Topic: Balancing factor of Combat Styles

[shnar]

I was reviewing Combat Styles with another GM and he came to the conclusion that styles should not be able to mix 'n match certain maneuvers. His claim is that a style cannot have heavy defensive maneuvers and offensive maneuvers in the same style.

For example, for me, the "ultimate" style is:
 - 2 : Single Weapon
 - 3 : Shield Training
 - 1 : Block
 - 1 : Defensive Block
 - 1 : Sacrifice Strike

I made a character with that combo, and he was extremely leathal. At lvl 5, he had 17 ranks in his style. With a Full Shield, that's +17DB. With Defensive Block, he didn't have to Parry much to have a really high DB in a fight. So he would do a little Defensive Block and once he got a minor crit in that stunned his opponent, he would do a full on Sacrifice Strike. The +17 to Crit would almost always kill the opponent.

So, he came to the conclusion that having all of those maneuvers in the same Style was unbalancing and then didn't seem to make sense. He felt that some maneuvers need to be exclusive to other maneuvers. For example, a style that has Defensive Block is a heavy defensive style, and therefore should not have any offensive maneuvers, such as Sacrifice Strike, or Killing Strike, etc. And so for a character to know both maneuvers, he/she would have to develop the two different styles.

Thoughts on this?

-shnar

[markc]

 IMO a GM can do anything they want to keep there game balanced.

 Now that i have made my standard answer. IMO it is a good idea to keep track of balancing factors such as you talked about.
1) Also how does your PC know he stunned the opponet? If it is a maneuver roll then IMO that is fine but if it is free info then IMO it would change your attack options if you do not know that your opponet is stunned. [In general sometimes I do make PC's roll to see the status of there opponet and other times I volenteer the info.]

2) In general I try and keep styles focused on one of the three ideals defense, balanced and offensive or some say hard, balanced and soft martial arts and weapon arts. I also try and make styles that are knock offs of real styles but I also can go way over board.

 I also try and keep in mind that the PC's opponets can also use such styles or if the style is really good maybe balance it out by requiring other skills or special social talents/associations.

MDC

[RandalThor]

Determining exactly how your opponent is doing in combat is definately something that needs to be dealt with; too many actions are dictated by meta-game information, imo. (Which is why I am really disliking DnD 4e, which I have played twice in the last 2 months.)

This is especially true in games that make their combat rounds short. (Like, lets say, um... 2 SECONDS!)

As for balancing a combat style, you could say that the ones that have a lot of maneuvers are Restricted and cannot ever be made into everyman - even with professional abilities or talents. Or you could make them take a high cost talent in order to be able to have access to that style.

BTW: a +17 DB is not too much, in RM:C/X, or RMSS/FRP. A +170 DB would be (unless your game is level 50+).

[shnar]

BTW: a +17 DB is not too much, in RM:C/X, or RMSS/FRP. A +170 DB would be (unless your game is level 50+).

The +17 is just one more straw on the camel's back. At level 5, my char has a 67DB (with Shield Training, +12 from QU, a +10 Full Shield, and +10 Armor) and a 117OB with his spear and the style listed above. In a fight with someone about same level, I'll only parry 25 with Defensive Block, giving me an attack of 92OB and 117DB. Those are pretty good odds. Also, because the Defensive Block reduces initiative a lot (-10), I'll make the attack Deliberate (RMSS rules) and get an additional +10OB. An attack of 102OB/117DB is a pretty tough character, even at level 5.

Now, perhaps we should start hiding the results of our attacks, but as it is right now, we each have a copy of the weapon we're using and we read off to the GM the damage, so everyone knows all the damages. It helps speed up combat a lot.

But, having said that, the +17DB really helps both with the Defensive block as well as the Sacrifice Strike. With 17 ranks in my Style, I can safely sacrifice 64DB, still have 3DB just in case, but get a +48OB and +16CRIT! We found out in our last round of combat that that was an extremely lethal combination of maneuvers.

Couple that with the fact that this character has the Bane which gave an additional +50 to the crit, elves were dying left and right. Even without the +50, at most they lasted two crits. So you can probably see why one GM felt it was a bit unbalancing...

-shnar

[markc]

Shnar,

 I went and looked at the CC and did the math and yes you are fine with the numbers. In the first paragraph but in the third paragraph you have some problems. First you gain +3 OB, -1 Init and +1 crit for every 4 DB you sacrifice. So with 17 ranks you can sacrifice 16 points [no partial #'s] which gives you +12OB, -4 Init and +4 Crit roll. These #'s are a lower than yours and might have changed the combat a little. But your Bane is brutal and that can make a big difference also.

 MDC

 

[pastaav]

Is is just me...or isn't the problem exactly that Sacrifice Strike is too good to be true no matter what style it is included in?

