. (50 for channelers )
This means prep rounds become useful and needed again. we also allow some components to help, +1 to +20 per component. limit of one component per level.
basically, a 10th level pure caster can pull off a shock bolt every round nut at 1st lvl one every 6 rounds or so. works very well... even as a player. 8)
-
In the lower levels I'd say there is reversed balance issue. Fighters slay enemies with single strokes while spell casters seem to prepare 2 rounds and spend one casting to see their spell resisted, botched or fumbled.
So I'd say there is no need for such in the lower levels, but when casters reach 10th lvl there might be something to say for allowing fighters faster swinging, say perhaps 3 strikes per 2 rounds, or perhaps even 2 every round. Maybe take a clue from D&D 3 and apply a -25 to -50 to the second attack.
In my game I use weapon speeds. Those with fast (and less damaging) weapons may swing more if they got enough points.
On a last note: spell casters can use 2nd lvl spells once per round already at lvl 8. Shockbolts tend to hit pretty hard with 80-100 OB, but a fighter with a broadsword and shield will still have more OB, more DB and better damage potential than that magician at that level.
Perhaps at 12th lvl will the balance strike over with casters able to cast spells like firebolt and icebolt every round, doing significant damage and using those nice energy crit tables. The one balance factor is that the better energy bolts can only developed at higher levels than one so that keeps the OB from getting overly high.
-
I would say things are about even at 10th level. However at 30th level, a magician can really open the hurt locker. (We're talking earthquakes, firestorms, ice storms, death clouds, etc....) Nothing a 30th level fighter can do to compete with that...
-
IYO does the ability of multiple attacks make Pure Arms Professions even vs Pure Spell Casters? If not what in YO would/could you do to make it more balanced?
MDC
Two things:
1. IMO Pure Arms professions in general have an edge over Pure Spell users at low levels, where the spell users often have limited PPs, less powerful spells and a smaller repertoire of spells. The downside is that the are weaker at higher levels. That's just the price they pay for this advantage at lower levels.
2. Multiple attacks help making Pure Arms users stronger. I think a Pure Spell user is, at least at high levels, still stronger than a Pure Arms user wielding two weapons. But this changes as soon as the spell user runs out of PPs...
-
What is "stronger"? Does that mean: Who'd beat the other in a one-on-one fight? I guess that question might make sense. But apart from that, I'd simply say they have different strengths. A spell-user have lots of utility spells that are very useful in many situations. Like Teleport. That is in my opinion the main advantage of most pure spell-users. But then again, they have very few skills at decent levels, while a fighter might. And in combat? As long as the spell-user is left undisturbed to cast his spells, he can cause lots of trouble for his opponents, obviously. But he'd HAVE to avoid melee, almost at any cost. The fighters greatest usefulness is, in my opinion, in his ability to stand his ground, and stop and block any foe. And even more so with two weapons, since he can now parry two opponents.
Also, in a party, you'll need versatility. In a party of two, I'd rather have one fighter and one mage, than two pure spell-casters. So, in a sense, I'd say that after the mage already was in the party, the fighter would be better as the next team-member. The team needs balance.
As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.
-
This conversation reminds me of a session way back in the day, before I switched to RM from The System That Shall Not Be Named(tm). A high level party taking on a lich. And yes, the lich was a nasty piece of business, and badly injured or took down 3 of 5 party members (including the healer) before they ever managed to close with it, and when they did close with it they found that it was only a projected image, which was an exceedingly rude surprise.
But once the fighter found the actual lich and ran it down, for all its spells, protections and tricks, the lich lasted a grand total of.... one round.
In many ways it's the same problem as fighting a high level rogue whose core skills are concealment and archery. Arrows appear in your companions, with no real indicators of where they came from.
In pretty much any high level game, if you can't overcome (or bypass) your opponent's strengths, you're going to die, it's just that simple. If you do overcome or bypass them effectively enough, your opponent's remaining lifespan will probably be measured in seconds.
-
I think the arms vs caster logic involves a series of interlocking factors. . . .and truely bringing balance into play would require more tweaking than just allowing multiple attacks. . a lot depends on how you introduce multiple attacks, and how you do it would determine how it affects balance.
like, if you just gave free multi attacks, that's a huge push, if you charge an arm and a leg for it (like TWC) it's a lesser push, so I dunno that your question has enough data to really properly answer it.
-
As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.
As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.
Yes there is not enough data. I was just wondering how people felt about 2 or more attacks for having 10 ranks in a weapon skill. And if they felt it sort of balanced out the "fun" of playing a high rank arms PC vs playing a high level spell PC.
MDC
-
Just allowing say 3/2 rounds at 10 ranks, 2/1 at 20, 5/2 at 30 and 3/1 at 40 is one track I've tried.
You were allowed to declare one attack with one weapon, one set of OB/DB split, but it applied equally to all combatants you targeted with it.
So if you made an 80% attack with your 100 OB it's 80 OB, you choose a 40/40 split OB/DB, and target goblins 1, and 2. You make a 1d100+40 attack on each of the two goblins, and get 40 parry DB vs both of them.
We were duplicating the attacks per round progression of fighters in OD&D.
It worked, to some degree in rebalancing things, but the major effect it really had was in defense, not offense. . .in allowing you to parry DB more people.
In the end, so your fighter can really chop the crap out of 2 people, or 3, the mage can drop fireballs on dozens. . . but being able to parry 2 or 3 people was a huge benefit.
It also ran into the problem of "If I declare twice on goblin 1, I get two attacks at +40, do I get two parries for 80, or just 40" (We went with the latter in the end).
It did work to some degree, but it wasn't a cure all fix.
-
I don't think it solves the problem in the long run.
At low levels Pure Arms Users are stronger than spell users. As they level the begin to exchange spots, with the spell users eventually gaining the advantage and pretty much staying there. I'd say once you hit 10th level spell casters are starting to take the lead and it only gets worse from there.
