Non-Caster Incentive

[Tywyll]

One of my concerns with certain BRP settings is that there is little 'flash' for the non-casters. Elric! certainly feels this way, as did the old Stormbringer (I never got the latest version of Stormbringer).

Since skills are improved via use, there is no reason a person who casts spells can't also be good in melee combat. What, if any, thing does the new BRP do to address this? I'm not saying that casters shouldn't be able to learn to wield swords, but from a 'fun' standpoint, what do the non-casters get to help them remain relevant in a party of casters?

[GianniVacca]

I'm not sure I've understood your quandary. Is your problem 'how can I prevent my players from all choosing a spell casting character?'?

Well.... What can I say? This is a hard one. And there are many ways to tackle the problem, depending on personal taste/campaig background/rules fiddling.

1/ You could go the D&D way. Magic-users are not allowed to learn swordfighting. Period. Obviously a party will need fighters as well as magic-users.

2/ You could say that only characters from a certain caste/from a very wealthy family are allowed/can afford to learn magic.

3/ You could say that magical studies are so long that all starting spell-casting characters are 50 years old. This may have some disadvantages in terms of physical skills.

4/ Any characters could be allowed to have magic and fighting skills. The line between 'fighters' and 'magic-users' would be completely blurred (like in all RQ2 games I've played).

But in the end buying magic skills is expensive, and a lot of players want to be able to have more than just one group of skills over 50%. I am running a MRQ GodLearner campaign and although all PCs had access to magic, not all players decided to invest heavily in magic skills.

[GianniVacca]

An additional thought re 'flash'.

In a historical campaign setting, characters with good etiquette or dancing or arts skills can be more useful than good fighters or good magicians!

[frogspawner]

I'm not sure I've understood your quandary. Is your problem 'how can I prevent my players from all choosing a spell casting character?'?

No, that's not it. The problem is that plain "fighter type" characters have much more limited options (in combat, principally) than magic-using ones.

OK, they could learn dancing and/or etiquette, but that doesn't give their players more interesting things to do when a melee breaks out...

Settings like Glorantha solve this by allowing everyone to do magic. But that's not suitable for every setting, and not to everyone's taste.

[Tywyll]

I'm not sure I've understood your quandary. Is your problem 'how can I prevent my players from all choosing a spell casting character?'?

Mostly. Its also, "If players have a concept, such as street-wise rogue, or grizzled combat veteran, what happens down the line when the mages are schtumping the opposition and the only real advantage those concepts maintain is simply a few more points in a few skills, which the casters can be developing as well?"

Well.... What can I say? This is a hard one. And there are many ways to tackle the problem, depending on personal taste/campaig background/rules fiddling.

1/ You could go the D&D way. Magic-users are not allowed to learn swordfighting. Period. Obviously a party will need fighters as well as magic-users.

Never liked this option.

2/ You could say that only characters from a certain caste/from a very wealthy family are allowed/can afford to learn magic.

this works, to a degree, but essentially leaves the problem of the non-caster eventually being in danger of being bored by lack of things to do (besides say "I attack") while the casters are dripping with tons of options. It also doesn't help with the balance issue... a wizard can learn sword-fighting later on, but the non-casters really can't.

3/ You could say that magical studies are so long that all starting spell-casting characters are 50 years old. This may have some disadvantages in terms of physical skills.

Doesn't work for my setting.

4/ Any characters could be allowed to have magic and fighting skills. The line between 'fighters' and 'magic-users' would be completely blurred (like in all RQ2 games I've played).

Also doesn't work. Its also not really an option for most 'traditional' fantasy/Sword&Sorcery settings. This isn't a knock on RQ, but for most people coming to BRP, this style won't be familiar or necessarily favored.

But in the end buying magic skills is expensive, and a lot of players want to be able to have more than just one group of skills over 50%. I am running a MRQ GodLearner campaign and although all PCs had access to magic, not all players decided to invest heavily in magic skills.

Its expensive in MRQ, wherein level ups are limited by 'improvement rolls'. However, in more traditional BRP, improvement is solely based on use, so that doesn't necessarily hinder the player. If the skills are there, they can take them as they wish.

