Topic: Making Rolemaster Better!

[yammahoper]

I really agree with greater exageration in armor protection. 

lynn

[danbuter]

One revamp I would like to see in Spell Law (most of this already exists, but is tweaked):
EACH list for elements (Fire, Water, Earth, Air, Light, etc) should have a "standardized" set-up:

Lvl - Effect
1 - minor bolt spell
2 - "armor" spell
3 - utility spell (cool water, start fire)
4 - miscellaneous spell (earth to mud, ice patch, etc)
5 - ball spell

And just continue with different variations. That way EVERY wizard doesn't immediately take Light Law to have an offensive attack at level 2.

[rdanhenry]

I like the differentiation between the elements. I think forcing the Magician's list into a single template will lose both flexibility and character of the lists. Also, right now the bolts offer an array of strengths, because they are at different levels. If you make them the same level, they should be the same strength, reducing the flexibility of the Magician's arsenal. Or you can fill up more slots with bolt spells and use more charts, but I think the Magician is elemental attack heavy enough as it is.

And what is the Earth Law equivalent of Stun Cloud?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Speaking solely from a gamer perspective....

If you make them the same level, they should be the same strength, reducing the flexibility of the Magician's arsenal. Or you can fill up more slots with bolt spells and use more charts, but I think the Magician is elemental attack heavy enough as it is.

Check out the Elemental Warrior's spells from Combat Companion -- The spell list Warrior's Element fits the template idea that danbuter mentioned.

While that list is obviously a  semi-spell user's, a version for be done for pure spell users.

And as for flexibility, right now, you have 5 types of bolts with a different attack table for each. Hving 5 different strengths to use for each bolt would increase flexibility, not remove it.

And what is the Earth Law equivalent of Stun Cloud?

One currently doesn't exist, but off the top of my head, I would say "meteor swarm", or "earth tentacles" or something similar. Just so long as it is an area attack spell.

[markc]

 If you like making crit charts you could have a low level bolt crit table to be used for every elemenal bolt spell. Then haave the more powerful bolt's appear at different ranks and use thier own crit charts.

MDC 

[rdanhenry]

5 types x 5 different bolts = 25 spells instead of 5, meaning 20 non-bolt spells are lost. That's a loss of flexibility in my opinion. Oh, wait, we'll be adding "Stone Bolt" or something like that, so make it 30 spells instead of 5. For all this redundant firepower, you need to either toss a lot of spells or restructure magic completely (which I'm not in favor of).

There's also the simple question of giving the elements their own flavor. If you standardize the lists like that, fire and water and earth become too much like each other. That's boring.

Plus, logically, Shock Bolt should be the easiest elemental attack to get. It is the one that non-Magicians have access to. (Open lists in Channeling and Mentalism, Illusionist Base list -- Essence semis are the only casters with a hard time picking up a Shock Bolt.)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

5 types x 5 different bolts = 25 spells instead of 5, meaning 20 non-bolt spells are lost. That's a loss of flexibility in my opinion. Oh, wait, we'll be adding "Stone Bolt" or something like that, so make it 30 spells instead of 5. For all this redundant firepower, you need to either toss a lot of spells or restructure magic completely (which I'm not in favor of).

I think that you are missing part of the point. It would only be 1 spell per list since the idea was/is that some spells would be scalable, and thus there would be smaller lists overall.

Plus, the main purpose behind danbuter's proposal was (I think) to offer MORE variety to low level mages, not have them all be cardboard cutouts by taking Light Law to get a bolt spell at second level.

And Shock Bolt is easiest simply because each realm has spell lists that deal with Light (and thus can include Shock Bolt).

The whole concept is one that should be considered (which means actually working up examples to see how things pan out) and not rejected out of hand.

[markc]

 As a GM you might want to check out the Combat Companion like Rasyr said but also the RMFRP book Fire and Ice the Elemental Companion. The F&I EC book has some good info that brings more to your world than simple spell shifting it can provide for a whole new look at the elemental plane's and there inhabitanents.

 Also nothing works better that having a few test fights. Try shifting the crit charts or even the whole table and allow firebolt at 2nd level. IMO the firebolt will have better crits and more damage than shock bolt but maybe as a GM you have the player pay more PP for the spell than normal or do something else like take a PP penalty to gain access to a more powerful list.
 Now some of the above are very nonstandard ways to change you game and most probably will not fit in everygame. But thinking outside the box can help in some cases and RM is one of the best rule sets to modify for a game world.

MDC 

[Justin]

I question the accuracy of calling Shock Bolt an offensive spell. It has only offended the player learning it, in my experience. 

[rdanhenry]

I don't disagree that this could be done without hurting balance or even without a reduction in spells, but standardizing the progression of the spell lists will make magic look more like it came out of a factory and less like, well, magic. That was my main complaint about the old RM2 Elemental Companion. For some things, like bolts and balls and walls, just plugging different elements into the same list worked, but for other lists, they had to be either very vague or start putting in specifics that didn't match some elements (or any in the case of some of the curses). Standardizing the format of lists can become a straightjacket.