There are two ways I solve this. One, you use the RM2 version of Profession Bonuses even if you're using RMSS/RMFRP. Pure Arms Users don't get that big chuck of OB at first level, but over time they eventually receive more of a bonus than they would in RMSS/RMFRP. This solves the diminishing returns issue with many skills also.
The other is to have 'weapon specialization' and an adaption of combat styles (as in the Martial Arts Comp).
I tinker with idea for Pure Arms Users a lot since I think there is a real balance issue there. I have a system with has: Dual Attacks, Multiple Attacks, Combat Styles and Weapon Specialization.
Weapon Specialization is almost a spell list-like setup where at certain % in the Weapon Specialization skill the character gains a benefit. Rarely do you actually need to make a skill check. Multiple attacks are a result of that skill. Multiple attacks don't actually have you roll a second attack, they merely add on hit multipliers and secondary or tertiary critical results based on your initial roll to simulate a second strike within the same time frame. Multiple Attacks are when you make two attacks with the same weapon - Quarterstaff is a good example. This keeps you from rolling two attacks, two criticals, and having to look up four various results (all slowing things down).
I have the weapon specialization worked out, but I am still working on the combat styles since there six styles vs only needing one specialization skill (although it has to be developed for each weapon). If I remember correctly I think I have styles of: 1H/Free, 1H/1H, 1H/Shield, 2H, Poles, Unarmed, Ranged. 1H/1H is where Multiple Attacks will come in and I'm still playing around with it. I want to restrict it to keep it balanced, but I still want it to be attractive for Pure Arms Users. I don't want a character with two weapons, Specializing in both, using a Combat Style and turning into a melee blender.
-
Just allowing say 3/2 rounds at 10 ranks, 2/1 at 20, 5/2 at 30 and 3/1 at 40 is one track I've tried.
You were allowed to declare one attack with one weapon, one set of OB/DB split, but it applied equally to all combatants you targeted with it.
So if you made an 80% attack with your 100 OB it's 80 OB, you choose a 40/40 split OB/DB, and target goblins 1, and 2. You make a 1d100+40 attack on each of the two goblins, and get 40 parry DB vs both of them.
We were duplicating the attacks per round progression of fighters in OD&D.
It worked, to some degree in rebalancing things, but the major effect it really had was in defense, not offense. . .in allowing you to parry DB more people.
In the end, so your fighter can really chop the crap out of 2 people, or 3, the mage can drop fireballs on dozens. . . but being able to parry 2 or 3 people was a huge benefit.
It also ran into the problem of "If I declare twice on goblin 1, I get two attacks at +40, do I get two parries for 80, or just 40" (We went with the latter in the end).
It did work to some degree, but it wasn't a cure all fix.
Thanks. That kind of info is great. I also thought of having the multiple attacks start at 3/2 and going from there but adding it to a new 1-100 based Combat Art system (boy a lot of irons in the fire at the moment.).
As per the parry, I think I will not allow multiple parries unless it is a option in the Combat Art. So no matter how many attacks you get one parry.
MDC
-
I increase the fumble range by each additional attack; that makes them think twice about attacking 3 enemies. LOL So, fumble 1-4 becomes 1-8 etc....
-
As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.
As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.
I use RMSS, and you may use some other rules. As for RMSS, the rules for 2WC say this: "This skill allows a combatant to fight with two weapons
simultaneously. He is allowed to make 2 weapon attacks for each melee attack action"
Haste give you 200% activity, and a Full Melee attack requires 60%-100%, making three melee attack actions, one in each phase, possible.
Combine these rules, and to me, that means a hasted 2WC combatant may make six attacks in one round.
A good fighter obviously also uses adrenaline strength to make this round hurt a LOT.
-
As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.
As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.
I use RMSS, and you may use some other rules. As for RMSS, the rules for 2WC say this: "This skill allows a combatant to fight with two weapons
simultaneously. He is allowed to make 2 weapon attacks for each melee attack action"
Haste give you 200% activity, and a Full Melee attack requires 60%-100%, making three melee attack actions, one in each phase, possible.
Combine these rules, and to me, that means a hasted 2WC combatant may make six attacks in one round.
A good fighter obviously also uses adrenaline strength to make this round hurt a LOT.
And if you are using cinimatic combat rules from the MAC, then those six attacks count against 18 foes. Thats a lurg of orcs every melee round.
-
"What's that spinning cloud of dust and blood, a Tasmanian Devil?"
"No, that's the warrior monk."
-
We use the martial training gift rules from the express editions. essentially the same rules for multiple attacks as in combat companion and this works very well for us.
Basically the rules say that you can make one attack pr 10 weapon ranks at fixed penalties. We allow this to be used with directed spells as well.
Also something that works very well.
We combine these rulings with a ruling that says that ob used to parry a foe is applied to all attacks from that foe. This ends up meaning that you rarely make as many attacks as you theoretically could unless you're fighting inferior foes as you simply would not his your opponent.
We use no stunned manoeuvre and no transcendence but allow for ones magic stat to be added to your esf bonus which can then be applied to negating penalties for wearing armour, casting spells faster or overcasting spells depending on how the spelluser in question wishes to use this bonus.
These rulings have meant that in our campaigns both pure arms, semi spell users and pure spell users are pretty evenly balanced. The magic users are stronger at low levels if they take the time to their spells (we use a ruling saying that overcasts take three rounds to cast with an esf bonus for every additional round used to prepare up to a max of five rounds i.e. a +20 bonus).
We use a ruling saying that attacks against a character preparing spells receive a +35 bonus so the spell user needs to be protected or have done his preparations in good time.
The pure arms users gain diversity as they become able to use more tactical elements than just figuring how much to parry with. My experience with this way of running things is that the various characters end up needing each other to fully blossom.
I realise that some of the balance we experience comes from a lot of other factors that I might not be able to fully explain or even see at this moment but I figured that as things run pretty smoothly for us you might be able to use this.
The one problem we sometimes run into is that over time as the campaign grows old people tend to favour semi spell users as they can still hold their own while having access to a reasonable repertoire of spells.
