Topic: Add on elemental attacks vs elemental resistance

[Moriarty]

It isn't really that much more cumbersome (unless you are trying to explain it).

Rolemaster in a nutshell?

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>.

[Old Man]

...

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

[Marc R]

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.

[yammahoper]

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

[Marc R]

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.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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.

[Marc R]

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.)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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".

[Marc R]

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?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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.

[Setorn]

Rasyr, can you explain how we force ICE to do any thing? 

I just might be helpful....

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I gave you a laugh point for that one.. hehe

[Marc R]

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.)

[Ecthelion]

-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.

[Old Man]

...

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

[yammahoper]

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

[markc]

 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   

[Marc R]

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.

[yammahoper]

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

[Marc R]

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.