Topic: Power point development in RMC looking at RMSS

[sluagh]

hi
I'm starting playing Rolemaster classic again after twenty years ago, but i have a problem or a dificult choice with power point development.
I had readed the new power point development rules in RFG (RMSS) and i saw that characters start with a lot more power points to spend (6 each rank minimun) and with the new ESF rules is easy to avoid penalization.
Well, i find that the classic power point's rules based on stat or even on stat bonus give very few PP per level (90 - 1, 95 - 2) but, the rules in the RMSS give a lot of points (6 each level with an ESF that you can avoid until the 75% of PP used).
What system are you using? i like the classic system more than the new.

Thanks

[jdale]

In our RMSS game, we are using the RMSS rules. I like that the casters have a lot of opportunity to contribute, but we definitely do get to the point where we are feeling short on PP, and get nervous about crossing the thresholds where the additional casting penalties kick in.

[Peter R]

I play RMC and I have used both the stat based PowerPoints and the skill based and I think skill based creates more enjoyment for all the players both spell casters and non. The greater number of PowerPoints gives the casters more staying power and fosters greater engagement. That keeps the story moving forward improves then game session.

I have reduced the number of and magnitude of bonus spell items though to balance things.

[vector]

I run a highly house ruled version of RMSS and use the RMSS power point development rules.

I don't mind my spell casters casting spells so it's not a problem, but it is a high-magic world.

[Hurin]

I only play RM2 (Classic, essentially) but I do find the number of power points at low levels is a bit too low. I like the way RMSS makes PP development a skill, but I think that this also makes for a bit too many PPs at low level, and a bit too few at high level (the curve doesn't really match the PP requirements). Luckily, we can all tailor the game to the way we want it by making PP multipliers and adders more available or more scarce, depending on your wants.

[Majyk]

I only play RM2 (Classic, essentially) but I do find the number of power points at low levels is a bit too low

Agreed. 

We opted for one of the old RMC(ompanion) Rules that mentioned PP costs were set to the first level in a block of the spells in a spell list.
1st to 5th level spells cost 1 Power Point.
6th-10th level cost 6PPs
11th-20th level cost 11PPs

So that 90 Magic Stat that only produced 1PP/lvl player wasn't too shafted when at 4th level.
(S)he would be able to cast 4x spells, no matter the level - up to 5th - before being out of PPs vs the standard rules which would only allow the casting of 1st level spells that many times.)

[Hurin]

I think there was also an optional rule (maybe we invented it, but I don't think so) that gave everyone a starting 'base Power Points', kind of like base hits, that was equal to your spell casting stat divided by 10. It gave lower level casters an easier start to the game.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I think there was also an optional rule (maybe we invented it, but I don't think so) that gave everyone a starting 'base Power Points', kind of like base hits, that was equal to your spell casting stat divided by 10. It gave lower level casters an easier start to the game.

RoCo II, section 3.1., "Power point development", p12, where the concept of developing power points was already set. Weirdly enough, whilst the vast majority of RM2 players (if not all) adopted the RoCo II skills, it seems only a few adopted the power point development system, giving credits to RMSS for it...

[Ecthelion]

RoCo II, section 3.1., "Power point development", p12, where the concept of developing power points was already set. Weirdly enough, whilst the vast majority of RM2 players (if not all) adopted the RoCo II skills, it seems only a few adopted the power point development system, giving credits to RMSS for it...

That may have been because in RoCo II the skill was optional and IIRC offered no additional value to the game. It was just another skill you needed to invest DPs into if you wanted to have Power Points. With RMSS it was part of the system - so that you could not evade it  - plus RMSS changed the number of PPs developed per level, so that a spell caster had more PPs at his disposal.

[Peter R]

Also that option does not exist in RMC, There is no RoCoII for RMC.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

That may have been because in RoCo II the skill was optional and IIRC offered no additional value to the game. It was just another skill you needed to invest DPs into if you wanted to have Power Points. With RMSS it was part of the system - so that you could not evade it  - plus RMSS changed the number of PPs developed per level, so that a spell caster had more PPs at his disposal.