-
As for causing pain: A hasted fighter with two-weapon combo is... well, trouble. Make him invisible and silent too, and his first round of attack could come as a surprise to an opponent, leaving him unable to parry. I think six attacks (80% + 60% + 60% with two weapons) without getting to parry would cause more harm to a single opponent than almost anything else (except "save-or-die" spells like Absolution, which most decent foes would simply be able to resist). That's how a mage/fighter team could work.
As per the 2 Weap attack above I think it has be ruled that you add one attack to the total for TWC and not get 2 attacks per segment. But house rules differ.
I use RMSS, and you may use some other rules. As for RMSS, the rules for 2WC say this: "This skill allows a combatant to fight with two weapons
simultaneously. He is allowed to make 2 weapon attacks for each melee attack action"
Haste give you 200% activity, and a Full Melee attack requires 60%-100%, making three melee attack actions, one in each phase, possible.
Combine these rules, and to me, that means a hasted 2WC combatant may make six attacks in one round.
A good fighter obviously also uses adrenaline strength to make this round hurt a LOT.
I could be wrong but I thought 2WC was changed to 100% action in an errata. I will have to check some notes I have else where. I could also be remembering some discussion I had with someone about a change that never happened. ;D
MDC
-
I could be wrong but I thought 2WC was changed to 100% action in an errata. I will have to check some notes I have else where. I could also be remembering some discussion I had with someone about a change that never happened. ;D
MDC
You remember correctly but we have chosen to disregard it and instead use the ruling from CC saying that your off hand weapon can be used once/100% of activity. Combined with multipile attacks and other rules from CC this means that two handed weapons are at higher levels slightly superior to using two weapons at the same time. This works great for us.
-
I like the 100% rule myself. It slows the twc craze.
-
I simply created a multiple attack skill, ranging from 2 to 4 attacks every other round. There were Profession-based caps (with only a handful being able to use MuA 4...MuA 2 was the most common and even spellcasters could learn it). It's a basic skill, but it can only be used every other round. There were also negative mods for each additional attack (-10 for the second attack, -20 for the third, and -30 for the fourth). The other balancer was that if a character used MuA, she had to use the LOWER of the two bonuses (weapon skill or MuA) as her OB modifier. We found it to work really well for a skill-based balancing device, and led to some very interesting fights at higher level.
MuA attacks could also be used as parries.
This was all done for RM2.
-
I found that "feel" wise it was more of an issue with missile fire, and even more so in spacemaster.
Like, the logic of melee being "A multitude of movements that result in one roll." is golden canon, but it gets a little iffy with missile fire where one arrow fired means one less arrow left in the quiver, and very iffy with guns and other such "self reloading" missile weapons.
Like, you could step out a door, then shoot 4-5 people in 10 seconds, they might not be the best aimed shots, but they're not "spray and pray" fire. . .
But the way the logic works, it's not so easy to make 5 attacks with a pistol on 5 different people in one round, without taking extraordinary measures like haste. (If a normal real person can do it in the real world, then it shouldn't require adrenal speed or haste)
We made tweaks here and there to the whole way self reloading weapons work, as far back as when we were playing RM with "Fire phase A" and "Fire Phase B" to allow it to be possible to take more than 2 shots a round, though we imposed penalties so anyone short of a really good gunman attempting 5 shots in a round would be unlikely to get very solid hits.
-
I found that "feel" wise it was more of an issue with missile fire, and even more so in spacemaster.
Like, the logic of melee being "A multitude of movements that result in one roll." is golden canon, but it gets a little iffy with missile fire where one arrow fired means one less arrow left in the quiver, and very iffy with guns and other such "self reloading" missile weapons.
Like, you could step out a door, then shoot 4-5 people in 10 seconds, they might not be the best aimed shots, but they're not "spray and pray" fire. . .
But the way the logic works, it's not so easy to make 5 attacks with a pistol on 5 different people in one round, without taking extraordinary measures like haste. (If a normal real person can do it in the real world, then it shouldn't require adrenal speed or haste)
We made tweaks here and there to the whole way self reloading weapons work, as far back as when we were playing RM with "Fire phase A" and "Fire Phase B" to allow it to be possible to take more than 2 shots a round, though we imposed penalties so anyone short of a really good gunman attempting 5 shots in a round would be unlikely to get very solid hits.
IMHO this is where a second by second combat resolution works the best.
MDC
-
Agreed, and shrinking the % activity needed to fire a bit. . .like pulling it down from 30-60 to 20-60 allows for 5 shot firing at a -40 penalty.
OTOH for SM:P that runs into issues with 5 shots fall into what phase? (Or are split over the three phases how?)
-
Agreed, and shrinking the % activity needed to fire a bit. . .like pulling it down from 30-60 to 20-60 allows for 5 shot firing at a -40 penalty.
OTOH for SM:P that runs into issues with 5 shots fall into what phase? (Or are split over the three phases how?)
Or you can make a Combat Art to deal with it.
One set of standard rules and then Combat Art rules to modify the standard rule set.
MDC
-
One of my problems with the various fixes in this vein we've tried over the years is the inconsistency.
Like a monk rule for unarmed, which throws things out of whack since all actions use one set of rules, and unarmed another.
The "real speed shooting" had guns going fast per above, but everything else going per normal.
It creates skews in the weighting of the system. . .like the very goal of this thread was asking if multiple attacks balance casters and arms better.
In my experience what happens is you end up creating other islands of excellence, without actually achieving balance.
i.e. casters are overpowered to arms, so you add in the monk multi attack rule, now casters and monks are overpowered to everyone else, so you add in a "faster shooting" rule, now casters, monks and shooters are overpowered.
I've never actually managed to hit a really good sweet spot where the tampering didn't just re-shuffle the imbalance around to another spot.
-
Marc R;
I agree that balance is a big and not so big problem as IMHO some "professions" and skill choices should be out of balance with others. The big question is that are there other factors that can offset those advantages in the game.
I have been reading the main Rifts RPG book and one of the first things that stuck in my head was some thing like this ... " occupational character classes and racial charter classes are not balanced vs. one another in all ways. Some are stronger than others but have limitations as well." I think that is good as long as things do not get too out of control.
