Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Marc R on January 06, 2008, 01:05:55 PM
-
If the target of an attack has an elemental resistance, say "Resistant to Cold +30 DB / +30 RRs vs cold attacks.
So, if you ice bolt them, they get +30 DB, if they walk into a cold aura that does a 'D' crit if their RR fails, they get +30 to their RR.
Now, you go after them with a broadsword, you cast a spell that lets you do a "Cold Critical of one less severity with melee attacks."
You roll, you get a 20DS result.
Broadsword isn't a cold weapon, so it should still do a 20 'D' Slash result. . .but that means it will also do a 'C' Cold critical. . . .
Should the resistance have any effect here?
Should the enchantment on the sword make it an "Elemental Cold Attack" granting the target +30 DB?
Should you inflict the sword result normally, but reduce the attack by 30 to the 16CS result before inflicting the cold crit? (Thus making it a 'B' rather than a 'C' cold crit.)
Immunity definitely works, in that if the target is "Immune to Cold" they would just ignore ANY cold critical, but elemental resistance would seem to have absolutely no effect in this situation, even if it was a large +50 or +100 resisteance.
-
-30 to the critical roll?
-
-30 to the critical roll?
Thats how I do it. :)
If you feel that it is too powerful, just use half the bonus. (+30 becomes -15 on the critical roll, +20 becomes -10 on the critical roll an so on.)
-
I would say....
The 20 DS stays, but you then apply the 30 DB, and use that NEW result to determine the Cold Critical and only the Cold critical. (i.e. you don't change the attack result for the normal portion of the attack, just the Cold critical portion).
SO the end result is a 20 DS, and a B cold critical.
-
So you'd go with this version?
You roll, you get a 20DS result.
Broadsword isn't a cold weapon, so it should still do a 20 'D' Slash result. . .but that means it will also do a 'C' Cold critical. . . .
Should you inflict the sword result normally, but reduce the attack by 30 to the 16CS result before inflicting the cold crit? (Thus making it a 'B' rather than a 'C' cold crit.)
I liked that one best also, unfortunately it's also the one that's most cumbersome to use in play. . .s'not really all that bad though, since the resistance DB is usually an increment of 5 or 10.
-
ahmm... mis read what you had put there...
But yes,, that is essentially what describing.
If the total attack roll with normal DB was 140, then you look at 110 (the +30 from the protection) to determine the cold crit, and keep 140 for the regular damage).
It isn't really that much more cumbersome (unless you are trying to explain it). You are simply looking at the table a second time. And as you said, the increments are in +5 or +10 so the math is easy.
-
And what about pure elemental criticals? Like the ones coming from a "Wall of Fire"?
If a character with resistance to fire crosses a Wall of Fire does he take an "A" critical just like every other being?
-
I would think yes, that's a fixed crit, no DB or RR involved.
Though I see the angle. . .if you have +50 DB/RR resistance to fire, should it be weaker?
Probably a GM call at that point.
-
Yes, the BD/RRs bonus works in almost all situations, but I feel that a character with a high resistance to an element should receive a bonus against this kind of "unavoidable" attacks, too. After all, if he can resist a firebolt or a fireball, why should he be worried by a firewall? ???
Maybe there should be some kind of critical reduction based on his level of resistance, like a -1 to crit level for each full +20 to BD/RRs bonus?
-
Yes, the BD/RRs bonus works in almost all situations, but I feel that a character with a high resistance to an element should receive a bonus against this kind of "unavoidable" attacks, too. After all, if he can resist a firebolt or a fireball, why should he be worried by a firewall? ???
Maybe there should be some kind of critical reduction based on his level of resistance, like a -1 to crit level for each full +20 to BD/RRs bonus?
Actually, I would, in an instance like this, go with using 2/3 of the original bonus/modifier on the crit roll (rounded off to nearest multiple of 5). Thus, a +30 to DB/RR would result in a -20 to a straight crit roll like that given in your example.
This could work just as easily for LM's question as well.
Why 2/3? Simple, attack rolls to 150. Crit rolls go to 100, and 100 is 2/3 of 150.
-
Actually, I would, in an instance like this, go with using 2/3 of the original bonus/modifier on the crit roll (rounded off to nearest multiple of 5). Thus, a +30 to DB/RR would result in a -20 to a straight crit roll like that given in your example.
This could work just as easily for LM's question as well.
Why 2/3? Simple, attack rolls to 150. Crit rolls go to 100, and 100 is 2/3 of 150.
I like it, thanks Rasyr! ;)
Maybe, since there is no way to handle this problem in the books, should it be made an official ruling?
-
Who knows, it could be....
Let's get some other reactions to it first, before a decision is made. ;D
-
I don't know if its the right thread to ask, but how would you handle this in Harp ? Crits reduction equal to DB bonus ?
-
My only problem with say a -10 to the crit, would be that means "You can't die without an UM 66 roll"
The upgraded resistance types, like "Crit of one less severity" and "Crit of two less severity" only apply a penalty mod to the crit roll when it gets pushed below an A, and you get A-25 and A-50 criticals.
if you're resistant, a push from E to D seems to make more sense than a shift from E to E-10, due to the fact that all the lethal results cluster at the top 10. . .A 20 point resistance would make it almost impossible to crit kill you regardless of crit severity due to the -13 to the crit roll.
There is at least some logic that fits with the add on critical per above.
The Fire Wall thing. . .Unless you say something like "Each 20 points of resistance is equal to 1 column shift of critical for effects that allow no RR" which would make 5 column shifts, or E to nothing, +100, the round number of immunity.
Tough call.
-
-30 to the critical roll?
I would do -6 using the old Ambush conversion (6 ranks is 30 OB or move a crit 6).
Ciao,
Old Man
-
I like more the idea of reduce the attack for that element and apply the new attack elemental crit, it is really hard to apply?, I see it easy and realistic.
But there are 2 problems:
1) direct crits (as wall of fire): if we reduce the critical roll, then resistance is too powerfull, because you directly remove the deadly results, but as there is no RR then elemental resistance (ER) is useless. Reducing the critical every X resistance is a good option but the problem is the A critical (or B if reduce 2 severity, etc.). In the other hand, a GM can decide that those criticals can't kill directly if you have enough ER (for example an A crit), that it can be perfectly credible. So reducing the crit severity IMO is the best option.