[yammahoper]

I question the accuracy of calling Shock Bolt an offensive spell. It has only offended the player learning it, in my experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

[danbuter]

My purpose on the spell lists was to provide a lot more variations for spellcasters, while keeping all relatively equal in power level (so that an ice mage doesn't automatically stomp a fire mage in a fight). But some variation probably wouldn't hurt. I still think each element should have an attack spell at first level.

[Justin]

I question the accuracy of calling Shock Bolt an offensive spell. It has only offended the player learning it, in my experience. 

 

 

 

 

 

what are you saying, yamma, don't agree? 

[GoblynByte]

I?m not sure if this would be possible, and the idea would probably be unpopular by the general RM crowd because it strikes at the core of the tried and true combat mechanic, but I see an issue with combining strength and agility in the use of most weapons and attacks.  Okay, let me see if I can illustrate this well enough to explain why this doesn?t calculate right in my brain.

Fist off let me say that I don?t agree that strength should be as much of a factor in the ability to hit after a certain point.  Strength, in my mind, should only be a factor in how much damage is caused when you do hit.  The only time strength should be a factor in your ability to hit is if you?re not strong enough to control the blade (or ?head? or whatever) but this benefit would plateau at a certain level of strength.

Think about it.  A troll?s massive strength isn?t going to allow him to hit any better with a dagger than that of a dwarf.  They?re already well above the needed strength to control the blade so it is really just up to their hand-eye coordination to put the blade where it will be most effective.  After that the massive strength of the troll is only going to increase the amount of concussive damage behind the blow.  Now, why wouldn?t this logic carry over to larger weapons like swords, battleaxes, maces, and so on?  Once the combatant reaches a certain level of strength the benefit of being able to control the blade plateaus thus ?capping? the benefits of strength in reference to control and the ability to hit.

Basically this boils down to a basic theory: agile fighters should hit more often but cause less damage when they do.  Strong fighters should hit less often but cause greater damage when they do.  Agile and strong fighters should hit often and cause a lot of damage when they do.  On small scales this won?t make much difference.  If an agile elf is fighting a strong dwarf the advantages and disadvantages will probably even out in the long run.  But it is when you get big differences in size and strength that logic begins to stretch.

Let?s assume the RMC method of averaging ST/ST/AG for a melee weapon.  Now, let?s assume three characters.  All of these characters have the exact same training (5 ranks) in their respective melee attack OB.  The first is an elf with high agility (+15) but poor strength (-5).  The second is a dwarf with a high strength (+15) and a low agility (-5).  The third character is a huge 15? troll-like creature with a massive strength (+30) and a very low agility (-20).  Yes, I realize such a creature is a bit of an extreme, but I?m pushing the margins a bit to display where the mechanic breaks down.

The elf is going to have an OB of +26.  The dwarf is going to have an OB of +33.  The troll will have an OB of +38.  You may already begin to see the issue.  The troll isn?t going to hit very often, which makes sense, but when he does hit he?s not going to cause much damage at all!  That just doesn?t make sense to me and seriously nerfs the threat of a creature that might otherwise blast through stone pillars with his bare fists.

Bottom line is this: I can certainly see the troll missing more often due to his lousy hand-eye coordination (represented by his low AG) but when he actually manages to make contact with that dwarf or elf he should be crushing them into something that resembles a wet prune!  You could certainly ?patch? this by just giving the troll +100 to his OB to cause more damage, but then you also increase how often he?s going to hit.  So you?ve only increased the problem.

Therefore one of my suggestions for bettering Rolemaster would be to find a way to separate ?to-hit? from ?damage.?  The existing mechanic is a nifty way of creating a ?single roll? mechanic for combat and all, but I think the stress on logic ends up requiring too many patches in the long run.  I?m sure, however, that such a change would not be popular due to the fact that the existing ?single roll? mechanic has been such a core feature of RM since its inception.  But, I thought I?d toss out the idea to be discussed.  Maybe it actually does work and I?m just missing a key piece of logic.  Hopefully that can get cleared up too.

[yammahoper]

Now, why wouldnÂ’t this logic carry over to larger weapons like swords, battleaxes, maces, and so on?

Because the mass and strength of the troll allows it to simply bash through its foe defenses as if they are not there.

For a good example, go and "parry" a charging bull.

[GoblynByte]

Now, why wouldnÂ’t this logic carry over to larger weapons like swords, battleaxes, maces, and so on?

Because the mass and strength of the troll allows it to simply bash through its foe defenses as if they are not there.

For a good example, go and "parry" a charging bull.

But doesn't that only serve to prove my point?  Their strength at that point only serves to cause more raw damage, not determine whether or not they hit free and clear.  It should be all or nothing.  Either they miss and do nothing or hit and destroy everyting in their path.

[Winterknight]

Since the attack tables combine the hit with the damage, both are currently integrated.