MDC
P.S. (Looking for the sweet spot in RM RPG's) ;D 8)
-
I agree, and that's especially true with spells vs nons, but when a player complains about the house rules in play ala:
"He can shoot 5 people a round, and he can punch 5 people a round, why can't I stab 5 people a round?"
And there's not really a good answer to that I've ever come up with.
-
Marc R;
I agree that balance is a big and not so big problem as IMHO some "professions" and skill choices should be out of balance with others. The big question is that are there other factors that can offset those advantages in the game.
I have been reading the main Rifts RPG book and one of the first things that stuck in my head was some thing like this ... " occupational character classes and racial charter classes are not balanced vs. one another in all ways. Some are stronger than others but have limitations as well." I think that is good as long as things do not get too out of control.
MDC
P.S. (Looking for the sweet spot in RM RPG's) ;D 8)
The RIFTS rule that always sticks with me: you can't dodge a salvo of more than five missiles.
BTW, fav RIFTS PC: Holy Terror from WormWood.
-
I agree, and that's especially true with spells vs nons, but when a player complains about the house rules in play ala:
"He can shoot 5 people a round, and he can punch 5 people a round, why can't I stab 5 people a round?"
And there's not really a good answer to that I've ever come up with.
That's why I did MuA as a skill. For firearms, I did some approximate rates of fire (usually two per round for semi-autos and revolvers, with things sliding up for full auto) and used those limits with some penalties for firing in consecutive rounds to balance the constant fire faction. We also tweaked some spellcasting stuff in the area of instantaneous spells in various parts of the RM2 combat round. Having MuA as a skill gives it some player-controlled limits and capabilities, while restricting it to every other round (one for "prep" of a sort and the next for "casting") kept it from getting out of control.
-
Depending on the campaign type, the firebolt-slinging magicians aren't really that powerful. Try dealing with a foe with a spell-stored-trigger-on-being-attacked Matter Disruption caster, or a caster who through the judicious use of Wards breaks up a party, or who uses mental spells to make friends appear as foes, etc. etc.
-
Depending on the campaign type, the firebolt-slinging magicians aren't really that powerful. Try dealing with a foe with a spell-stored-trigger-on-being-attacked Matter Disruption caster, or a caster who through the judicious use of Wards breaks up a party, or who uses mental spells to make friends appear as foes, etc. etc.
yep. i always like the look on a players face when some spell combo sends him full Rambo into the party. i also like the look of dread on everyone elses face, hahahahaha.
-
Funny. In core rm2, casters took quite a bit of time to become more powerful than melee. They only had 3 pp per level (IF you had a 100 stat in their prime stat), took time to get decent lists and required three rounds to cast a spell. Along comes RMSS, hands out PP like candy, and the casting system pretty much allows casters to fire off spells much quicker and at higher level. Now we have to do something to boost the melee types. where does the escalation end?
-
Funny. In core rm2, casters took quite a bit of time to become more powerful than melee. They only had 3 pp per level (IF you had a 100 stat in their prime stat), took time to get decent lists and required three rounds to cast a spell. Along comes RMSS, hands out PP like candy, and the casting system pretty much allows casters to fire off spells much quicker and at higher level. Now we have to do something to boost the melee types. where does the escalation end?
Your perception of RMSS is amiss. It still takes two rounds prep in RMSS then cast on the third round. ESF is now standard rule via SCSM, though any GM could just ignore the rule, which would only mean an increase in pp, which makes the spell user much more useful outside of combat, which has obvious advantages for players and GM's over the older way. Spell users do not fire off spells quicker unless they take considerable risk.
-
Your perception of RMSS is amiss. It still takes two rounds prep in RMSS then cast on the third round. ESF is now standard rule via SCSM, though any GM could just ignore the rule, which would only mean an increase in pp, which makes the spell user much more useful outside of combat, which has obvious advantages for players and GM's over the older way. Spell users do not fire off spells quicker unless they take considerable risk.
BS. With very little assistance, a first level mage can fire off a first level spell with zero prep rounds with a half decent roll. with an average roll, they fail. somewhat above average, the spell goes off the following round. That is without any "talents" that help them. And from other posts, many of the people here let characters pick their talents. Must I do the math for you or can you figure out my point on your own?
-
I don't think it solves the problem in the long run.
IMO there is no problem. If Arms users have an advantage at lower levels and are at a disadvantage at higher levels, then on average (over low, mid and high levels) they are on par. And it is also in tune with many fantasy novels, where older (i.e. high level) mages are among the most powerful persons in a world and novice mages are weaklings. What I think must be ensured is that the game does not get boring for Arms users at higher levels.
-
I agree with yammahoper, kevin. It's considerable risk trying to fire off spells with too little preparation. Particularly in combat, the risk is too high (often you're under -20 for "melee environment", plus the fact that getting a spell failure, particularly with elemental attack spells, in combat, can be very dangerous). And out of combat, it is usually pointless, since time is less important. Is the possibility of firing shock bolts every round rather than every third round really worth a very high chance of spell-failing yourself unconscious?
As for PPs - sure, you can cast more spells outside combat. Again, IN combat, you may have trouble, since having used more than 25% of your PPs dictates you have to roll an SCSM. Again with the penalty for "melee environment", plus you don't have the time for 9 rounds of preparation (which helps a lot out of combat) this becomes risky - but possible in extreme need.
-
Your perception of RMSS is amiss. It still takes two rounds prep in RMSS then cast on the third round. ESF is now standard rule via SCSM, though any GM could just ignore the rule, which would only mean an increase in pp, which makes the spell user much more useful outside of combat, which has obvious advantages for players and GM's over the older way. Spell users do not fire off spells quicker unless they take considerable risk.
BS. With very little assistance, a first level mage can fire off a first level spell with zero prep rounds with a half decent roll. with an average roll, they fail. somewhat above average, the spell goes off the following round. That is without any "talents" that help them. And from other posts, many of the people here let characters pick their talents. Must I do the math for you or can you figure out my point on your own?