2) area attacks: these attacks don't have skill bonus (they use simply skill rank as bonus), so applying the complete ER can make these attacks useless. A good option could be apply half ER bonus, so if you have +20 DB apply +10 DB against area/breath attacks.
- To finish, I should say that IMO magical defense should be more powerfull than natural defenses, so apply this type of limits only to race resistance, but for magical resistance apply them completely, for example, in the case of area spells, apply half bonus for racial resistance and full bonus to magical resistance.
If we look at the books, we se that defensive spells gives few resistance (powerfull spells give maximum of +20 DB/RR) whiloe we see races that have +30 or more for some elements (as dwarves against fire), or adquiring talents, additionally spells are temporal while natural (racial or talent) resistance is permanent.
If I remember well, this is the same case than armors (see DBs table), against area attacks armor DB is halved, but if magical armor you use full DB.
-
In the past for specific weapons and items; I think I have used all of the ideas above but in general I use the DB bonus if the weapon is made of ice or has an aura of ice, if the weapon simply cast a spell that does a cold crit I adjust the crit by the DB bonus.
IMO it all comes down to what the weapon is and where the DB bonus comes from.
MDC
-
Yet a spell such as firewall is not meant to be uber powerful, doing only A or B crits in most versions. A spell that resist fire probably should remove most danger from the wall, creating the very cool image of strolling through the fire with no concern for it.
As such, I have always had heat resistance spells and the like reduce the crit by the bonus provided. Otherwise, the spells are kinda lame and hardly worth throwing up (particularly the ones that require the cleric to skip combat and concentrate to protect the targets).
Defensive spells should always be tougher than the attack spells, and reliable. The idea that a level 50 spell such as protection true would provide only a -5 crit mod is silly. Why even learn defensive spells when luck will serve you better? When defensive spells are weak, it is ALWAYS better to perform an attack rather than waste a round on some dorky defensive spell that might not even be needed in the fight.
And remember, defensive spells work on NPC's the same way.
lynn
-
Lynn is right about everything he said !
I even do have the feeling that the spell list Elemental Shilds is too weak. But it is only a feeling, because I didn't played RM that much. :'(
-
As a sid enot in the past I have doubled all elemental bonuses from spells to "beef" up the nature of the spells.
MDC
-
It isn't really that much more cumbersome (unless you are trying to explain it).
Rolemaster in a nutshell? :D
Seriously, I would make a table. With the bonus to <element> on the X-axis, and on the Y-axis various effects of that bonus -
on elemental bolt attacks, ball attacks, base spell attacks, directly inflicted criticals (no DB/RR), exposure to natural <element>.
-
...
Defensive spells should always be tougher than the attack spells, and reliable. The idea that a level 50 spell such as protection true would provide only a -5 crit mod is silly. Why even learn defensive spells when luck will serve you better? When defensive spells are weak, it is ALWAYS better to perform an attack rather than waste a round on some dorky defensive spell that might not even be needed in the fight.
...
However, 20 DB on the critical table is MUCH better than 20 DB on the Melee table. Think of 20 ranks of reverse Ambush. Hence I would convert. Area of effect RR mods would, as I see it, have less effect against a direct weapon strike.
Ciao,
Old Man
-
I concur on that. -30 DB into -30 on the crit table is way too strong, even 2/3 or -20 is a bit much. (at 2/3 you'd get off the lethal 91-100 results for all criticals at +15 RR/DB resistance)
1/5 works better, in that you'd need to get to -50 before you could avoid the 91-100 lethal crits.
I'd still prefer to see shifts down the table columns E-D-C-B-A and only get minuses when you go below A, but at least the 1/5 keeps a maxed out roll = dead for all but the most resistant.
-
Wow. Do we hate high PC survival rates? Too high ???
These defensive spells have short durations with bonuses against limited attacks. I use both the DB bonus and the house rule crit reduction (though I read it as an optional rule somewhere and adopted it).
Even a -30 crit doesnt stop the hits from the attack or wounds from 01-70 results. It is not over powered or too high. In fact, a 96 crit will still kill you with that modified 66 result, a 1 in 100 chance no matter how you look a it or mod it.
lynn
-
Goose and Gander lynn. . .it also reduces NPC fatalities too. It's not a PC rule, it's a system rule.
"I've hit this damned guy with 10 fireballs and he's still alive?"
If you don't like potentially lethal combat, RM seems a really strange choice of system.
If +DB results affect criticals like that, why can't I just ignore top end criticals by applying my shield or my parry DB into reducing physical attack crits? I'll put 30 of my parry DB into reducing any weapon criticals this round by 30 please. It would be nice to see some consistancy in the rules, especially not yet another rule by exception that applies to spell effects but not all other critical causing situations.
And it's not just spell effects, your good buddies the elves have a nice racial cold resistance. . .would you like to see them run through a storm of ice bolts without risk of fatal injury other than a 66 result?
-30 would mean ignoring all crit rolls to 30.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I can only think of 3 instances where the system actually lowers critical results on the table.
Background Option "Lucky" which modifies all rolls involving the character +/-5 (Which, BTW is crazily powerful)
Creatures & Treasures Crit I "Reduce Crit level by 1" when applied to an A crit, reducing it below and A, gives an A crit -25.
Creatures & Treasures Crit II "Reduce Crit level by 2" when applied to an A crit, reducing it below and A, gives an A crit -50 (or a B to an A-25).
All three of those are rather rare, rather high end effects. I wonder why? Even the mechanics for raising crits is rather difficult and rare. . .perhaps because the difficulty of tampering with the critical results is the core of the system being deadly. . .easy enough to fix that, you can just re-roll all 91-100 and 66 crit results if you want to avoid one shot kills in play.
-
LM, you seem to be mis-interpreting things a bit.
The original question (in Reply #8) dealt with how to handle Resistance (such as +30 to DB/RRs) in situations where there is not DB or RR involved. The answer I gave previously, about reducing the crit was never intended for ALL criticals.
You seem to be interpreting that as if that resistance will affect EVERY critical that could be received (the comment about 10 fireballs and running through storm of ice bolts). It won't affect every critical, only those that do not have a DB or RR associated.