I have not purchased Combat Companion (still waiting for my HARP collectors book), but from the descriptions you have given this maneuver seem totally awesome.

Even in the absence of knowing if the opponent is stunned this skill is really powerful. If you flank a person you get a bonus that is supposed to model that you are in really good position to deliver damage. With Sacrifice strike you can use that bonus to get a free ambush attack...sounds broken if you ask me..

Reminds me a bit about the feint skill that written about in house rules section of forum
http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=6953.0

[RandalThor]

Couple that with the fact that this character has the Bane which gave an additional +50 to the crit, elves were dying left and right. Even without the +50, at most they lasted two crits. So you can probably see why one GM felt it was a bit unbalancing...

-shnar

Elf-slayer. I like that.

OK, yeah those numbers are really good, and a bit high for 5th level, but I have a dislike for games (either the game itself, or the GMs take on it) that say the PCs are above average, but then don't let them actually be so. I am all for the PCs being the next thing to superheroes, especially in a game as deadly as RM. When an errant hit can kill you outright, having that extra bit of safety net is necessary, imo. Let's all remember that the PCs are constantly going into some very dangerous situations and just by the law of averages they are going to receive some very hard hits, so any extra defense is needed. (Anyone who wants to refute this, go and play Traffic-Tag everyday and expect not to get hit eventually. Probably sooner rather than later.) When my fighter is trying to take out that guard as quietly as possible, and he is just a guard, not the guard seargant or some other special individual, I do not want to feel I have to get etremely licky just to do so. I want to feel as though my fighter can deal with the majority of guards without much problem - at least one-on-one. The only other way of doing this is to give the characters (and not all NPCs) a bunch of Fate Points (like in HARP) to use each session. Which I am a fan of as well.

Rant over, sorry. I recently played the dang DnD 4e and was seriously disappointed (read: aggrivated).

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

shnar - it sounds like you min-maxed the character and are now complaining that you did too good of a job. 

Couple of things that I would like to point out...

1) Deliberate Actions & Special Maneuvers -- Special Maneuvers, I would say, are already Deliberate attacks, and therefore should not receive the +10 that other Deliberate Maneuvers would get. Remember, they were designed with the RMC tactical/initiative sequence in mind, and that doesn't include "Deliberate Actions". But since these maneuvers are already trying to achieve a specific goal, that would classify them as "deliberate" to begin with.

2) Something that I did not realize before, but it is important here, I think....

The Combat Styles were designed for use with Arms Law tables. That means around 70-90 rows on the attack table and 95 critical results (in 5 columns) versus the approximately 30 rows on the CC attack tables and 23 critical results on the single column crit table.

With that many fewer results not being something that was factored in, it may be that the Special Maneuvers ARE too good for the Condensed Combat Tables, and that all rank based bonuses should be divided by 5 (i.e. you are allowed to adjust things by 1 increment for every 5 ranks in the style -- i.e instead of +17 to crits, you would only be getting +3 max).

3) The idea behind the Sacrifice Strike is that you are making a sacrifice to make the attack and making it good. If you are only using it when the foe is stunned, then it isn't really a sacrifice, and in that case (and IMO), you shouldn't get a benefit from it. To me, using it only when the foe is stunned, is an abuse of its intent.

4) Sharing the duties on reading critical tables is fine. However, just because the player knows something, that does not mean that the character knows. The character shouldn't always know when a foe is stunned, or how badly he is stunned. (i.e. staggered looks much the same as stunned, no parry).

5) It also sounds like the GM messed up by not allowing the elves to use the same maneuvers. He should have had some of them use the same sort of tricks on you guys. 

[Dark Schneider]

Think that for missile 'Sacrifice Strike' (it has another name) you are not in danger anyway as you are at distance, so, is for missile unbalanced too?.

Add to this that foe can 'stun recover', so if you attack with full OB and 'Sacrifice Strike', and your opponent recover from stun state, and the worst, it wins the initiative, you are in a big trouble.

How many times we see in films how the 'hero' kills the bad guy with a 'surprise' attack when it appears to be defeated?, so save yourself from that!.

[thrud]

When the talk about a new ?ber attack started circling the board I decided to check it out.
My gut reation: it's overrated! I'll never have the impact on the game that shnar's saying if the GM has a mind of his own.
The single most unbalancing factor EVER is a GM that'll allow the players to make use of flashy new special rules-addons but not the bad guys.
Or if you flip it around a GM that keeps the pc's short but let the opposition get away with anything.

I think CC is probably the best new product in a very long time. Still, having said that it still needs a brand new arms law buildt around abtp to make full use of abtp. Keeping the old arms law I think abtp is still somewhat premature. Everything else seams to work just great.
I 2'nd the thoughts about knowning who's stunned and who's not. The GM can make it both easy and hard. You can get the info for free or through a perception roll, it's all up to the GM. And what about the opponent with acting skill? Acting stunned would be a great way to get the pc off balance.