Lets accept your arguement; a flip of a coin is not considerable risk?
Addressing the "spell goes of next round": that does mean the spell caster spends a round at 100% activity doing nothing and basically defensless, adding to the risk.
I guess your definition of risk vary from my own.. So be it. Just note I am not spouting BS. Nor do i appreciate your bad internet mojo. You come across as intense (which is appreciated) and rude ( not appreciated and which seems suprisingly immature considering the otherwise intelligence behind your typical post).
Your anti RMSS is well known. Your opinion is your own. Yet the difference between RM2 and RMSS is far less than you state, in fact, with careful choosing in RM2, I could gain a talent providing a big bonus to ESF rolls, enabling casting of spells three levels higher with little to no risk. Even more powerful than the SCSM rules.
Even so, what is the required roll using esf to cast a spell, without prep, one level higher? Isn't it around 20? Hmm, please correct me if I'm wrong. It has been years since I operated from the RM2 rule set...though I did so since 82-83 to 96-97. I am definitely a fan of the system (and kept a single copy of it for prosterity...well, six arms LLaw, can never have to many of those), even the old ESF rules, though I find the newer SCSM rules superior.
No BS here, just tasty apples and oranges.
-
Please respect the Rules of Conduct for ICE's Forums.
Thanks
Mark D Carlson
-
IMO there is no problem. If Arms users have an advantage at lower levels and are at a disadvantage at higher levels, then on average (over low, mid and high levels) they are on par.
That would be a horrible way to design a system, even intentionally, and would largely result in unhappy players, which will result in the failure of a system commercially.
You don't knowingly create a biased system and you make efforts to fix an unintentionally biased system when it comes to team effort processes UNLESS you want friction (not the good kind) among the team members.
-
Semi-side comment.
I don't think the major issue with caster vs non-caster balance is mainly how often they can cast, although it is obviously a factor to some degree.
The major issue, imo, is that casters have a much more versatile primary ability. Caster and non-casters both get all the various random skills with their various leanings, however their primary ability is Spells (for the casters) and Weapons (for the non-casters).
The non-caster has, as their primary ability, a far superior weapon ability. The benefit is they can do damage, with a weapon, either in melee or with a ranged weapon.
The caster has, as their primary ability, far superior access to a large variety of spells that encompasses much more than just "cause physical damage to your target".
Add to this that casters, surely at least by higher levels, will start developing at least one weapon skill. The caster needs to spend (in RMSS) 9dp on a weapon and, aside from profession bonuses, will eventually get halfway decent at that weapon skill. Yes, it will take some time only being allowed to develop one rank at a time, but I think it's not too unrealistic to say that a non-caster would be doing this each level. By 10th level they'd be ok at it and by 20th they might be pretty decent. So, eventually the caster becomes mildly effective with a weapon.
Now take the non-caster. In order to develop skills they, at best (if I remember correctly) must pay 12-25 points on a single rank in a single open spell list. Developing 10 ranks in a single weapon skill is cheaper for the caster than developing 10 ranks in a single spell list for the non-caster. The non-caster also has to pay a lot for Power Point Development. Also, having a low casting ability is more dangerous that having a low weapon ability when trying to use those respective skills. Also take into consideration that a caster developing a single weapon skill bring them closer to be able to perform a non-casters function than developing one spell list brings to non-caster to performing a casters function.
Yes, the non-caster can develop lots of weapons, but all they do is cause physical injury to the target. The caster has a vastly larger array of abilities as a result of the variety of spell lists they can develop.
The result is that the non-caster outperforms the caster at low level because their function is more specialized while, in the long run, the caster ends up much more diversified. This is one of the ways in which I often end up with slightly more 'powerful' characters in our gaming group. I rarely buy up skills multiple ranks at a time, I buy a lot of single ranks in all the skills I'm interested in and, as a result, end up with superior skills over the long haul. This happens pretty much unintentionally with casters vs non-casters due to the nature of their primary ability.
-
in fact, with careful choosing in RM2, I could gain a talent providing a big bonus to ESF rolls, enabling casting of spells three levels higher with little to no risk
Actually true. You would in fact, have one list where you couldn't ESF on it. allowing a level one character to cast a level 50 spell (if you had an adder and the list to that level).
that is why I regard the BGO in RMCI to be a terrible idea. I had played with those at one time but eventually weeded it out.
-
IMO there is no problem. If Arms users have an advantage at lower levels and are at a disadvantage at higher levels, then on average (over low, mid and high levels) they are on par.
That would be a horrible way to design a system, even intentionally, and would largely result in unhappy players, which will result in the failure of a system commercially.
You don't knowingly create a biased system and you make efforts to fix an unintentionally biased system when it comes to team effort processes UNLESS you want friction (not the good kind) among the team members.
I remember a game that had that form of balance designed into it that was popular when I was a teen. Advanced Dragons and Dungeons or something like that. Well, the company that made it is out of business now, so I guess you're right.
-
I think the only real balance issues we had with D&D was multi-classing. I recall us banning the Ranger/Cleric combo after a particularly nasty inner-party combat. The Ranger/Cleric and the Mage killed the other 5 party members pretty handily.
Most the problems we had with D&D were mechanics problems that didn't really relate to balance. We ended up re-writing about 50% of D&D 2nd Ed (using the original RM stuff early on and eventually using some of the RM2 stuff) before moving over to MERP then RMSS. But then, we never played D&D beyond 2nd Ed, so I can't speak towards 3.0, 3.5 or 4.0 even though I actually worked for WotC duing the 3.0/3.5 time frame. I read through some of it, but saw that the issues I had with it weren't resolved as well as continuing to use RM.
-
D&D had lots of balance problems that shifted with level. For example, early versions applied level limits to some races in some classes. So at low levels an elf wizard was clearly superior to a human wizard. But at high levels the elf wizard would hit a wall and be unplayable. Horrible design. (They got rid of it in 3rd edition, which was also the first point where they realized (not coincidentally) that humans should have their own racial benefits.) It's basically an extreme example of what is suggested here - that you can balance things by breaking them in one direction for low level games and the opposite direction for high level games.