If you are not talking about ALL criticals, then you are not being clear, because some of the things you say make it seem as if you are considering Resistance to reduce all criticals, period. And that only ends up confusing the issue.
In what I was discussing (based on the question asked in Reply #8), you end up with the following 3 situations for characters with Resistance:
1) Attacks against DB - in such cases, Resistance lowers the attack roll, meaning less damage done overall. Resistance has no effect directly on the critical.
2) RR attacks - in such cases Resistance lowers the chance of being affected at all. We are talking a better chance of receiving absolutely no damage at all. Again, Resistance has no effect upon any criticals actually dealt, only on the chance of them being dealt at all. (I consider this the most powerful, since a successful RR can mean no damage/critical at all)
3) Non-DB/Non-RR damage (such as from crossing a Fire Wall) - Having Resistance lower the critical by 2/3 (or maybe as low as 1/2) of the value provided against DB and RR attacks, is a roughly fair value.
Yes, number 3 means less chance of a death crit, but that would be the intended benefit of Resistance in the first place, wouldn't it?
However, the definition of Resistance in C&T says that Resistance will NOT affect unmodified crit rolls of 66 or 100.
This combined with the fact that you CAN also receive a modified 66 crit means that while the chances of receiving some of most dangerous crits have been reduced, your chances of receiving a 100 crit have not changed (chance is still 1%), and your chances of receiving a 66 crit have actually doubled (from 1% chance to a 2% chance -- 1% for the UM 66 and 1% for a modified 66).
But the important part to note is that this ONLY happens for those spells or effects that do a specific critical with no RR or DB involved! In all other instances, Resistance will NOT change the critical.
-
I realise that Tim.
#4 is the original question
4) For elemental crits that add on elemental damage to another attack but offer no RR, you take the non elemental attack normaly, then re-check the chart for the attack taking the elemental resistance DB mod before applying the add on attack. (i.e. the +30 RR/DB vs cold vs a sword + cold crit would not affect the 16DS result, but you lower that by 30 to the 12CS result before applying the "Cold critical of one less severity.)
As to #3. . .the logic already in place in the system where you get E-D-C-B-A-(A-25)-(A-50) results maintains a logic of "resistance" meaning less effect, without it meaning "Non lethal effects" until you push the tables down below A.
I have no problem with a +30 DB/RR having the effect you outline, or some variant therof when it's vs an A critical, but I think going to E - 30 or E - 20 or E -15 doesn't fit in with already existing precedent for damage reduction. An E-30 is weaker than a D (in some ways, weaker than an A).
Taking an E as a D, or a C would retain the logic of reduced damage, without scrapping the logic of high rolls equal death. (Or rolling a 30 and getting "No effect" on an E.)
-
4) For elemental crits that add on elemental damage to another attack but offer no RR, you take the non elemental attack normaly, then re-check the chart for the attack taking the elemental resistance DB mod before applying the add on attack. (i.e. the +30 RR/DB vs cold vs a sword + cold crit would not affect the 16DS result, but you lower that by 30 to the 12CS result before applying the "Cold critical of one less severity.)
That could actually be treated as a subtype of #1 or #3. Depending on how the GM wanted to handle it.
As to #3. . .the logic already in place in the system where you get E-D-C-B-A-(A-25)-(A-50) results maintains a logic of "resistance" meaning less effect, without it meaning "Non lethal effects" until you push the tables down below A.
I actually see this as being a more powerful effect than just reducing a crit a little bit. This is reducing the severity overall, and resistance does not do that.
You are basically arguing for Resistance to reduce critical severity (which ALSO reduces the chance of death criticals), instead of just reducing the damage done.
To me, that ups the power level of Resistance overall.
Taking an E as a D, or a C would retain the logic of reduced damage, without scrapping the logic of high rolls equal death. (Or rolling a 30 and getting "No effect" on an E.)
But you wouldn't be scrapping the "high roll = death" as a UM 100 remains a 100 regardless of any crit modifications.
Your proposed method offers a route to make one effectively immune from criticals altogether, instead of just resistant to them. And that is a dangerous route to take. WIth your method, you remove the chance of ever doing an 'E' critical at all, and that removes 19 specific possibilities, not just one or two.
As it stands, regardless of the critical severity, there is ALWAYS the chance of doing no extra damage. Resistance, to me, means increasing the chance of no extra damage or reducing what damage is done. It does not mean, "this is a path towards effective immunity from criticals".
-
If You make it "For non resistable effects, apply the DB/RR resistance to the critical"
If it's 1:1
+30 would mean cutting the 71-100 results off of all 5 columns.
3:2 (I get the logic, but ugly to use)
Cuts the 81-100 results off of all 5 columns.
1:2
Cuts the 86-100 results off of all 5 columns.
Excepting the UMs
I'd said way earlier, Perhaps 1 column shift per +20 resistance, so it took a +100 to go from an E to an A-25"
For +30 resistance, that would shift all results down one column, eliminating E results, and making A into A -25.
Addressing your second point:
Taken from the Player point of view, would you rather take an E -15, or a D? My gut says the E-15 is weaker than the D, I'd take the gamble and go that direction if offered a choice. I suspect that "Playing the odds" an E-15 is actually probably less scary than a C even.
Based on that logic I have 2 counter points:
1) In the reverse of what you just said, even reducing the crit roll at the mildest 1:2 ratio will cut far more results overall than a column shift would.
2) In the reverse of what you just said, your idea, even at the mildest 1:2 version, is skewing the statistical danger level far more than a column shift would also.
i.e. even at 1:2 ratio, that version is kind of extreme, and is upping the power of resistance far more than any other of the ideas presented here. (With the exception of Old Man's 1:5 ratio, which is strong, but not too much so, a +30 being a -6 on the crit is a totally different ballpark than 1:2 and it meaning -15 on the crit, which is a severe modification of the odds across the board, eliminating pretty much all of the lethal results from all columns, other than UMs)
BTW, you could have one of the mathier folks check it, but it's not really an opinion thing, it's a statistical odds thing, "Odds of an outright death result" are measurable, as are the "Overall Number of potential crit results dropped out.". . .level of change for both of which are signifigantly and measurably higher in your method, than in any of the other ideas expressed here. . .so who's the one excessively increasing the power of resistance here?