Actually, when using the RoCo rule, a spell caster would usually have way more PPs at his disposal than otherwise.
1) Base PPs,
2) Two skill ranks per level,
3) Die roll for each rank to determine the number of PPs,
4) Multiplication using the stat.
   For instance, with a stat. of 100, the number of PPs is 3, so a level 10 using SL rules has 30 PPs. With the RoCo II option, he has:
1) 10 base PPs,
2) Assuming two ranks per level, he has twenty ranks in PPDev,
3) Assuming a d5 for each rank, thus 20d5 = an average of 60 (but usually probably better as all skilled GMs/players know to choose/roll his dice to help luck ),
4) Assuming a +25 stat mod (the normal figure for a 100 stat), we'd have to multiply by 1.25,
5) The total would be: (10 + 60) x 1.25 = 88!
   ...and let's not imagine the case of a magical race using a better PP die, or a race or character with a bonus to his stat mod... I've seen players rolling (at level 10) a total of about 80, using the option of adding +15 to their stats, and with a racial bonus of +5; at level ten, such characters have a whooping (10 + 80) x 1.45 =  131 PPs...

   So, sure, it's another skill into which to pour your dev. points but let's say that the perspective to have four times more PPs is really... motivating.

[Peter R]

That may have been because in RoCo II the skill was optional and IIRC offered no additional value to the game. It was just another skill you needed to invest DPs into if you wanted to have Power Points. With RMSS it was part of the system - so that you could not evade it  - plus RMSS changed the number of PPs developed per level, so that a spell caster had more PPs at his disposal.

Actually, when using the RoCo rule, a spell caster would usually have way more PPs at his disposal than otherwise.
1) Base PPs,
2) Two skill ranks per level,
3) Die roll for each rank to determine the number of PPs,
4) Multiplication using the stat.
   For instance, with a stat. of 100, the number of PPs is 3, so a level 10 using SL rules has 30 PPs. With the RoCo II option, he has:
1) 10 base PPs,
2) Assuming two ranks per level, he has twenty ranks in PPDev,
3) Assuming a d5 for each rank, thus 20d5 = an average of 60 (but usually probably better as all skilled GMs/players know to choose/roll his dice to help luck ),
4) Assuming a +25 stat mod (the normal figure for a 100 stat), we'd have to multiply by 1.25,
5) The total would be: (10 + 60) x 1.25 = 88!
   ...and let's not imagine the case of a magical race using a better PP die, or a race or character with a bonus to his stat mod... I've seen players rolling (at level 10) a total of about 80, using the option of adding +15 to their stats, and with a racial bonus of +5; at level ten, such characters have a whooping (10 + 80) x 1.45 =  131 PPs...

   So, sure, it's another skill into which to pour your dev. points but let's say that the perspective to have four times more PPs is really... motivating.

RoCoII does actually say "Only under special GM determined cirmcumstances may more than one skill rank in power point development be learned in each level of experience"

Taking that in mind you should really be looking at 11 ranks (0th to 10th) rather 20 ranks in PPD. So (10 + 33)*1.25 = 54 PPs. That is still better than the 30 they would have had but not quite the 88 above.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

RoCoII does actually say "Only under special GM determined cirmcumstances may more than one skill rank in power point development be learned in each level of experience"

We're talking about the existence of the rule and it may be an option in an optional rule, but it *does* exist (with costs for developing two ranks per level). Otherwise, you could just equally argue about multiplying by the stat mod, because it's just an option. That the two ranks per level isn't explicitly worded as being "Option 0: we would only recommend development of one rank per level, but a GM may wish to allow two ranks per level (suggested...)" is irrelevant.

[Peter R]

RoCoII does actually say "Only under special GM determined cirmcumstances may more than one skill rank in power point development be learned in each level of experience"

We're talking about the existence of the rule and it may be an option in an optional rule, but it *does* exist (with costs for developing two ranks per level). Otherwise, you could just equally argue about multiplying by the stat mod, because it's just an option. That the two ranks per level isn't explicitly worded as being "Option 0: we would only recommend development of one rank per level, but a GM may wish to allow two ranks per level (suggested...)" is irrelevant.

If you look at page 110 of RoCo II the skill cost is only a single figure even for pure casters so you could argue that the optional rule as written is for a single rank per level as is the guidance from the developers of the rule.

It is of course our own choice what we allow in our own setting.

[sluagh]

Thanks for your replies,
I think that "Tailoring" with multipliers o adders OR be more strict with the ESF penalties of the RMSS (ie. Not adding for free hands or sçeaking aloud) may be the way to act.

Sergi

[Cory Magel]

Coming in late here.  As a GM I would merely consider how much PP I want the characters to have based on my GM style.

For example, GM #1 lets the party rest up after every major confrontation.  PP's will be expended more freely.  But GM #2 may or may not have multiple confrontations in a row before the party is able to rest.  Under GM #1 the party is likely to 'blow their wad' as we like to say.  Under GM #2 the party is more likely to be conservative.  I can see GM #2 providing more PP's (however they want) than GM #1 as a result.

So, I say do what you think fits your groups style.