D&D did a lot of things first, and succeeded because of that. But there are a lot of things that other games then came along and did better. If that wasn't true we wouldn't be RM fans. :)
-
Oh yeah... I forgot about level limit on Elves (and similar rules). We tossed stuff like that pretty quickly. It seemed beyond idiotic that a long lived 'fey' race would be inferior spell users. I have to be careful about what I recall from our D&D days since we re-wrote so much of it (often using RM materials).
-
IYO does the ability of multiple attacks make Pure Arms Professions even vs Pure Spell Casters? If not what in YO would/could you do to make it more balanced?
Wow, this thread really took off, didn't it?
I don't really mind the imbalance between the professions; I look at it like a Jedi in Star Wars: At first you are a bit weaker, but as your skills and abilities go up, you will bypass non-Jedi. That is the way it is, and it is OK. Each Player just needs to understand that.
I don't agree that it swings at 10th level, I would say more like 15th (minimum) to 20th (more like it).
There are just some "rofessions that are more powerful than others: The elite knights of the Dark Lord of Ghurthan should/would be tougher than a peasant of the same level.
With that said, I don't think that allowing pure-arms users (or anyone that gets to a high enough proficiency with a weapon - or weapons) multiple attacks/defenses is a bad thing; it helps promote a bit more heroism in the game, IMO. (Which is a good/fun thing, also IMO.) Specifically for the ability to defend one's self against multiple attackers with greater ability - that is a very, very good thing.
-
IMO there is no problem. If Arms users have an advantage at lower levels and are at a disadvantage at higher levels, then on average (over low, mid and high levels) they are on par.
That would be a horrible way to design a system, even intentionally, and would largely result in unhappy players, which will result in the failure of a system commercially.
You don't knowingly create a biased system and you make efforts to fix an unintentionally biased system when it comes to team effort processes UNLESS you want friction (not the good kind) among the team members.
I am not a game designer, so I don't know whether implementing a biased system where Arms users as superior at lower levels and inferior at higher levels will mean commerical failure. OTOH Rolemaster and ME RP always had this biased system and AFAIK were - at least during the 80s - quite successful. Given this I think things are not as simple as your above statement implies.
One more thing: If it is necessary - which I doubt - to create a system where the professions are more or less balanced over all levels, then it should not only be discussed (as is the usual case) how to improve the balancing in favor of Arms users at higher levels, but also how to improve the balancing in favor of Pure Spell users at lower levels.
Just my 2 cents
-
they made a system in which all the classes were balanced. It was called 4th edition. It was terrible. Balancing classes isn't a good way to go either. I don't mind being a speedbump on the way to a spellcaster as long as I know this going in. On the other hand, i don't mind taking time to cast my spells as long as I know this going in. Even at higher levels when you are going against some tough opponents, the caster NEEDS that melee type and that melee type NEEDS those casters or they all get killed. It has always been about needing "a party" and the teamwork that has to exist for them to succeed.
Ask yourselves, how is it that a small team of diverse individuals can get into some tough places and get out mostly intact? Because they bring some diverse but important skills to the table. One healer in a group? have you seen the city makeup of some of the old MERP modules? one healer per thousand or so? and not that high a level. One essence spellcaster? One semi spell user? A couple of tough melee classes? Everyone brings something to the table that makes them OK but as a unified member of an elite team, it makes them priceless.
-
I think kevin hit the nail on the head there. Systems are not really balanced with the view of balanced power level for fighting between the party members, they are "balanced" with the aim that the group will need to work together and everyone has a purpose, and thus fun.
Critical imbalance problem is not "the mage can kill 100 in one shot so he's more powerful" critical imbalance is more like "The mage is so powerful I just follow him around, carry the gear and cook dinner."
I've played in a game where everyone played a Mage, and the concept was a contest in which a mob of low level Mages were competing for a job. . .competing in the "and the survivor gets the job" meaning. . . and it was tense as all hell. . .because nobody was confident they could soak damage, so everyone knew the first person to get off a no fumble attack would kill them. . .it never did get to the point where the PCs turned on each other, they were a crew of mutual convenience ala "We're in alliance until all the other Mages are out of the contest". . . .a similar "all fighter" game would have been far more laid back and less tense, simply because there's more to winning a one on one fighter fight than winning initiative and not fumbling. . . ."Different" doesn't always mean non balanced.
-
That's true. To a great extent what needs to be balanced is not power but story share. If the imbalance of power is too great it breaks story share as well: when one character can do everything, they also hog the story.
So it's not so much a mage being able to kill more things that breaks the game, it's when the mage makes the fighters irrelevant. If the fighters still have an important role, it still works.
In this sense, semi spellcasters actually have the big advantage. They are not the best at anything, but their versatility means they always have something to do. This is why I almost always play semis.
-
I think kevin hit the nail on the head there. Systems are not really balanced with the view of balanced power level for fighting between the party members, they are "balanced" with the aim that the group will need to work together and everyone has a purpose, and thus fun.
Yeah, that. Which ties back in to what I said earlier, that by the time a given individual of any class is high level, what has to be defeated or bypassed is their tactics. Killing off a high level fighter is easy if you can find a way to stay within your weapon range and yet stay out of his. But if you're fool enough to get within his weapon range, chances are you're toast. On the other side of the same coin is the old saying, "No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between his shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style." The trick is to find a way to defeat or bypass the fighting style he has developed over many levels to go with his abilities.
I've seen a pretty nasty party that consisted of only 3 people: A fighter, an archmage, and a healer.
In this sense, semi spellcasters actually have the big advantage. They are not the best at anything, but their versatility means they always have something to do.
In a way, yes, in another way, no. No number of warrior mages will have the spell repertoire, even between them all, to equal one full time mage. No number of paladins will have the spell repertoire of a healer. No number of rangers will have the spell repertoire of a druid.
-
I am not a game designer, so I don't know whether implementing a biased system where Arms users as superior at lower levels and inferior at higher levels will mean commerical failure. OTOH Rolemaster and ME RP always had this biased system and AFAIK were - at least during the 80s - quite successful. Given this I think things are not as simple as your above statement implies.
