Topic: Anyone use the RM to HARP combat charts?

[Bruce]

In this issue of "The Guild Companion" http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2012/nov/rolemastercombatforharp.html is an article that has RM combat tables converted over for use in HARP. My questions are:
1. If anyone uses these tables for HARP, how well do they work out?
2. Did you make any tweaks or changes (e.g. the optional armor rules)?

Bruce

[RandalThor]

Sorry, but I would do it the other way around...

[Turbs]

i have used teh original concept of these rules made a few years ago.. not these revised ones..
they were effective for melee but way too OP for spell casting.

I am interested to see how they handle for the elemental attacks I will be trying them soon,, (assuming my gaming group agrees to yet another change of combat systems)

[Turbs]

I would also like to ask.
how do you incorporate skills like combat styles that give bonus to caps and damage etc?

[Bruce]

I would also like to ask.
how do you incorporate skills like combat styles that give bonus to caps and damage etc?

That's easy, Bonuses to damage caps can raise the max to the next level, i.e. raise a tiny crit to a small crit etc. In essence that solves both problems you listed. Otherwise damage alone can be multiplied or even have the crit increased.

That was one of the reasons I liked the Hack and Slash tables so much was IMHO it was easy to scale attacks for combat styles and elemental attacks, though there was a disparity on the damage for some of the tables.

Hmm I just noticed something about the elemental attack table in the RM to HARP crit tables, it seems the damage is a bit higher than normal in some areas. I have to research this more.....

[Ecthelion]

i have used teh original concept of these rules made a few years ago.. not these revised ones..
they were effective for melee but way too OP for spell casting.

I am interested to see how they handle for the elemental attacks I will be trying them soon,, (assuming my gaming group agrees to yet another change of combat systems)

Can you elaborate a bit? I don't know what you mean with "the original concept of these rules made a few years ago", because I created the rules published on TGC only end of last year. Therefore I also don't get what you mean with the original rules - whatever you refer to - being overpowered for spell casting. And I'd like to understand, so that I might, if necessary, adjust and improve my combat rules.

[Ecthelion]

Ah, btw. we are using the "More Rolemaster-like Combat System for HARP" in our group without adaptions and it works well, much better than the other HARP combat systems we used before (HARP standard, H&S). But of course we also play Rolemaster and like its 2-roll combat system.

[Newbie]

I have been using the Role master criticals from the Guild Companion April 2010.

I have found they work pretty well, in saying that this is my first time GMing a game and it is the only combat system we have used for the game thus far, in addition I also use 6 second combat rounds as opposed to 2 second rounds. Other than that I use the rules as per the latest HARP core book.

I think the benefit I have going for me is that all my players and myself are well experienced in Role master and enjoy the varied criticals, especially the little comments tied in with them..... try a spatula  

[Turbs]

i have used teh original concept of these rules made a few years ago.. not these revised ones..
they were effective for melee but way too OP for spell casting.

I am interested to see how they handle for the elemental attacks I will be trying them soon,, (assuming my gaming group agrees to yet another change of combat systems)

Can you elaborate a bit? I don't know what you mean with "the original concept of these rules made a few years ago", because I created the rules published on TGC only end of last year. Therefore I also don't get what you mean with the original rules - whatever you refer to - being overpowered for spell casting. And I'd like to understand, so that I might, if necessary, adjust and improve my combat rules.

We were using / are using these rules; "More Rolemaster -like Combat System for HARP"
I thought they were older but I was just guessing.

anyway the reason i felt they were OP for spell casting is the way HARP handles spell scaling.
and how rolemaster differentiates bolt attacks on different spell lists by level.

I.E. In RM a shock bolt is a lvl 2 spell,waterbolt is 4(?) Fire Bolt is 8(?) lightning bolt is 10.

as a level 1 mage in HARP i can learn elemental bolt. (any element) if i choose Elemental Bolt (fire) then I can utilize the firebolt attack table which does significantly more damage than the shock bolt or water bolt table by virtue of the table being designed as a level 8 spell). I can do far more damage output then any other proffession of equal level,

now if I add a few levels to my mage and start scaling that spell the others have no hope of catching up,

This is why I felt it was OP for spell casting.

[Ecthelion]

Thanks for explaining. But IMO the problem you describe does not only appear in the More RM-like combat system for HARP but also in other combat system available for HARP. If you scale a spell to higher damage levels in the standard HARP combat system, then you can reach the higher criticals that yield more damage - similar like in the More RM-like system.

[Turbs]

this is true. and I too have found the same problem with using the rolemaster tables in and conversion with HARP.

