Re: we need to argue more...

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

> Agreed, but tried it, along with juggling pummel/immobilize/punching/
> 	kicking a bit.  failed.  *shrug*  Got nixed cause Priests of
> 	T'or, not marines, are martial artists.

Combat/Magic.. woa! Combat Magic. There's a thought. :)

> Rob's warrior also has some serious mutates and magical items that
> 	let him routinely do 80+pts of damage a round and to not
> 	be grappled more than a few rounds by giving serious electric
> 	shocks.  There are always exceptions, Claude is the biggest.

I had Rob's warrior in my game last week. No single attack did more
than 40 points. Maybe he was rolling poorly. Admittedly that electric
shock thing does give you an advantage.

> 	With a 2 marines I whipped Elsinor, Mogradin, and severa other
> 	folks in a game.  Neither of those two have the magical boosting
> 	that claude does.

With 3 rate 20 priests (of Ra) I put down two adventurers in one round
last week. Roll 4d6-vs-WIL twice please. Anyone can take anyone given
the right circumstances. *shrug* Marines, being more versatile, can
handle more "circumstances".

I generally picture warriors as falling into one of two categories:

God of War as layed out in the Piers Anothony novels (knowledgeable
in all forms of combats and all weapons. Brilliant tactician and
master strategist. Its a realy unfortunate that some military skills
got move to "Auger" (military construction jumps to mind, though a
case could be made for that not being a real warrior skill, I'd still
leave it under warrior).

or

Conan the Destroyer. Burly guys who like to fight with swords.

Warriors buy mods cheaper than anyone and so should always maximize
that fact. They should peak their primary weapon as soon as possible
and they should buy DP until it hurts... then they should start
branching out by getting some spells, an alternate weapon, some of
the military skills that Wright is proposing and any other skill that
makes them a more effective (ie employable) mercenary.

GMs should also stop paying everyone in a party the same 500 silver.
Bronk the rate 70 warrior is going to be worth more than a rating
2 firemage. Fact of life.

Marines are also classic killers. Pirates, brawlers and other scum.
I would expect them to be almost as good with a sword and probably
a little handier with their fists (than warriors). Perhaps better
with a sword if you count those lightweight girly type swords.

As it stands, marines don't really have anything special to differentiate
them from warriors with wierd tastes in fighting. For instance:

Mages: spell casting
Priests: communication with god, spell casting
Nomads: Nomadic incants

Thats the magic half of the world. Pretty easy to differentiate.

Warriors: cheap, effective fighting skills
Marines: cheap, effective fighting skills (though less weapon oriented)
Augers: Lots of skills for cheap

Now its my personal belief that Augers were a bad idea. The thief/spy
background was vastly superior and left a general pool of skills that
anyone could get at the same base cost (made since for my non-backgrounded
NPCs), but we have Augers so lets deal with it. Augers have lots of skills.

Of course if we are using the Troika, marines wouldn't really need their
own weapons or stuff they would just pay double for weapon skills (realm
of the warrior) and any other non-magical skill (realm of Augers). This
would give them the extra versatility that they would need to balance
them out. They aren't as good at any type of fighting as warriors, but
they do have a lot of other skills that make them useful. A compromise
niche which is what everything is that falls between points.

There... thats my contribution to the spew. Your up against some 
fundamental system changes that no one is likely to approve and you
probably won't even be able to get enough GMs together to decide to
try it out to see if it _SHOULD_ be approved. 

						-Steve