I simply mean using that intentionally as a balancing tool would be a bad way to design, because nothing is ever really balanced from the very beginning that way. Now, you'll never achieve perfect balance (if for no other reason than different gaming styles of the players), but imo you shouldn't go into it from the get-go assuming certain professions will be significantly superior than others at specific points.
One more thing: If it is necessary - which I doubt - to create a system where the professions are more or less balanced over all levels, then it should not only be discussed (as is the usual case) how to improve the balancing in favor of Arms users at higher levels, but also how to improve the balancing in favor of Pure Spell users at lower levels.
I agree completely. Pure Arms Users need something that simulates (without actually being the same as) the Spell Casters long term benefit... diversity of tools. The Pure Arms User will never match the sheer possible utility of a full on Spell Caster, but they should have more tools resulting from their primary focus aside from "I do physical damage to my foes".
-
I agree completely. Pure Arms Users need something that simulates (without actually being the same as) the Spell Casters long term benefit... diversity of tools. The Pure Arms User will never match the sheer possible utility of a full on Spell Caster, but they should have more tools resulting from their primary focus aside from "I do physical damage to my foes".
I published an article recently in The Guild Companion about restricting melee options (pressing/react/full and snap/normal/deliberate) so that Arms users would gain more options as they leveled. However, a) the article is still limited to the primary focus you indicate and b) it's only applicable to RMSS/FRP.
-
I published an article recently in The Guild Companion about restricting melee options (pressing/react/full and snap/normal/deliberate) so that Arms users would gain more options as they leveled. However, a) the article is still limited to the primary focus you indicate and b) it's only applicable to RMSS/FRP.
I had to go look that up. http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2011/mar/arscerto.html if anyone else is looking. We don't use all the options, interested in this as a way to gradually phase them in without confusing things too much. I think we would simplify greatly from the article as written, but the core idea is interesting to me.
-
Now take the non-caster. In order to develop skills they, at best (if I remember correctly) must pay 12-25 points on a single rank in a single open spell list. Developing 10 ranks in a single weapon skill is cheaper for the caster than developing 10 ranks* in a single spell list for the non-caster. The non-caster also has to pay a lot for Power Point Development. Also, having a low casting ability is more dangerous that having a low weapon ability when trying to use those respective skills. Also take into consideration that a caster developing a single weapon skill bring them closer to be able to perform a non-casters function than developing one spell list brings to non-caster to performing a casters function.
This touches on something that I have come to think is wrong with RM (any incarnation): DP costs vary too much. I understand the reasoning of making the professions different. (Though I believe that there was also a subconscious "reasoning" going on in trying to stay in line with AD&D.) But I feel it went too far.
Should/would it cost a magician more to develop weapon skills? Yes/I am not sure. In other words: Game-wise I get it, but would it really? But, for the sake of argument, we are going with it does cost more. I don't think it should cost so much more though. 1/5 vs. 9. I think the real cost needs to be in game, as in monetary and time costs. Now, a group characters can teach each other, provided they also train in teaching which costs them DP to do also. What I am saying, is that when a character trains outside of their professions main focus, no matter what, they slow down their advancement in their main focus, & it doesn't seem right to punish them again - and quite so severely - for doing so. (I much prefer the HARP method of 2 or 4.)
*Specially since past rank 5 the cost doubles - at least in RMFRP/SS.
-
Now take the non-caster. In order to develop skills they, at best (if I remember correctly) must pay 12-25 points on a single rank in a single open spell list. Developing 10 ranks in a single weapon skill is cheaper for the caster than developing 10 ranks* in a single spell list for the non-caster. The non-caster also has to pay a lot for Power Point Development. Also, having a low casting ability is more dangerous that having a low weapon ability when trying to use those respective skills. Also take into consideration that a caster developing a single weapon skill bring them closer to be able to perform a non-casters function than developing one spell list brings to non-caster to performing a casters function.
This touches on something that I have come to think is wrong with RM (any incarnation): DP costs vary too much. I understand the reasoning of making the professions different. (Though I believe that there was also a subconscious "reasoning" going on in trying to stay in line with AD&D.) But I feel it went too far.
Should/would it cost a magician more to develop weapon skills? Yes/I am not sure. In other words: Game-wise I get it, but would it really? But, for the sake of argument, we are going with it does cost more. I don't think it should cost so much more though. 1/5 vs. 9. I think the real cost needs to be in game, as in monetary and time costs. Now, a group characters can teach each other, provided they also train in teaching which costs them DP to do also. What I am saying, is that when a character trains outside of their professions main focus, no matter what, they slow down their advancement in their main focus, & it doesn't seem right to punish them again - and quite so severely - for doing so. (I much prefer the HARP method of 2 or 4.)
*Specially since past rank 5 the cost doubles - at least in RMFRP/SS.
Are you talking about buying more than 5 spell lists in a level? That is the only cost x2 that I remember. I also know that the multiple goes up after that also but I do not remember the range.
MDC
-
The problem with trying to balance it with time or money in-game leaves it wide open for abuse due to inexperienced or 'monty haul' gamers. I hate to say it, but I don't think the average gamer is going to have the where-with-all to know how to handle it.
-
Are you talking about buying more than 5 spell lists in a level? That is the only cost x2 that I remember. I also know that the multiple goes up after that also but I do not remember the range.
MDC
Yeah, looking it up shows that after the 5th rank in a spell list the cost doubles and goes up from there.The problem with trying to balance it with time or money in-game leaves it wide open for abuse due to inexperienced or 'monty haul' gamers. I hate to say it, but I don't think the average gamer is going to have the where-with-all to know how to handle it.