What i"m hoping for in the OP's attempt is that he finds some way to make a table that balances out the bolt attacks. (and ball attacks for that matter) that still incorporates the versatility of more crit tables.

[Bruce]

this is true. and I too have found the same problem with using the Rolemaster tables in and conversion with HARP.

What i"m hoping for in the OP's attempt is that he finds some way to make a table that balances out the bolt attacks. (and ball attacks for that matter) that still incorporates the versatility of more crit tables.

What do you mean by "OP's" in your statement above? I thought OP stood for Over Powered, but it doesn't make sense there.
Also I am not sure exactly what you mean by "balancing out the bolt attacks", could you please elaborate?

In the mean time I will take a stab; did you mean that elemental bolt attacks are just as powerful as the ball attacks even if you scale them up? I understand that and I kind of feel the same way, and I "might" try and develop a solution to this. But the spells are very different in one simple aspect. Bolt spells affect a single target area, ball spells explode and cover a much larger area (i.e. area affect), thereby doing more damage overall.
A simple solution (house rule option) would be to limit the scaling on bolt spells to a max of "large". Thereby making Ball spells much more appealing for the one extra PP required. I also think there should be more of a difference in the types of damage (stun, bleeders, mods) between the 4 elemental attack tables. For example Fire could do more damage, cold could do more stun with modifiers, electrical could do more damage with stuns, and earth could do more damage with modifiers.These are just ideas off the top of my head but it is just to show a point.
Bruce

[Turbs]

sorry second use was Original Poster. I.E you sir! 

and no not exactly.
What i was referring to was that in RM, the fire bolt attack table does significantly more damage than a shock bolt attack table.

So when using the HARP spells, (i.e. elemental bolt) its hard to choose which attack table to use in terms of balance.

do I use the firebolt attack table? (its for a lvl 8 spell in RM) or the shock Bolt attack table - lvl 2)
now I understand that the HARP to Rolmaster crits conversion removed those spell attack tables with a more generic one but it still felt a bit unbalanced to me.
 
I felt  (and this is in no way statistically proven, merely my hunch and feeling about the matter)
that the elemental crits crits do different damage damage than other tables due to the nature of the character level you must attain before you can even cast a spell that utilizes that crit.

hope this clears it up somewhat.

in the end I am hopeful that you can implement a more generic attack table, with equally damaging crits, but they be tweaked it some manner for flavour/variety.

i.e. electrical crits doing slightly more stuns while heat crits do slightly more maneuver penalty results and cold crits doing more initiative / speed penalties etc.

[Bruce]

sorry second use was Original Poster. I.E you sir! 

Oh ok, I had an inkling you were referring to me but I wasn't confident on that assumption.

and no not exactly.
What i was referring to was that in RM, the fire bolt attack table does significantly more damage than a shock bolt attack table.

True, but there is a reason for that. If I remember correctly shock bolts do significantly more stun, as I believe they should. Also, IMHO, I think fire should do more damage than the other elements.

So when using the HARP spells, (i.e. elemental bolt) its hard to choose which attack table to use in terms of balance.

If you use the RM crit tables for HARP you should stick with what they have for the different elemental types. And should choose what effect you are looking for, i.e. more damage, more stun, more maneuver penalties, etc...

I felt  (and this is in no way statistically proven, merely my hunch and feeling about the matter)
that the elemental crits crits do different damage damage than other tables due to the nature of the character level you must attain before you can even cast a spell that utilizes that crit.

Not so much in HARP, as I have the tables before me and the damage is pretty close. Slashing does pretty much the same damage and  crit effects as fire does (as far as numbers go that is). Give or take a couple of points here and there. If your talking about scaling options and the fact that all elemental attack spells start at the tiny crit level, I think that fits for balance issues. Please note that I am using the Hack & Slash tables and have applied my house rule of -2 to casting roll per PP scaled instead of the normal -5, which is ridiculous to me. They work fine in that way. Though IMHO the damage is still a bit high from the crits.

in the end I am hopeful that you can implement a more generic attack table, with equally damaging crits, but they be tweaked it some manner for flavour/variety.

They are pretty much equal now. With a few differences in damage types. I actually plan on changing that a little as I think the different elements have different effects and should not all cause the same amount of damage (or stun, or what have you).

i.e. electrical crits doing slightly more stuns while heat crits do slightly more maneuver penalty results and cold crits doing more initiative / speed penalties etc.

