[RPM] a collection of questions

[Merrick]

[QUOTE=Ghostdancer;1680317]I'm not exactly seeing the issue, each spell needs to roll against your Path skill to determine if it's dispelled or not, if you succeed it is, if you don't it isn't.

Thanks for the quick response! The issue is that the same spell becomes insanely more powerful when you add in the AoE modifier. Way more than, say, an attack spell which will do x damage to everyone in the area. This feels more like an attack spell that does damage to every hit location to everyone in the area... See what I mean?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Merrick

Thanks for the quick response! The issue is that the same spell becomes insanely more powerful when you add in the AoE modifier. Way more than, say, an attack spell which will do x damage to everyone in the area. This feels more like an attack spell that does damage to every hit location to everyone in the area... See what I mean?

Not really. I mean I see what you're getting at, but it's not as bad as you think. Each spell still resists normally. It's like saying that a Internal Damage Area Effect spell is overpowered because it hits every single subject in the area and they got to all make individual rolls against it. It is powerful in that context, but not overpowering.

[Lamech]

You can always ward yourself against magic. That should stop incoming dispels.

Also don't forget that if you get hit with a 300 point spell they also could have burnt you to a crisp.

[A Ladder]

A bit of thread necromancy, but one of my players was getting interested in RPM and that started a cascade of questions.

Lightning spells in Magic have the effect: HT check at -1 for every 2 damage inflicted or be stunned. Now, if I wanted to build this in RPM it would look something like this:

Greater create energy [6], 1d damage (external x3 makes it 3d) [0], enhancement (+50% stunning, -10% no incendiary) [8]: for a whopping 14x3 = [42]…for a 3d stunning bolt of lightning.

Now for Side Effect (on an Innate Attack Power) is a +50% enhancement. So is Explosion. Explosive damage in RPM is treated as an external damage x2 modifier.

Would it be crazy to make the stunning effect like the explosive effect and just reduce the x3 modifier to x2?

So the modified spell would look like:
Greater create energy [6], 1d damage (external x2, stunning, makes it 2d) [0]: 6x3 = [18]...for a 2d stunning bolt of lightning.

Looks a lot like
Greater create energy [6], 1d damage (external x2, explosive, makes it 2d) [0]: 6x3 = [18] for a 2d exploding fireball.

Seems more reasonable to me. Thoughts?


Also, I came up with a new Perk:
Extra Charm: Each level of this perk increases the amount of charms the player can have active by 1.

Does this seem fair? (I based it on Magery = 3 ER [9], plus [1] Increase skill cap for path skills and conditional rituals.)
Or should I make it cost [2]/level? (built as Magery (No Mana Pool -60%, Charms only -20%) [2]).

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

A bit of thread necromancy, but one of my players was getting interested in RPM and that started a cascade of questions.

Lightning spells in Magic have the effect: HT check at -1 for every 2 damage inflicted or be stunned. Now, if I wanted to build this in RPM it would look something like this:

Greater create energy [6], 1d damage (external x3 makes it 3d) [0], enhancement (+50% stunning, -10% no incendiary) [8]: for a whopping 14x3 = [42]…for a 3d stunning bolt of lightning.

No, it would be Greater Create Energy (6) + Damage, External Burning 3d (Side Effect, Stunning, +50%; Surge, Arcing , +100%) (30) for a total of 108 energy. DR from metal sources is reduced to 1, it counts as the Surge Modifier, and every 2 damage dealt adds a -1 penalty to the HT roll to avoid being stunned. It's expensive...but Magic isn't exactly balanced against itself, for the most part, Ritual Path magic is.

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Now for Side Effect (on an Innate Attack Power) is a +50% enhancement. So is Explosion. Explosive damage in RPM is treated as an external damage x2 modifier.

Would it be crazy to make the stunning effect like the explosive effect and just reduce the x3 modifier to x2?

So the modified spell would look like:
Greater create energy [6], 1d damage (external x2, stunning, makes it 2d) [0]: 6x3 = [18]...for a 2d stunning bolt of lightning.

Looks a lot like
Greater create energy [6], 1d damage (external x2, explosive, makes it 2d) [0]: 6x3 = [18] for a 2d exploding fireball.

Seems more reasonable to me. Thoughts?

I wouldn't do it like that because then everyone is going to add stunning to their attack. Even if only 1 point penetrates they'll need to roll to resist the stunning aspect. Of course, if you feel it should be done that way - then I'm wrong and your right! Have a great game. :-)

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Also, I came up with a new Perk:
Extra Charm: Each level of this perk increases the amount of charms the player can have active by 1.

Does this seem fair? (I based it on Magery = 3 ER [9], plus [1] Increase skill cap for path skills and conditional rituals.)
Or should I make it cost [2]/level? (built as Magery (No Mana Pool -60%, Charms only -20%) [2]).

Conditional Spells are worth at most a point per perk, if you specialize by a specific form of conditional spell - like a charm, potion, tattoo, and so on, I'd allow you to purchase 2 extra slots per perk, up to four levels of the perk (or whatever the GM sets the level for).

[A Ladder]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I wouldn't do it like that because then everyone is going to add stunning to their attack. Even if only 1 point penetrates they'll need to roll to resist the stunning aspect. Of course, if you feel it should be done that way - then I'm wrong and your right! Have a great game. :-)



Conditional Spells are worth at most a point per perk, if you specialize by a specific form of conditional spell - like a charm, potion, tattoo, and so on, I'd allow you to purchase 2 extra slots per perk, up to four levels of the perk (or whatever the GM sets the level for).

I didn't think of that. Good thing I come here for advice.

Ooooh! Two charms per perk! Big fan.


One more question: How do you feel about reducing energy on damage spells for decreased damage?

Clarification: progression for the damage table goes up 1 dmg for every +1 energy to cost. What if we went the other way?
Damage: 1d-1 would be -1 energy to the spell cost.
Damage: 0d+2 would be -2 energy to the spell cost.

Seen in practical demonstration:
Pathetic Firebolt:
Greater create energy (6),0d+6 (with dice adds this becomes 1d+2) external burning (-2) = 4x3 = (12) total.

Weak Firebolt:
Greater create energy (6), 3d-3 external burning (-1) = 5x3 = (15) total energy.


A decently high skilled mage could fire off a pathetic bolt of fire every other turn with this and not have to resort to using charms. The 1d+2 is comparable to our mage of ST 10 wielding a small mace for damage. I personally think this works fine. Thoughts?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Reduced damage for reduced energy is a bad idea. I've been there, I've played it out in my own campaigns and it just ends up causing more issues than it solves. I don't suggest you use it, but you, as the GM may decide it works for you. In that case, as above, cool. Have fun. :-)

[A Ladder]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Reduced damage for reduced energy is a bad idea. I've been there, I've played it out in my own campaigns and it just ends up causing more issues than it solves. I don't suggest you use it, but you, as the GM may decide it works for you. In that case, as above, cool. Have fun. :-)

Thanks for the heads up!

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Thanks for the heads up!

Again, that's not looking at things from a theoretical POV - I've used in in campaigns and it just breaks down after a while, everyone ends up reducing damage to save a point or two. I've had more time than anybody other than PK when it comes to messing around with RPM (I started toying around with it in November 2010 during the MH playtest) and I can tell you that this just doesn't work. Though it may take you a while to figure that out if you do decide to do it. :-) I'm personally still trying to find a way to get it down to fractional dice...but no luck so far.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Another valid approach can be found here re: conditional spells; it might fit some campaigns to have a ton of charms, potions, whatever on hand for casters.