Great thing you don't have to worry about the "average" gamer, you only have to worry about your game. And thanks, I guess that means that I am not an average gamer and will assume you mean above average. ;D
Monty Haul gamers are going to be Monty Haul gamers no matter what you do. How about we not design a game assuming the worst in people? Plus, isn't that what the GM's Guide is for in most games? Helping new GMs along with such things? I always thought so. But, ultimately, as it has been said time and time again: each group will play the game the way they want. If that means being superheroic characters, then so be it. It isn't up to me to tell them they can't. As a game designer, I would feel it is my job to try and include as many different play styles I could to get the largest group of players I could. (Both as a "I want to give enjoyment to as many as possible" as well as, $$$$$.)
So, including options to give a range of play styles would be paramount, I would imagine. If that means including rules to allow pure-arms users 3 attacks/defenses per round, then cool. (And I think it is cool, and something that should have been done from the beginning.)
-
I suspect a good percentage of the people on these forums, at least the regular contributors, are part of the above average crowd.
I really hate to say it, but when I worked for WotC I wouldn't tell people in gaming stores (or that I wrote a gaming book) because all the freakin nut jobs would try to talk your ear off.
And, to be fair, when I say "nut jobs" I mean socially inept, immature boys who are having a hard time not looking at the cashiers breasts.
That's one of the things I've always enjoyed about the ICE forums. They just aren't like most the gaming (let alone any other) forums out there... people here tend to be a lot more mature and well mannered by in large.
-
I think it is good like it is. Those group that are experienced enough to handle the matter by ingame balancing are most likely also experienced enough to adjust the costs to their liking. Basically it is not about designing for the crowd but to follow the game concept when your designing rules. Can you imagine a RM with weak archtypes? Indeed I can...it stands in my bookcase and is named HARP.
I am all for adding new game styles to both HARP and RM. Super heroes/comic book adventures would for instance sound like loads of fun. Super heroes like Wolverine is very much spot on for a gritty damage system and toons tend to hurt each other quite a lot. Still adding those play styles to game need to be done without killing the design concepts of the games. With RM and Harp we have both weak and strong archtypes and the trick is to match them with game styles rather to try to catch some ever elusive "a RM that does not include options that some unspecified player might have an issue with".
-
I really hate to say it, but when I worked for WotC I wouldn't tell people in gaming stores (or that I wrote a gaming book) because all the freakin nut jobs would try to talk your ear off.
And, to be fair, when I say "nut jobs" I mean socially inept, immature boys who are having a hard time not looking at the cashiers breasts.
Hey, I think I knew that guy! ;D And the one that was too shy to dare look. OK, to be fair, I can be pretty shy - and sibtle enough to get a way with it. ;)
That's one of the things I've always enjoyed about the ICE forums. They just aren't like most the gaming (let alone any other) forums out there... people here tend to be a lot more mature and well mannered by in large.
Yeah, I definitely know that I am going to get a different type of conversation here than at RPG.net.
You know what I did yesterday? I spent a couple of hours converting the Iron Heroes classes (only the Archer, so far) to HARP. (I am putting together a sword & sorcery game.) One of their abilities is Storm of Arrows - I think it is OK if I assume you get the idea of the ability - and it came out pretty-good I think. One thing I noticed when doing this (transferring a D20 class ability to an ICE game) is that it is not a bad idea to make certain abilities be level dependent. Like the above Storm of Arrows, it can only be learned once the character has reached 10th level. You can just as easily make it about the number of ranks in the relevant skill, like 10, 20, 30, etc... That might be a good way to incorporate the ability to attack more than once in a single round. Whatcha think?
-
This touches on something that I have come to think is wrong with RM (any incarnation): DP costs vary too much. I understand the reasoning of making the professions different. (Though I believe that there was also a subconscious "reasoning" going on in trying to stay in line with AD&D.) But I feel it went too far.
Should/would it cost a magician more to develop weapon skills? Yes/I am not sure. In other words: Game-wise I get it, but would it really? But, for the sake of argument, we are going with it does cost more. I don't think it should cost so much more though. 1/5 vs. 9. I think the real cost needs to be in game, as in monetary and time costs. Now, a group characters can teach each other, provided they also train in teaching which costs them DP to do also. What I am saying, is that when a character trains outside of their professions main focus, no matter what, they slow down their advancement in their main focus, & it doesn't seem right to punish them again - and quite so severely - for doing so. (I much prefer the HARP method of 2 or 4.)
*Specially since past rank 5 the cost doubles - at least in RMFRP/SS.
I guess I never had a problem with it, because I took DPs to in part represent the time and attention a PC had to develop a skill. It also goes back to some of that "behind the scenes" training and education. Learning spells is in part easier for a Mage because of their training and experience, while swinging a sword might be something they never paid attention to. For the fighter, the reverse is true. Their muscles and reflexes are conditioned to learn combat skills, but the mechanics of spellcasting are difficult for them to comprehend because they're so different from what they usually do.
-
It's back to that "Does balance mean we're equal, or does it mean we equally need each other?" Archetyping, the strength which with the system forces you to take a corner and hold it, is a part of the logic of attempting to force you to need each other. "I'm a mage, I'm never going to be a strong combatant in melee, I need an arms character to keep the goblins off me while I cast."
1) Weak archetypes can be found in RM "No profession" style, where all characters are the "No profession" profession.
2) Middling archetypes can be found in HARP, where the low cost is 2, and the high cost is 4.
3) Strong archetypes can be found in RM, where the low cost is 1, and the high cost is 20+.
You still have archetypes in #1, but it's based in choices. . .I choose to purchase a lot of spells, so I'm a caster, you choose to purchase a lot of combat skills so you're arms, and he chose to mix, so he's semi. . . . .but it's chosen, and it's weak, because if I choose to develop arms, I'm paying just what you are.
It's harder to go across type with #2 (though with profession changing not terribly so)
Once you get to #3, it's punitive to try to cross type. . .choosing to play a caster built from the fighter profession is folly.
Over the years, I've played RM all three ways (even before HARP came out). . . .all you do is:
#1 Only allow one profession (best to pick the "No Profession" or one of the semis)
#2 Only allow Semi professions, but come up with a mechanism to change base lists. (So say a "Cleric" in this version would be a paladin profession but with the Cleric base in place of paladin base).
#3 Play with all professions per core.