-
1) In the reverse of what you just said, even reducing the crit roll at the mildest 1:2 ratio will cut far more results overall than a column shift would.
A column shift cuts 19 results from the total possible. Shifting 2 columns cuts 38 results, etc. On lower crit severities these might not be felt as much
The equivalent in modifying a crit roll cuts, at most, 3 results per severity (i.e. 2/3 or 1/2 of 20, which is the measure you used for a column shift) for a potential total of 15 results.
By your method, a Fire Wall that does an 'A' crit will instead do an 'A - 25' for somebody with a Resistance that grants +20 to DB or RRs. This cuts 5 crits from the normal 19 that are possible. The 71-75 crit becomes the highest possible (while still allowing for UM 100 to use the 100 result).
Using the method I suggest, you would have an 'A-10' (if using 1/2, 'A-13' if using 2/3 for a base +20 DB/RR). This results in the crits 91-95 and 96-99 not being available. 2 crits....
Plus, there is the emotional factor... Doing a higher severity crit, even at a minus is more emotionally satisfying than having to do a lesser severity...
2) In the reverse of what you just said, your idea, even at the mildest 1:2 version, is skewing the statistical danger level far more than a column shift would also.
I disagree, and I am not sure if you could actually show it mathematically.
I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.
And I plan on leaving the decision on how to handle it in the GM's hands unless somebody forces ICE to make a ruling regarding it.
-
Rasyr, can you explain how we force ICE to do any thing? ;D
I just might be helpful....
-
I gave you a laugh point for that one.. hehe
-
You can choose to do it any way you want. . .but here is the logic:
+30/-30 cold resistance, on the cold table in RMC SL.
A mechanism that translates +30 to one column shift drops 17 possible results for ALL possible events.
i.e. you can no longer get E criticals, which are comprised of 17 results. All the boxes for A-D still are possible.
A mechanism that translates +30 into -15 on the critical, eliminates all 85-100 results from all 5 columns. That's 4 results per column x 5 columns, or 20 results eliminated.
(Neither 66 nor 00 are indicated as UM on the table, or in the text in either AL or SL.)
That's 3 more possible results cut via the "reduce the crit roll" method.
OTOH, lethality.
The cold table has 13 boxes with "Death" as a result, of those 5 are on the E table. None of the "66" results are a kill, and only one of the dead results is below 86, the E 81-85.
So raw on cold table, 13 of 85 results kill you, or 15.2%.
If you drop the E table you go to 8 of 68 results kill you or 11.7%.
If you drop all the 86 or higher results 1 of 65 results kill you or 1.5%.
So I'd say that result pretty clearly shows the math, and pretty clearly shows which method is jacking up the power level of resistance more.
The point of most congruity would be +20/-20, still one column shift, but only a -10 on the crit table. This would be the best case scenario for the 1:2 crit mod model.
No E is still 17 results.
No crits of 91 or higher looses 15 results.
Loosing a column is 2 results more.
raw on cold table, 13 of 85 results kill you, or 15.2%.
If you drop the E table you go to 8 of 68 results kill you or 11.7%.
If you drop all the 91 or higher results 3 of 70 results kill you or 4.2%.
So, the loss of the number of criticals ends up being kind of level actually, it's slightly in favor of one or the other back and forth as you go.
But the level of lethality reduction is signifigantly higher with the "Minus the crit roll" at any factor higher than 4:1.
(One other item to note, if you take "Lethal" to also mean comas of at least a month, or permenalty paralyzed from the neck down, the numbers skew even further.)
I'd say that the math supports my assertions above about the lethality issue, though it looks like the number of results is a wash. (For whatever reason, I'd assumed the increments at the top of the chart were smaller.)
-
-30 to the critical roll?
That essentially means that all the deadly critical results are removed and IMO is much too powerful. What we use as a House Rule is that for every +25 RR bonus the severity of the elemental critical is reduced by one. So the 20DS of the 'Cold' broadsword would result in a D Cold for an average human but only a C cold critical for a dwarf with his +30 vs. Cold. Likewise the same dwarf walking through a Wall of Cold would only suffer an A -25 critical instead of the normal A critical. Had the dwarf an additional Cold Resistance spell working on him, granting another +20 RR vs. Cold, he would have a total of +50 vs. Cold an reduce criticals by 2.
-
...
Background Option "Lucky" which modifies all rolls involving the character +/-5 (Which, BTW is crazily powerful)
...
Actually, on this one, I use the same 5 -> 1 rule. So a PC can either add 5 to their DB or subtract one from a critical. (I use this for things such as RMC II Inspirations - you can either subtract the bonus from the roll against you or bonus/5 for the critical.)
I happen to feel the 5 -> 1 scales nicely with the intent of Ambush and Linguistics and said skills where one rank = one not five.
Ciao,
Old Man
-
I have been on this board a long time LM, and I will willingly bet I have killed far more PC's than you. I will even go so far as to say by at least a couple hundred. There was a time were I let the dice and the dice only tell the story. I have no problem wacking a PC, even on a stupid chance encounter that has nothing to do with much of anything (last such death was a few weeks ago against zombies...A crit, 100 roll, no helm. Silly monks).
That said, I also have no problem with defensive magic being worth the effort to cast. Spells that provide the sort of DB you describe, +25's and +30's, are very high level and should be effective. No silly level 8 mage should laugh at a level 50 Protections spell or level 17 Elemental Armor spells. He should FEAR them. They are closed list and very high level. Also, spells have short durations and spell users have limited pp. If the Very High Int Ice Reaver discovers his foe is immune to his cold aura via a visible spell effect, Mr. Ice Reaver should assume a better tactical position and hurl big bolders that do crush or impact damage, not cold. If Mr. Reaver is a low Int idiot, then let the PC whoop him in a toe to toe slug fest. The game isn't played for the joy of Mr. Reaver, but for the people playing the heroic PC's. And PC's like a nice unfair fight from time to time. Sucks to be a NPC.