I guess my issue is two fold. The player of casters have lots of different options and things they can do in combat, in addition to having the same set of options that non-casters have (weapon and skill use). They aren't prevented from being as good or even better than the character that begins the game as the dedicated 'heavy' simply because improvement is random and use based. After awhile, I'm concerned that the players who failed to pick magic as a concept will end up with little to do compared to their mystic companions.

Now, MRQ handles this issue with a limited amount of improvement, which is one means of balancing the issue. the other would be providing some sort of special or focused abilities that are either incompatible with magic, or simply require a lot of extra focus from a character (preventing most cases of 'double dipping').

Or, I'm sure there are other options I've not considered.

[Tywyll]

No, that's not it. The problem is that plain "fighter type" characters have much more limited options (in combat, principally) than magic-using ones.

OK, they could learn dancing and/or etiquette, but that doesn't give their players more interesting things to do when a melee breaks out...

Settings like Glorantha solve this by allowing everyone to do magic. But that's not suitable for every setting, and not to everyone's taste.

Exactly what I was getting at. :thumb:

[Jason D]

For what it's worth, there is a longish section called "Powered Characters versus Non-Powered Characters" in BRP that addresses this issue.

Some of the options presented are:

• Allowing the non-powered characters more skill points to construct their characters with. This head-start should prove decisive throughout a campaign.
  
• Allowing non-powered characters to invest in non-flashy powers like Defense, etc. that are technically powers but could be characterized in gameplay as "catlike reflexes, exceptional luck, etc."
  
• Allowing non-powered characters to invest "character points" into stuff like exceptional gear, etc. to help them compete.
  

Elsewhere in the book, I discuss the nature of balance and how it's the GM's job to make sure that a campaign is balanced. For example, if you're running a criminal investigation scenario and one of the PCs is a police detective, he/she has a distinct advantage over the player who picked "student" or "priest" as their profession. There are some guidelines as to how to achieve this, but it's very general as that sort of stuff is intrinsically setting-specific.

Still elsewhere in the book are the Fate Point rules, allowing players to spend power points to affect dice results. This isn't a magic bullet to end the perceived problem, but given a finite number of power points, having non-powered characters using them to augment skill/combat rolls and having powered characters using them for powers seems to balance things considerably. (Incidentally, this very problem is why I introduced the Fate Point system - giving non-powered characters something to do in gameplay with power points.)

Hope this helps.

[sladethesniper]

"If players have a concept, such as street-wise rogue, or grizzled combat veteran, what happens down the line when the mages are schtumping the opposition and the only real advantage those concepts maintain is simply a few more points in a few skills, which the casters can be developing as well?"

I am also having this problem. Almost anyone can learn magic in my setting. During playtesting a lot of them got irritated because thier magic spells don't really seem to "work" often enough for their taste.

Basically a spell is a skill and purchased as normal. They pay the cost in Power, roll the dice and see if it works. The problem arose that magic is available and so the players got some spells from 5% to 40%...and then complained mightily.

Why...because if you swing your sword and miss, what are you out? Not much. If you jack up your fireball, what are you out...about 3 Power...and you don't an unlimited supply...

What I have found is that in my setting beginning players see all the powers and skills and options and sort of go nuts...they try to get everything at 10%...and they die.

The second character actually develops into a concept and they start with skills in the 50%-60% range and are viable...

I think that it really comes down to, IMO and experience, is concept...if you want to be a fighter...be a fighter...if you want to be a mage, be a mage, if you want to be a fighter mage, good for you, but you'll never be as good at either profession since you just don't have the resource pool to spread over that many skills.

What this does is force character concepts and the use of "magic". Characters in my setting will now almost always use magic first or last...they no longer use it to solve problems, but to save themselves....

I hope that helps.

-STS

[Harvey Walters]

One of my concerns with certain BRP settings is that there is little 'flash' for the non-casters. Elric! certainly feels this way, as did the old Stormbringer (I never got the latest version of Stormbringer).