I was raised by a very viscious GM...
There is no such thing as safe.... EVER!!!

[Emaughan]

My players have found that acting skill picks have great value in combat.

[Arioch]

So, he came to the conclusion that having all of those maneuvers in the same Style was unbalancing and then didn't seem to make sense. He felt that some maneuvers need to be exclusive to other maneuvers. For example, a style that has Defensive Block is a heavy defensive style, and therefore should not have any offensive maneuvers, such as Sacrifice Strike, or Killing Strike, etc. And so for a character to know both maneuvers, he/she would have to develop the two different styles.

Thoughts on this?

-shnar

I don't think that such a style is "unbalancing" (I prefer Killing Strike to Sacrifice Strike, since it doesn't lessen your initiative, which makes it a more "versatile" maneuver).
Combining offensive and defensive maneuvers in the same style makes a lot of sense to me: a style focused only on one of the two types of maneuver would be too specialized and not very belivable imho...
Your style has 2 great weakness imho, which as a master I would exploit from time to time:
- it's focused on a single weapon: if you lose it you're in trouble (well, almost everyone is but you got less backup options  ). Enemies skilled in Disarm, Sacrifice Disarm or Disarming Throw can be quite nasty against you...
- it's very defensive: you could have great trouble facing another defensive style (against which you could be forced to use your Sacrifice Strike, opening your defenses to maneuvers like Riposte or to attacks of other enemies).
Also, you should beware enemies using the Feint maneuver...

As you see, the style is not overpowered, there are many situations in which you could have a hard time using it...

Think that for missile 'Sacrifice Strike' (it has another name) you are not in danger anyway as you are at distance, so, is for missile unbalanced too?.

There's no "sacrifice" manuever for missile attacks.

[shnar]

shnar - it sounds like you min-maxed the character and are now complaining that you did too good of a job. 

Heh, it's not that I'm complaining, because I love the addition to the system, it's just that I'm trying to find the right balance. As we look in more detail at a couple of the maneuvers, we keep thinking we would never use manuevers X over maneuver Y, so why bother including it in the style? That's leading us to a couple of thoughts:

A) We're using RMSS, and due to BG Options or Cultural Options, a lot of our players have one or more of their weapon skills as Everyman skill. This is making the Combat Styles rather powerful, maybe even too powerful. We might just remove the Everyman option for Combat Styles.

B) Style Maneuver Prereqs. We're thinking that some of the maneuvers will require other maneuvers to get. Sacrifice Strike is one of the examples. We're thinking that to get Sacrifice Strike, your style must also contain Killing Strike. To get Killing Strike, your style must also contain Offensive Strike. That added cost to the style (I know, only 2 pts more) we feel will help balance things out.

C) We're still not extremely clear on how Combat "Options" are used in conjunction with "Maneuvers". For example, Defensive Weapon (I think that's what it's called, the Main Guache option), can you use any maneuvers with it? Paired Attack, if you use it, are you not allowed to use manuevers, etc. A lot of our players don't like that if they use 2WC, they can't use any maneuvers with it, and so are considering dropping 2WC in favor of Shield + Shield Training. The added DB plus the ability to do a maneuver like Defensive Block or Killing Strike seems like a much better alternative than just 2 attacks.

Anyways, I hope it's not being seen as complaining. We love the addition of the Combat Companion (finally got my hardcover in the mail too) and like both the Combat Styles and the Condensed System, though it's unfortunate the two are not usable in conjunction with each other. Time to expand the 'condensed' system a bit!

-shnar

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

The Style rules were written mostly with RMC in mind. The fact that they can easily be used with RMSS/FRP is serendipitous, and honestly, not a lot of thought was given to a lot of the special situations that crop up in RMSS, especially if you are using a lot of the talents and/or other features of it that essentially end up min/maxing characters. When you do include those things, you are going to encounter MORE problems than not.

Shnar -- in reading some of the other threads, your character cannot be called a typical character, not with a quickness bonus that is double what is given for a stat of 99. If your other stats are anywhere within that range, then yeah, the Specific Maneuvers are going to be super powerful, but not because of the maneuvers themselves, but because your character is super powerful to begin with. Try it with a normal character, with stat bonuses that are within normal ranges, with no Everyman skills, no Bane against Elves, etc. I think that you would find it more balanced overall.

A) Occupational/Everyman/Restricted (O/E/R) skill classifications are something that I personally consider to be overly complicated and not a good addition to Rolemaster at all. Flat bonuses and changes to skill costs would have worked much better I think. In any case, when ICE does get around to revising Rolemaster again, that is going to be one feature that fades away...