In the end I do not really care one way or the other how any new spell law is nuetered or if the same ol' same ol' is adopted, repackaged and sold yet once again under some new fancy RMSUPERSIZED name because I will continue to alter spell law to fit my needs (and admittedly, this is even assuming such an action is or would occur in the future, of which I have no idea). I do find it a shame though that if you are going to work on any future version of defensive magic that you would think such magic should not reduce the "danger level" inherient in RM combat. If that is the approach to be adapted, don't waste time with defensive spell list, rather make us some new cool list that are offesive, info gathering or just neat in nature. After all, if it doesnt defend, and defend well (which IS the case with most RM defensive base list today and yesterday, i.e. they are very lame), why call it defensive magic?
Now, it was not my intention to flame anyone or be rude. I do want to strongly express my desire to see effective and meaningful defensive spells in RM beyond Blade Turn, Sheild, Deflections, Blur and one of my favs, Displacement. The elemental protection spells are neat, the elemental armor spells neater, but they need to be more effective, especially against "passive" attacks, such as walls, auras of heat/cold/etc and area affecting spells/attacks (call flame, hard wind, etc). In particular, defensive spells over level 12-15 should be REALLY GOOD. It takes a long time, and often a run of dead characters, to get to those levels. Players deserve better rewards/defenses than they get now for their beloved "Baltokk Halfhand, high level a$$ kicker".
lynn
-
Some other places I remember seeing rules on elemental stuff is the RM2 book Ele Comp and the RMFRP book Ele Comp: Fire and Ice beside the ones Lord Miller pointed out.
For the protection spells I have allways doubled the bonus and subtracted it from the crit roll, the targeting roll, the directed spell roll or the RR roll. Why? Because as Yamma said above the defensive spells shoul really matter. The caster should worry about someone having the defencive spell up and try and dispel it before he casts his elemental attack. And on the same note the mage who has elemental protection should feel it provides somthing extra ordinary for his efforts.
Now the problem I allways had trouble wraping my head around is how does elemental protection relate to the natural elements? What bonus means you can stay out in the extream temp. extr time? The spells that have you feel like you are in a 70-80 degree enviroment IMO are for simple comfort but offer no protection vs the elements. So you feel good but you may have serous frostbite or sunstroke. IMo a higher level spell or additional spell needs to provide the protection.
MDC
-
Yamma. your comment I fully agree with. . .The defensive spells for elements are mostly lame.
We were discussing the specifics of a couple odd spots in the rules before you threadjacked to a broader discussion of elemental defensive spells rather than opening a new thread on that topic.
I think the math above shows the danger of fiddling with the crit rolls, especially on these scales. It'll get crazier if you broaden that to not just the odd "add on crits" like frostsword and "No RR crits" like firewall to any form of resistance.
And I'll repeat: I dislike the idea of resistance messing with crits this way period, but I doubly dislike the idea when there's no way to do so for arms.
Should you be able to declare on your parry, say "I devote 50 to OB, 30 to DB, and 20 to reducing physical criticals?"
If the answer is no, then it's not fair, especially considering how much RM already panders to casters at the expense of non casters.
-
Casters are pandered to in RM, no doubting that.
Yet the mageling can ignore the heat from flaming sword as long as my sword still cuts off his head. Of course OB should not reduce crits. This is an apple and oranges comparison. In one instance we have a spell, a standard thing in most fantasy rpg's that has a special effect, that bends reality, that is magic. On the other we have combat, were you can greatly reduce overall damage by wearing armor and parrying. Spells cannot be parried. They are spells. Resistance rolls are used against spells, and many spells in many systems deliver a minimal ammount of damage anyway.
The same is never true with melee. You miss and do nothing or you hit and do something, be it 1HP or 40E and a 99 crit roll. Spells are resisted, and magic can increase that resistance. Swords cannot be resisted.
This is an arch under which all games with magic are assumed to exist.
lynn
-
But, if the resistance reduces the crit to a lower level, you might still die of it. . .if it takes -10 to -30 from the crit, you've haircut the danger levels down massively, regardless of A-E. . . .but with a step down in crit level, for relatively weak effects like an 'A' firewall, you go down one step to 'A'-25. . .and cannot die from it.
-
Lord Miller and Yammahoper,
Maybe both need to be done. A way to increase the power of elemental spells at higher levels and a way to provide for defencive spells to have a worthy impact in the game.
MDC
-
I am agree with yammahoper in that defensive spells should be stronger. You are talking about +30 DB...what spell gives you +30 DB?, I don't like the idea that are races (dwarves for fire) or with talents you can have more PERMANENT elemental protection than with magic.
I think once all we define a balanced rule for this, post it in ICE Vault as official document, mainly because sometimes some players are a bit stubborn.
To begin, I think all of us are agree with 2 things:
1) double the bonus for spells.
2) don't apply full bonus for natural bonus (race/talent) in certain cases, as against area spells, magical defense ALWAYS is FULL applied. Maybe this 'cases' should be defined better.
-
I was wondering then, how would you apply those resistances to the follow up effects on Lightning Bolts (it is electrical but can have fire and impact elements), Ice Bolts (being mainly an attack of kinetic energy) and other attacks which can have secondary effects
-
This is an interesting question, but I think that when we have found a way to deal with the main problem secondary effects will be solved easly.
Also the secondary and tertiary criticals from the various Bolt spells are not "true" spearate crits, IMHO they're linked to the first critical.
What I mean is that, for example, a Lightning Bolt may give you a secondary "A" Heat crit, but that is not a real "A" crit, it's part of the "F" Electricity crit obtained by the lightning bolt. So, even if it's a Heat crit, it still comes from Electricity and you cannot apply your Heat resistance to it...
-
Marc, I accept and embrace your diplomatic solution.
Good roll ;)
lynn
-
This is an interesting question, but I think that when we have found a way to deal with the main problem secondary effects will be solved easly.
Also the secondary and tertiary criticals from the various Bolt spells are not "true" spearate crits, IMHO they're linked to the first critical.
What I mean is that, for example, a Lightning Bolt may give you a secondary "A" Heat crit, but that is not a real "A" crit, it's part of the "F" Electricity crit obtained by the lightning bolt. So, even if it's a Heat crit, it still comes from Electricity and you cannot apply your Heat resistance to it...
Hmm You'll have to define what protection really is, then. Is it an aura-like shield around the body or does the magic exist in the body?
If it is a shield I would say that a lightning bolt penetrated the shield and that the secondary (Or tertiary) heat is caused in the body. If the magic is IN the body, then the spell would work against that heat critical, be cause IMO heat is heat no matter how it is delivered.