Since skills are improved via use, there is no reason a person who casts spells can't also be good in melee combat. What, if any, thing does the new BRP do to address this? I'm not saying that casters shouldn't be able to learn to wield swords, but from a 'fun' standpoint, what do the non-casters get to help them remain relevant in a party of casters?

You could always add something to penalize the casters, like the

SAN loss for Cthulhu spells, or the corruption from the BRP/MERP rules

someone posted a link to recently. Also, make magic spells expensive

in skill points, perhaps casters have to sacrifice POW to learn spells,

spells can drain hit points/fatigue points/POW per so many MP expended,

spells can age a character so many days/weeks/months per MP, you

can add nasty spell failure charts ala weapon fumbles but mystical in

nature. Spell use could attract attention from the gods or magic eating

creatures like thought eaters or cerebral parasites from D&D, or magic

could be illegal or heavily restricted like Traveller's psionics -- there may

be instead or in addition to this a public prejudice against magic.

Just some suggestions,

Michael Hoxie

[AikiGhost]

Well in RQ 3 sorcerers could only get weapons skills up to a max of Dex x4 (or was it x3 I cant remember) it was rationalised as not having time to pursue and maintain such skills since they spent so much time working on magic and lore.

In my own games I stopped anyone with a POW of under 16 having magic of any kind.

[Tywyll]

For what it's worth, there is a longish section called "Powered Characters versus Non-Powered Characters" in BRP that addresses this issue.

Some of the options presented are:

• Allowing the non-powered characters more skill points to construct their characters with. This head-start should prove decisive throughout a campaign.
  
• Allowing non-powered characters to invest in non-flashy powers like Defense, etc. that are technically powers but could be characterized in gameplay as "catlike reflexes, exceptional luck, etc."
  
• Allowing non-powered characters to invest "character points" into stuff like exceptional gear, etc. to help them compete.
  

Elsewhere in the book, I discuss the nature of balance and how it's the GM's job to make sure that a campaign is balanced. For example, if you're running a criminal investigation scenario and one of the PCs is a police detective, he/she has a distinct advantage over the player who picked "student" or "priest" as their profession. There are some guidelines as to how to achieve this, but it's very general as that sort of stuff is intrinsically setting-specific.

Still elsewhere in the book are the Fate Point rules, allowing players to spend power points to affect dice results. This isn't a magic bullet to end the perceived problem, but given a finite number of power points, having non-powered characters using them to augment skill/combat rolls and having powered characters using them for powers seems to balance things considerably. (Incidentally, this very problem is why I introduced the Fate Point system - giving non-powered characters something to do in gameplay with power points.)

Hope this helps.

Oh, I'm really glad to hear all of these options!

Could you tell me how characters earn Powers using these rules? Are there guidelines? I know back in Superworld there were ways to earn new Power Points (or whatever they were called) but it was quite difficult and certainly wouldn't have translated to a fantasy campaign.

Ack, I wish that book would hurry up and come out. Any idea when it will be released in the UK?

[Hedgehobbit]

Bushido has some rules which might help in this situation. You character gets to pick a certain number of skills (1 per Int point for example). These skills advance as normal. Every other skill has a penalty when trying to learn them. So, in BRP, you might have a character pick a certain number of skills (these might be the skills that the character regularly practices at if you need an in-game rational for the rules). A successful advancement check might give 1d6 point to a "practiced" skill but only 1d3 to a "non-practiced skill". That way fighters can learn magic or magic-users can learn fighting but they will each be hindered in the other's specialty. It would work for rogue-type characters as well, keeping them from outdoing the regular fighter guys in combat.

BTW-I'm not very familiar with the new BRP rules. Are there options for some skills being more difficult to learn that others?

Aaron

[Jason D]

Oh, I'm really glad to hear all of these options!

Glad to let you know about them.

Could you tell me how characters earn Powers using these rules? Are there guidelines?

Each power type has a different method, and is addressed with that power. In general, you study to learn more magic and/or sorcery, mutations are gained through exposure to radiation or other mutagens, psychic abilities are gained through training or involuntary means (stress, for example), and super powers are gained through the GM awarding more "character points" or through some story-based means.