B) Prerequisites -- Always a good thing, especially if based on the setting/situation. If you are going to add prerequisites, I would make it require Killing Strike AND Defensive Strike (since it has elements reminiscent of both).

C) I think you mean Defensive Ward. And if you do - its description specifically mentions Parrying. Parrying is a part of the Basic Strike, not part of the Specific Maneuvers.

The whole idea is to give the fighter types MORE options, not allow them to stack every single option/choice on top of one another to make them uber-tanks (which is what you seem to be asking for, or saying that the other players in your game are asking for). In regards to TWC (and again, the players seem to want to min/max here, to get the most benefit for the least effort -- nothing wrong with that, but it is rarely balanced, and if you or your GM allow it, then don't complain about it being too powerful  ), I have mentioned previously an option in EA8 which ALLOWS what they are asking for. Thus, if they want that capability, then they need to refer to EA8.

And actually, the Styles and the Condensed Combat System should be usable with one another, even if the style rules are a little more powerful with the Condensed Combat System than they are with Arms Law. I am beginning to think (especially after my last post, and my reading of your other posts regarding your character), that more of the problem is coming from you playing what amounts to a super character, not from the system itself.   

Time to expand the 'condensed' system a bit!

You can always submit a proposal, or even several EA articles (like a full page crit table in each...)

[shnar]

Actually, my character isn't that Uber, though some of the ones in my campaign are. My orc's QU is only 88, his DB with a +10 full shield and +10 armor is only 57 (74 with the Shield Training option in his Style). The fact that Polearms are Everyman is simply part of the Greater Orc culture. I do however have Bane as a talent, which does add to his effectiveness against elves. But other than that, he's not really that tough.

We just noticed that the use of Defensive Block + Sacrifice Strike was *extremely* effective and were thus concerned about the balancing factor. And it's true, the GM for this campaign is relatively inexperienced with Rolemaster, and no experience with Combat Styles, even though we explained it to him. Perhaps crafting a style that the elves *should* have and telling him to start using it may help there (though that means I'll just be using Defensive Block more than with just 25 parry ).

Having said that, as I was discussing the overall system with another GM (he's the one with the 100+DB orc, a lot tougher than my orc), we were just coming to some intriguing conclusions with Styles. The one thing we were noted is if you allow players to craft their own styles, then there's the potential of min/maxing, and how should we counter balance that. Honestly, with my character, I just decided what I wanted my cost to be in the Style, and then figured out how many points that gave me to spend on maneuvers, options, etc.

And thinking even more about this, I think (and we're going to implement in our campaigns) the real "fix" is to not let the players come up with their own style, but rather have cultural styles already set for the gaming world at large. i.e. there are two or three styles that Barbarians use, a few styles that Orcs would use, some styles that Urban Seamen would use, etc. Picking a style outside your culture will require GM approval and may even require a BG Option. A player may perhaps craft their own style but only with heavy review and approval of the GM.

You can always submit a proposal, or even several EA articles (like a full page crit table in each...)

Ha! Maybe I just will! Feel free to email any suggestions on "rules" to follow while making a crit chart (yes, I know all the RM authors dread them, but I'm assuming there is some kind of general guideline they follow).

-shnar

[thrud]

It's really all bout gaming style. The most battlehardened character we have in our group at the moment is a nightblade. NO FIGHTERS AT ALL!!!
My Archmage is trying to get his s**t togeather and will be providing some combatskills. Of course the ranger will eventually improve on his archery and the Healer will get the hang of his staff sooner or later. All in all our group would be pathetic if we put both our respective groups up for a comparrison, combatwise at least...
We've spent the last two gaming sessions in a library only ever exiting because they close a night.
It's all about style and personal preferences. If you go for the tank you'll get a tank...
I think ruleswise the CC is spot on, you can't design a system around ?ber characters and min/max characters you have to build it for the average joe. At best you can coushen the impact of the min/max characters.

I think it would be cool to have a battle oriented character with a Rapier and a Main Gauche build into a combat style. Very cool indeed.
Hmm, we've been thinking of adding a paladin to the group but this would be fun too...

[Marc R]

I moved this out of the FAQ/Errata as it's a lot of discussion, and I think the errata should quickly and cleanly offer an answer, not offer a page of reading to which it's not clear what's being clarified. . .is there a clean question asked: Question answered in the above?

[markc]

 It is a common GM question that should combat styles have some other balancing factors? And it is often forgot that IMHO combat styles should be built by the GM and it is recommended that no style be the end all be all or min/maxed unless that is the way they want it.


MDC

[Marc R]

Definitely a good point, but a clearer, cut down version for the FAQ would seem to be needed. . .the FAQ should, IMO get right to the point.