-
So if you had a dwarf (+30 vs Heat) hit badly by a lightning bolt and receiving and "F" crit from it you would reduce the result of the secondary Heat crit?
-
Perhaps it's better to pose a more extreme example to answer that one.
If the target is immune to heat/fire "Takes no damage from fire or heat criticals" is I think the wording. .and you slap them with a lightningbolt result that includes a heat crit, would they ignore it per immunity?
I think the wording of immunity implies that they would only take the elec and impact crits, and you don't even roll the heat crit since they're immune.
-
Finally read through this thread.
I agree with the idea that defensive spells should be stronger then offensive spells in magnitude as they often work against a limited type of attacks.
I think Crit Reduction is the best way to go for Resistance. Modifying the crit roll itself is unprecedented, and again, we are talking about resistances to only certain elements or types of criticals, not against all criticals. If an adjustment is made to the crit roll itself the only thing that makes any sense is 5:1, like Ambush, anything else is way too powerful. A E-20 is a Free Get-Out-Of-Death card (except for that 1% chance of 66). There is no precedence for that in the rules that I can recall.
-
Crit reduction would be great, with the prescedent of -25 and -50 if crits are reduced below A's.
So light armor I, +20DB, 1/2 hits, reduce all lightning crits by I, including secondary crits if any.
lynn
-
Issue would need to address double taps though.
Like, if I lightningbolt you, you shouldn't necissarily get +20 DB and a crit reduction.
No problem with "Walk through lightning wall, no attack roll or RR, reduce crit by 1 level" in that situation.
As to secondaries, I'd think "Reduce by 1" would make an F an E, rather than making the E and A that make up the F into a D and an A-25. . .then again, my "immunity" comment above would almost seem to say that you're right.
-
Just to muddy things a litle more, what do protective magic protect you from ?
Against the magic powering the attack or the elemental manifestation of it. That is, do your elemental resistance (ice) protect against the magic throwing at you the ice bolt or against the ice shards being propelled ? In the latter case, then it acts more like a a deflection IMO.
BTW, does a Cold resistance serve against a icebolt, granting you DB. After all, it's a cold-based attack in name only.
I think part of the problem stems out of magical attacks against which nothing protects (elemental wall for example). Every other spells are either resisted or you can apply your DB against them. Those 'no RR' spells are just handled differently, hence the problem.
The resistance spells are definitively designed to work against RR or DB spells. May be the only solution would be to change the 'no RR spells' and make them normal ones ?
Anyway, I don't think that any spell should suppress the sudden death completely, lest you play RM no more... Maybe a powerful elemental protection can make you invulnerable to any critical under C (eg 20th lvl spell), but IMHO, no mere resistance or armor spell should be absolutely safe. After all, no armor, no matter how thick, will guarantee you can not be beheaded.
-
To begin, I think all of us are agree with 2 things:
Sorry, but not all of us agree to the above. At least I don't.
1) double the bonus for spells.
I agree that the defensive spell should give better protection than they do at the moment. But I am quite sure that the solution to simply double the RR bonus is not a good one. It may be part of a solution, but not more.
2) don't apply full bonus for natural bonus (race/talent) in certain cases, as against area spells, magical defense ALWAYS is FULL applied. Maybe this 'cases' should be defined better.
Why should this be done? If you think that in comparison to the spells the racial bonuses are too high then it might be better to reduce the racial bonuses and e.g. cut them in half. But adding complexity but defining in which cases to only apply a part of the bonus would not be a good solution.
-
I usually draw a rather sharp line between natural elements and magic or super natural elements.
Races with a bonus against some elements (like the +30 for dwarfs), can only apply that bonus against the natural form of the element. It have no influence on the resistance against the Super Natural form.
(This is also the case of the spells from Elemental Shields. Heatarmor for example protect against all natural heat, and modify spells with heat by 20.)
As the question about Ice bolt, I'll have to say that in theory it is the physical impact of the Ice that do the damage and not cold, However for the sake of simplicity I would go with the wording of the spell and give the caster a +20 db, since it is a spell involving cold.
I have forgotten the reason why I just substracted the bonus from the critical, but I thought that it was a rule. However looking through the books didn't help until I got hold of Spell Users Companion.
On Spell users Q&A on page 146, Question 9: How does Heat/Cold resistance affect a character who goes through a Wall of Fire or a Wall of Cold?
Answer: Substract the bonus given from the spell from the critical roll.
However I have to say that after following the debate here, I will change the way I handle the Elemental Shields spell and go with the Crit severity shift instead.
Of cause that only apply in the case where DB and Resistance roll doesn't apply.
-
Like, if I lightningbolt you, you shouldn't necissarily get +20 DB and a crit reduction.
I am agree, bonuses should be applied only once, so against attacks you apply DB, if there is no attack (crit without RR) then modify crit., and if there is crit if failed RR, apply it to RR.
2) don't apply full bonus for natural bonus (race/talent) in certain cases, as against area spells, magical defense ALWAYS is FULL applied. Maybe this 'cases' should be defined better.
Why should this be done? If you think that in comparison to the spells the racial bonuses are too high then it might be better to reduce the racial bonuses and e.g. cut them in half. But adding complexity but defining in which cases to only apply a part of the bonus would not be a good solution.
I think are not high, in a 100 based system (100 roll + 100 skill bonus possible) are not too high. The problem are rolls that are not based on 100 bonus skills, as area spells, appling full bonus for those attacks can make the resistance too high, but ONLY in that case.
If I remember well, in 'monsters & creatures' is suggested that you use half DB against area attacks, an easy method for not hard computation (search for QU, resistances, etc. for that creature).
1) double the bonus for spells.
I agree that the defensive spell should give better protection than they do at the moment. But I am quite sure that the solution to simply double the RR bonus is not a good one. It may be part of a solution, but not more.
Maybe should be based on spell roll (as roll/4 for lesser spells, roll/2 for medium spells, etc.), so more ranks in spell lists, more powerfull the spells.
I forgot to mention that we can't forget about 'spell mastery', you can increase spell power (double, triple...) the effect, so increasing the bonus could be allowed for defensive spells. This option is not provided in basic skill description or in SoHK, so we could add it.