Any idea when it will be released in the UK?

I don't even know exactly when it goes to press, or will be available in the U.S., much less the U.K.

[Puck]

Between this thread and the adding mrq thread I was churning up some ideas. They may be unpalatable to some but are only in the proto stage.

Without the Divine magic siphoning off Pow points, characters may build them up pretty quickly. The only two permanent magic point bleeders I recall are staffs and familiars and that only one point a piece. What about buying these powers, feats, heroic abilities with permanent Pow points? Much like super Powers.

I think that is what Jason is saying here:

Allowing non-powered characters to invest in non-flashy powers like Defense, etc. that are technically powers but could be characterized in game play as "catlike reflexes, exceptional luck, etc."

To explain this may be a stretch for some, but the idea is that a fighter type would spend much of his concentration, reflection, practice time, etc. on certain combat moves.

If that was the case I was trying to think of other appropriate non-flashy powers that could be bought that would fit a fantasy setting and would particularly benefit non-magic users other than simply increasing skills.

What about buying a weapon specialty that would increase the special hit (impale, crush, slash) with that particular weapon 1% per permanent Pow invested.

or

Buying the ability to aim well with a weapon. May change the die roll on the hit location die by one point per Pow Sacrifice.

or

A defense specialist that may subtract 10 from the 30% penalty on subsequent parries. For three points they may parry twice per round with no penalty.

All three of these would require a cap of say 5 points to prevent things getting out of hand, but they may work….. I think. Any other possibilities?

[Tywyll]

Between this thread and the adding mrq thread I was churning up some ideas. They may be unpalatable to some but are only in the proto stage.

Without the Divine magic siphoning off Pow points, characters may build them up pretty quickly. The only two permanent magic point bleeders I recall are staffs and familiars and that only one point a piece. What about buying these powers, feats, heroic abilities with permanent Pow points? Much like super Powers.

Won't there be Enchantment rules, which would be another way to remove POW points?

To explain this may be a stretch for some, but the idea is that a fighter type would spend much of his concentration, reflection, practice time, etc. on certain combat moves.

If that was the case I was trying to think of other appropriate non-flashy powers that could be bought that would fit a fantasy setting and would particularly benefit non-magic users other than simply increasing skills.

What about buying a weapon specialty that would increase the special hit (impale, crush, slash) with that particular weapon 1% per permanent Pow invested.

or

Buying the ability to aim well with a weapon. May change the die roll on the hit location die by one point per Pow Sacrifice.

or

A defense specialist that may subtract 10 from the 30% penalty on subsequent parries. For three points they may parry twice per round with no penalty.

All three of these would require a cap of say 5 points to prevent things getting out of hand, but they may work….. I think. Any other possibilities?

See I think these are great ideas. Other options might include:

1) More Damage with a specific type of weapon

2) Ability to negate some armor

3) Ability to 'roll with a blow' (i.e. innate armor)

4) Increase range with missile weapons

5) Decreased reload time with MW

6) Ability to reduce opponent's dodge/parry

7) Increase Initiative (or Strike Ranks, or however they are handled now)

8) Bonus with a specific weapon (if weapon skills are grouped, like 1H Edged)

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

[Jason D]

Just some things to ponder:

Other options might include:

1) More Damage with a specific type of weapon

It's not a specific type of weapon thing, but Fate Points let you spend them to achieve a maximum damage result with a weapon damage roll.

3) Ability to 'roll with a blow' (i.e. innate armor)

That can also be done with Fate Points, or as the Armor super power.

6) Ability to reduce opponent's dodge/parry

A function of the Martial Arts super power.

8) Bonus with a specific weapon (if weapon skills are grouped, like 1H Edged)

The Super Skill super power handles that.

[Tywyll]

Just some things to ponder:

Just let me say: Sweet!

[frogspawner]

Fate Points let you spend them to achieve a maximum damage result with a weapon damage roll...

That can also be done with Fate Points, or as the Armor super power. ...

A function of the Martial Arts super power. ...

The Super Skill super power handles that.