Seems to me that if you wanted to implement some kind of house rule modification, that would be the way to go.  Using the Combat Companion, this is made easier with the use of rank limits by the type of weapon.

For example, if you have a fighter who is an agile type swashbuckler, you could allow him to use all AG as the stat, but downgrade his weapon by a rank.  Easier to hit, less damage.

Likewise, if you have a mountain of a warrior, with a ST bonus of +20 or greater, allow him to take a -20 to his weapon skill, for a +1 rank increase.  This wouldn't be allowed for anyone, only if they have exceptional ST, or are of Large size.  Harder to hit, more damage potential.

[Tarek]

I'm sorry but the charging bull post doesn't prove your point, at least not completely.

Strength affects how well you hit for 2 reasons:

1) As your weapon skill allows you to parry, and you have to defeat your opponents parry, then strength will play a part. An agile elf is going to struggle to parry a blow from the troll if it is going to hit, as he will not be able divert the force. The troll will stop the elf's blow dead if his agility allows him to make a solid block, but his chances of making a solid connection are less likely. Hence both stats are important.

2) Most weapons are long and heavy, thus generating a lot of momentum. The stronger you are, the more able you are to control the momentum and thus the better able you are to aim your blow, and also the quicker you can make your weapon move, and thus be harder to avoid.

With one roll therefore (and see my other point later) both stats are roughly as important in determining IF you hit, and adding strength again reflects the added damage from the strength of the blow.

However, if you are using a lighter or shorter weapon such as a rapier or whip, strength is less important, and agility becomes more important. To this end I tend to use AG/ST for this type of weapon (and at times in the past I've even used AG/AG/ST/ST/QU for rapiers and AG/AG/ST/QU for daggers to reflect the importance of speed in defeating you opponents guard with lighter weapons, though no longer - too much maths)

[GoblynByte]

I'm sorry but the charging bull post doesn't prove your point, at least not completely.

Strength affects how well you hit for 2 reasons:

1) As your weapon skill allows you to parry, and you have to defeat your opponents parry, then strength will play a part. An agile elf is going to struggle to parry a blow from the troll if it is going to hit, as he will not be able divert the force. The troll will stop the elf's blow dead if his agility allows him to make a solid block, but his chances of making a solid connection are less likely. Hence both stats are important.

But I'm talking about strength for purposes of hitting, not defending.  Strength for defense is a whole other ball of wax.

2) Most weapons are long and heavy, thus generating a lot of momentum. The stronger you are, the more able you are to control the momentum and thus the better able you are to aim your blow, and also the quicker you can make your weapon move, and thus be harder to avoid.

See, that's the point I disagree on in a very fundamental way.  I might also point out that so does just about every other RPG on the market that isn't D&D (or one that is based on D&D as RM was when this core mechanic came about).  GURPS, D6, Storyteller, Palladium, Shadowrun, Heavy Gear, Hero, and many, many others work on the assumption that hand-eye coordination, not strength, determines ability to hit.  And I agree with that.  Granted, popularity does not make it right...but I'd say that they're onto something.  Of course, as I agree with the thoery I'm biased anyway...but... 

With one roll therefore (and see my other point later) both stats are roughly as important in determining IF you hit, and adding strength again reflects the added damage from the strength of the blow.

Again, I very much disagree.  I understand the theory behind the two being in the 'same roll' and thus balancing eachother aout.  And sure it is a nifty mechanic for wrapping up everything into one roll, and it looks good on paper.  But lumping the two together does not create a blance between them.

However, if you are using a lighter or shorter weapon such as a rapier or whip, strength is less important, and agility becomes more important. To this end I tend to use AG/ST for this type of weapon (and at times in the past I've even used AG/AG/ST/ST/QU for rapiers and AG/AG/ST/QU for daggers to reflect the importance of speed in defeating you opponents guard with lighter weapons, though no longer - too much maths)

But what is a longsord to a troll but a rapier?  That's my point.  At a certain level of strength the weight and balance of a weapon are no longer a factor.  Yes a shortsword in the hands of a halfling would decrease his ability to swing and hit because it is too heavy.  But it is not as tough for a stronger human a massive troll wielding a shortsword would be like a human handling a pocket knife.

[Justin]

Since the attack tables combine the hit with the damage, both are currently integrated.
Seems to me that if you wanted to implement some kind of house rule modification, that would be the way to go.

"Current" and "house rules" completely misses the point of the thread. This thread is about ideas for improvements/changes for RM in the future. GB can handle it anyway he wants for now, but he is suggesting something for the future.

Which I do not approve of, as you expected, Goblinbyte. Greater strength does help hit, by going thru parries, better control of blade, quicker attacks(QU may be fundamental in getting started sooner, but ST will bring the blade/head around faster), and general whole-body control/balance.
My suggestion to balance out the troll kind of situation would be giving that creature a low OB but a hits and crit modifier, just like creatures currently have defensive crit and/or bleed modifiers. That is how I would suggest ICE handles that issue in the future.