I think it can be a good solution for ALL defensive spells and a reward for specializing in a defensive spell list (the -50 OB for bladeturn, -10 OB/10 RR fail, the bonus for 'magic defenses'). But, as many of defensive spells are instantaneous, the SCSM roll should be avoided and only use the risk of skill fumble, or in the case of using it, change the 'you can cast the next round with no roll' result for 'the spell is converted to class I' (so then initiatives are used).
-
I think are not high, in a 100 based system (100 roll + 100 skill bonus possible) are not too high. The problem are rolls that are not based on 100 bonus skills, as area spells, appling full bonus for those attacks can make the resistance too high, but ONLY in that case.
If I remember well, in 'monsters & creatures' is suggested that you use half DB against area attacks, an easy method for not hard computation (search for QU, resistances, etc. for that creature).
I think that the DB is halved only because quickness is not going to help you very much in evading a fireball... I think that applying the whole BD bonus for racial resistance against Ball attack is ok. Balls hit with very low results, so a Fireball against a dwarf is probably going to do only a few hits, which I think is right, since the dwarf is resistant to fire...
-
Since this has started up in a newer thread, I thought I would repond here even thought the thread is a little "cold".
I had an Idea to Keep it much simpler than having to look up 2 results on a weapon attack table and covers static effects like a wall of fire under the same rule.
each increment of 25 resistance reduces the crit result 1 level. You have to be within 5 points of the 25 mark to gain the reduction.
20-25 resistance or greater= -1 severity level
45-50 or greater = -2 severity levels
70-75 or greater= -3 severity
95-100 or greater = -4 severity
and so on and so on.
This helps to cover all aspects. So a dwarf with a +30 resitance to fire would reduce all fire criticals 1 level.
-
I'd like to think that -100 equates to immunity. Like an Elf's +100 vs Disease modifier.
Easier way to look at that logic would be to say "Every -20 = 1 crit reduction"
So -100 is 5 steps, or E to D to C to B to A to nothing.
but, the rules already do have the logic of "A crit reduced 1 step = A -25" and "A crit reduced 2 steps = A -50" which would make that logic really:
So -100 is 5 steps of -20, or E to D to C to B to A to A-25.
A-100 would be "Nothing" or "No possible Effect", following the -25, -50 logic that would seem to be:
E to D to C to B to A to A-25 to A-25 to A-75 to A-100.
Which, is 8 steps, not the most friendly number.
reduce 1 crit level per -12.5? That would mean that a +100 resistance to something means you cannot take damage from it and are immune. Not the best number in the world, with that .5 in there, but it does seem to make logical sense.
So Resistances vs no attack roll, no RR critical results:
1-11 = no effect on critical
12-24 = -1 severity
25-37 = -2 severities
38-50 = -3 severities
51-62 = -4 severities (immune to A or less)
63-75 = -5 severities (immune to B or less)
76-87 = -6 severities (immune to C or less)
88-99 = -7 severities (Immune to D or less)
100 = -8 severities (immune)
(I know there are F, G, H, etc crits, but all are rolled as E+A or E+B)
-
OK, so I am a little late to the party...... :P
As for the "do the defensive spells defend against the element the spell creates or the spell itself" question: It protects from the element created which is why it is called Lightning Armor or Heat Armor or whatever. If it was against the "raw" magic of the spell it would be a Cancel or Dispel spell (which they have).
For racial bonuses being natural or supernatural: that all depends upon how the GM interprets the race for that particular world. If they say the dwarves resistance to heat/fire is because they are always in their forges or their underground cities are near lava tubes, then it can be deemed "natural." If they say it is because they have magical resistance - well that speaks for itself doesn't it?!? :) What difference this makes (I believe) should be very little. Because the spell pulls in or creates the element in question the natural/supernatural resistance should help in defending them. If it really bothers you to have a "natural" defense help against a "supernatural" attack, than don't let it, or halve it. Whatever works for you.
The +100 resistance equalling immunity I did not know, I always thought that immunity meant immunity and if there was a number (no matter how high) meant that a roll had to be made in case they flubbed. If the individual/race/creature/whatever is going to be immune to a particular attack or element or whatever than maybe it should just be listed as: IMMUNUTY. (Crazy, I know, but I am a rebel like that. :o)
As for the +/- 20 protection from fire (or whatever) I would just apply the +20 to DB vs. Bolt/Ball/Cone/Parallelograms and/or the -20 to whatever crit roll was achieved (but only to the crit type the protection works against) if it says it is to do that - most don't. As for it against the static effect (wall spells, etc.) I might half it and apply it to the critical roll - or I might not have it help at all. I mean, they are trying to run through a WALL OF FIRE (or whatever) If it says -1 level of crit, I would subract from that crit and if it meant they did not get an F crit (i.e., an E crit + an A crit), then they don't. That is the power of the protection. If it says both, than they get boths (That would be some serious protection!)
-
yeah, it does get snarky. . . .and immunity does actually work differently.
if you have a +80 RR/DB to fire, and for instance that meant 4 crit reductions. . . .
You walk into a wall of fire. . .you could even stand in it and hang out. . .you could go to sleep in it, as you're effectively immune to A crits.
But a firebolt, rolled well, could inflict an A crit on you, since for that the resistance is just DB.
While an immune would just ignore both, no need to even roll the firebolt.
Which is kind of strange. . . .in the end, the only way to really make a shift like this make wholistic sense, you'd make damage resistance vs a given type of damage only affect one end, rather than DB/RR or crit depending on circumstance.
-
using the chart Like I or LM devised above, makes the most sense to me as Most elemental attacks hit point damage from the innital attack doesn't always have direct relation to the element being used. For instance, many of the bolts and Ball attacks are doing Impact damage when they hit as well as an elemental crit. Balls from the explosion they do, watter bolts, Air bolts and lighting bolts from the Impact. So unless a Creature is immune to ALL impact/crushing type attacks, they would still be effected by the attack, but the if they have immunity to the element being used the elemental crit would still be reduced.
-
The more I think about it, the more I feel that the way proposed by Dark Schneider here: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6644.0 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6644.0)
of treating "critical-delivering" spells like a Ball Attack is the one that makes more sense. Actual versions of these spells IMHO is just incoherent with the rest of the system. It would be a lot better, and a lot less confusing, if all attacks were treated in the same way: using attack tables.