Since the use of Fate Points and/or Powers are options, the GM has total control over whether they are used in his/her campaign - right?

So a GM could put conditions on their use. (Surely it doesn't have to be a simple "Yes/No"...?)

So, under the Rules As Written, a GM would be perfectly entitled to say, for examples:

1) If you have a weapon skill of 100%+, you can spend FP to maximize Damage with that specific type of weapon

2) If you have a weapon skill of 150%+, you can spend FP to activate an Ability to negate some armor

3) If you have 100%+ Dodge, you can spend FP to activate an Ability to 'roll with a blow' (i.e. innate armor)

etc...

True?

[Jason D]

Since the use of Fate Points and/or Powers are options, the GM has total control over whether they are used in his/her campaign - right?

So a GM could put conditions on their use. (Surely it doesn't have to be a simple "Yes/No"...?)

True?

Absolutely.

They're an optional part of the system, and the applications are provided as "possible" uses.

Each GM should use them in a way that feels appropriate, and attach whatever conditions might be suitable. Ignoring the optional Fate Point system entirely is a valid choice (as with all of the optional rules).

[Puck]

Just some things to ponder:

Time to give another more in depth gander at fate points and powers. Man, this book is just pregnant with possibilities.

[soltakss]

One of the way I get over this is by limiting the number of skill/experience rolls the PCs get. I do this by using Hero Points as Experience Points. So PCs can choose where to concentrate their skill attempts and tend to focus on their own speciality areas.

What I don't do is to restrict PCs by caste/profession, unless they are forbidden from learning a skill for specific reason. So, healers may be forbidden to learn combat spells/skills, for example. There are too many examples in Fantasy fiction of wizards being good in combat and fighters being able to use some magic. It also doesn't make much sense from a background point of view, unless there are in-game reasons why the restrictions are in place.

If magic-using characters are handled well by the GM they spend all their time scrabbling around for POW or other magical fuel to gain more powerful spells and find that the other PCs outstrip them in other areas.

[Lord Twig]

In our RQ3 game, characters that wanted to concentrate on sorcery rarely wore armor because they didn't want to take the 20-30% hit on their sorcery skills. Also, during combat they spent time casting spells instead of attacking with weapons, so their weapon skills rarely went up.

The one character that practiced sorcery and was a primary fighter rarely cast spells in combat and spent much of his training time on combat skills so quickly lagged behind the primary spell casters in magical skills.

Really it worked fairly well.

[frogspawner]

One of the way I get over this is by limiting the number of skill/experience rolls the PCs get.

Same here, by simply imposing a limit of INT ticks (experience checks).

The one character that practiced sorcery and was a primary fighter rarely cast spells in combat and spent much of his training time on combat skills so quickly lagged behind the primary spell casters in magical skills. Really it worked fairly well.

So would you say such limits are unnecessary?

[Lord Twig]

In my experience, yes. Limiting skill checks and skills were unnecessary in our game.

By the time my sorcerer had the required skills to claim the status of Magus he had a 90% chance to hit with his primary weapon, staff with damage boost 10 on it. Our primary warrior had about 200% in his primary skills and did far more damage.

While the warrior was heavily armored my sorcerer relied on a damage resist 20. In order for armor to make a significant difference to any attack that could routinely get through his damage resist it would effect his skills so badly that it wasn't worth it.

[frogspawner]

In my experience, yes. Limiting skill checks and skills were unnecessary in our game.

By the time my sorcerer had the required skills to claim the status of Magus he had a 90% chance to hit with his primary weapon... Our primary warrior had about 200% in his primary skills...

Thanks. I may drop my 'INT ticks' limit then. So long as there are enough skills for each character-role to usefully develop, it may not be the problem I feared after all...

What stopped your sorceror developing his weapon skill as fast as the primary warrior? I ask because some folks here might, like me, consider allowing combat-related Powers to warrior-types, perhaps tied to particular weapon-skill percentages (e.g. 100%, 150%, etc). But if such Powers were available, wouldn't the spell-specialists be able to get them just as easily (if they actually had that reason to try)? Which would defeat the object of "making Fighters more Fun"...