Exactly what I planned only a little different. IMHO I think heat crits should do more damage overall. Currently there are 4 effects from getting hit by something, damage, bleeders, stuns, and maneuver penalties. And there are 4 elements. So I think each element should have an area that does more than the others. For the caster it would be a point as to what they feel would be more beneficial to them and their group. I will do my best to keep them balanced.
I am not sure how much tweaking I may do if any at all on the elemental attack tables. I may simply keep my tables in line with the official ones.

[Newbie]

Quote
i.e. electrical crits doing slightly more stuns while heat crits do slightly more maneuver penalty results and cold crits doing more initiative / speed penalties etc.

Exactly what I planned only a little different. IMHO I think heat crits should do more damage overall. Currently there are 4 effects from getting hit by something, damage, bleeders, stuns, and maneuver penalties. And there are 4 elements. So I think each element should have an area that does more than the others. For the caster it would be a point as to what they feel would be more beneficial to them and their group. I will do my best to keep them balanced.
I am not sure how much tweaking I may do if any at all on the elemental attack tables. I may simply keep my tables in line with the official ones.

I think you might be over looking something
with crits there are five effect as i see it.
1. Damage - by this I mean concussion damage
2. bleeding/burning etc. - continuous damage per round
3. stun - self explanatory
4. maneuver penalties - self explanatory
5. injuries - broken bones, damaged/destroyed organs etc.

Whether or not this was truly missed or simply just not mentioned I'm not sure but that is how I see it.

Personally I think the four elements should be distributed like this.
Heat - does the most "continuous" damage per round IE burning
Cold - does the most Maneuver penalties - slowing/freezing joints in a body
Impact - does the most injuries - mostly in the form of broken bones
Electrical - does the most stuns.

From there I would use the amount of concussion damage from the initial hit to try and balance out the criticals

Just my two cents for what they are worth
 

[Bruce]

I think you might be over looking something
with crits there are five effect as i see it.
1. Damage - by this I mean concussion damage
2. bleeding/burning etc. - continuous damage per round
3. stun - self explanatory
4. maneuver penalties - self explanatory
5. injuries - broken bones, damaged/destroyed organs etc.

Whether or not this was truly missed or simply just not mentioned I'm not sure but that is how I see it.

Personally I think the four elements should be distributed like this.
Heat - does the most "continuous" damage per round IE burning
Cold - does the most Maneuver penalties - slowing/freezing joints in a body
Impact - does the most injuries - mostly in the form of broken bones
Electrical - does the most stuns.
From there I would use the amount of concussion damage from the initial hit to try and balance out the criticals
Just my two cents for what they are worth

Modifiers/maneuver penalties normally go hand in hand with brakes or fractures. To me modifiers are the result of pulled muscles, broken or fractured bones, etc... Because you would get negative modifiers for such things. The modifiers don't go away until healed and the greater the modifier the more serious the damage done. Heat doing continuous damage in many ways is reflected in the fact that it does more damage initially. If you want to say then just use more bleeders for continuous heat damage, there is a problem with that. The problem is heat criticals usually cauterize the wound it causes, though not as much at the higher end of the scale.
As it stands now in the HARP core rules the elemental tables do pretty much the same amount of damage give or take a few points here and there, except for earth/impact that does much less as I believe it should.
Honestly if you are using the RM to HARP tables and wanted to have one standard table for elemental damage then I would pick one of the tables to use for every elemental attack, then simply use the correct critical table for the corresponding elemental attack. You will also be able to do that with the tables I am trying to develop.
Bruce

[Alwyn]

I know this is an older thread, but I wanted to kick in an idea.  Have you looked at using the HARP Condensed Combat Rules (CCR) from the old HARPers Bazaar issues 11 & 12?  I don't know if they are still available in some form or another, but I think you might like the various elemental crit results.  The CCR was based on the RMX (Role Master Express) combat rules.

[Ecthelion]

Yes, I did before I created the More Rolemaster-like Combat System for HARP. But I had the impression that with the HB11&12 rules it was a bit too hard to hit an opponent and combat lasted a little longer. But from the general idea both combat rules are quite similar.

[Bruce]

I believe I looked at that and there was something about it I didn't care for. I have developed a set of tables that is sort of a mesh between the ones Ecthelion created (and linked to above) and the combat tables from the now out of print Hack and Slash book. I am playtesting it in my group and am working on a NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) so that others here can playtest it and let me know what they think. So far it works great and works fine with the RM crit charts. I am having a bit of trouble developing a crit system like the one in Hack & Slash though as that one takes some time to do.

Bruce

[Turbs]

just curious as to how you are progressing with this.
any updates?

this still remains something i would very much like to see a copy of