-
I'd like to think that -100 equates to immunity. Like an Elf's +100 vs Disease modifier
I think this a fallacious statement.
Immunity is immunity. An RR mod is just that, a bonus to resist. A +100 rr mod is great...unless you are faceing a level 100 attack. ALL a +100 says if that you have GREAT resistance against the average attack. No immunity is implied.
lynn
-
I actually have to agree, -100 and immune are not the same. . . I would like it if it were true, but it just doesn't work out that way. . .it's one of those things that makes this question less than clear cut and easy to answer.
-
I actually have to agree, -100 and immune are not the same. . . I would like it if it were true, but it just doesn't work out that way. . .it's one of those things that makes this question less than clear cut and easy to answer.
True LM. And I did not intend to come off so strong, but I feel the 100 equals immunity was taking an interesting conversation down the wrong path.
Back to lurking.
lynn
-
It points out an inherant problem with the way resistance is expressed, namely "+100 RR / +100 DB vs X" when the two scales are very different.
+100 RR is almost, not quite, but almost immune in actual game mechanics fact. Elves are described as "their bodies are immune to viral and bacterial infections" and get a +100 RR to Disease. (So +100 to RR is being equated to "immune")
A 1st level elf has to roll over a 0 to resist a 20th level Disease. (Any GM inflicting 20th level effects on 1st level characters is being rather nasty at that.)
+100 DB is not anything like immune. The difference between "Deflections" -100 to missile attack and "Aim Untrue" making any missile attack miss, demonstrate that. . .and while it's hard, it's not impossible to strike someone with 100 DB. (So +100 DB is NOT being equated to immune).
Which leads to weird results. . .ala if a character has +100/+100 resistance to heat, then likely they could casually interact with an "E" level effect that requires an RR, but they may take "A" criticals from bolt or ball attacks.
This is because there are far more OB bonus elements than there are RR reduction elements in play.
The end result being that that when you try to balance a resistance to a normally unresistable effect to the RR bonus scale, you get a totally different result than if you tried to balance it to the DB bonus scale.
i.e. short of dumping the "Andromeda Strain" into your game, the elves will ignore disease because their +100 RR to disease makes them immune to it. . .but if you added a spell list with the spell "Disease Bolt" to your game, elves most certainly couldn't ignore it the way the mechanics currently work.
In the end, +X to RR is better, a lot better, than +X to DB vs. . .
I'm not really sure you can overcome that split of the logic of the game mechanics without having one overide the other.
-
In the end, +X to RR is better, a lot better, than +X to DB vs. . .
Yes, I agree.
A solution could be totally dumping RRs and handling everything with a mechanic similar to normal attacks. So, instead of having a RR bonus against the various Realms, Poisons, Diseases, etc, characters would have a DB against Realms, Poisons, ...
Obviously this solution is a bit extreme and to adopt it you would have to change a LOT of things first... ;D
-
In the end, +X to RR is better, a lot better, than +X to DB vs. . .
Yes, I agree.
A solution could be totally dumping RRs and handling everything with a mechanic similar to normal attacks. So, instead of having a RR bonus against the various Realms, Poisons, Diseases, etc, characters would have a DB against Realms, Poisons, ...
Obviously this solution is a bit extreme and to adopt it you would have to change a LOT of things first... ;D
Do you realize that this is basically what D&D 4e is doing?
-
Rather than convert RR to DB, or DB to RR, I'd think that changing both to critical reduction would work better. . .ala "Reduce all X crits by Y steps".
That would essentially work out with the logic of Warl's answer, which is that if an elf had "Reduce Cold crits by 2 steps" as their cold resistance, then they would take A Cold crits as A-50 cold crits, meaning they're unlikely to be harmful. . .but if you hit them with a cold bolt or ball, they would be just as easy to hit as a human of the same armor type or DB, and take the impact related hits the same way, but take a lesser cold critical. . .
Thus, a C critical caused by a cold wall, one caused by a frost blade, or one caused by a cold bolt, cone or ball would all be reduced in the same manner, in the same proportion, two steps to A criticals.
Of course, that would mean re-jiggering all the resistance racial abilities, and all the spells that offer resistance, which is a bit of a PITA. . .though you could just use a conversion table.
-
the minor difficulty comes in applying this to poisons and Diseases as these do not (typically) have critical effects, but they do have levels of severity.
there are only 4 levels of severity for diseases and poisons. (rather than the 5 A-E critical effects and even then there are more than that going into F, G H crits which are just double crits.)
so now the question becomes, how would we handle Resistance versus these 2 effects and be consistent?
the best answer i can come up with is, the resistance does not effect the RR roll but instead effects the severity level.
the question becomes again, "how Much RR bonus equals a drop in severity?"
Poison and diseases only have 4 levels of severity, the the results of the RR roll could be over 101+.
if we use the same +20 RR equals 1 drop in severity, then one only needs +80 RR to be immune. If we make it +25 = one drop in severity, the +100 equals immune.
The problem with this method also increases with RR failures of greater than 101+. though this doesn't happen all that often.
so again Like Yamma says, this doesn't work out as equally when applying it to RRs versus a spell that has nothing to do with crits or damage, Poison attacks and resiting diseases.
-
Do you realize that this is basically what D&D 4e is doing?
Yes, this is one of the things that I like of what I've seen of 4e. ;)
IMHO using the same mechanics for all similar things (in these case, attacks/ harmful effects) is a very good thing.
-
Do you realize that this is basically what D&D 4e is doing?
Yes, this is one of the things that I like of what I've seen of 4e. ;)
IMHO using the same mechanics for all similar things (in these case, attacks/ harmful effects) is a very good thing.
Yeah, I thought it was a decent idea as well. Not sure how to properly apply it to RM or HARP though (nor is this thread the proper place to explore it either). There are a few other things that I thought were interesting as well (though I didn't like the "At Will" spells/abilities like Magic Missile).
-
Do you realize that this is basically what D&D 4e is doing?
Yes, this is one of the things that I like of what I've seen of 4e. ;)
IMHO using the same mechanics for all similar things (in these case, attacks/ harmful effects) is a very good thing.
I would be very interested in what you have to say about this after the books come out or if you have the pre-realese adventure and are playing in it.
MDC