Topic: Elemental Attacks vrs Physical Attacks

[Bruce]

In everyone's opinion (all those who wish to chime in), should elemental type attacks always do more or less damage and more or less critical type effects (bleeders, stuns, mods) versus regular physical attacks based on the same  dice rolls and attack sizes in combat?
Elemental Attack types = Heat, Cold, Electrical, Impact
Physical Attack Types = Slash, Crush, Puncture, etc...

All opinions are greatly valued
Bruce

[Thom @ ICE]

I would say that elemental should begin doing damage at lower levels and continues with a low slope while physical begins at higher levels and has a steeper slope. Concept being that physical has to definitively hit while most elemental attacks simply need to be clos to start damage. 

[Newbie]

For me I'd say that the magical/elemental attacks should be slightly more powerful and damaging than the more mundane means of inflicting harm.

Here is how I look at it: Would you rather be shot by an arrow or attacked with a flamethrower (modern version fireball).....
For me the arrow is the preferred option, however obviously i still do not stand a great chance of survival if hit by an arrow by a skilled archer, but then again an unskilled fireball is still a mass of flames around a person.

I guess really it depends on where you call the line of balance into the game.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I would say that elemental should begin doing damage at lower levels and continues with a low slope while physical begins at higher levels and has a steeper slope. Concept being that physical has to definitively hit while most elemental attacks simply need to be close to start damage.

That.

[RandalThor]

For me I'd say that the magical/elemental attacks should be slightly more powerful and damaging than the more mundane means of inflicting harm.

Here is how I look at it: Would you rather be shot by an arrow or attacked with a flamethrower (modern version fireball).....
For me the arrow is the preferred option, however obviously i still do not stand a great chance of survival if hit by an arrow by a skilled archer, but then again an unskilled fireball is still a mass of flames around a person.

I guess really it depends on where you call the line of balance into the game.

I agree with this. I have not liked that the elemental spells started out as "tiny", though I can see where you might have a spell take the place of the D&D spell Magic Missile, a low-level damaging spell.

[Bruce]

I would say that elemental should begin doing damage at lower levels and continues with a low slope while physical begins at higher levels and has a steeper slope. Concept being that physical has to definitively hit while most elemental attacks simply need to be close to start damage.

Makes sense. What about theoretical max damage? Should a fireball or bolt do as much "max" damage as a broadsword or even a great sword (or something bigger)?
Remember physical weapons do more focused damage whereas elemental attacks are not as focused as they cover a larger area.
I also don't believe all elemental attacks should do the same amount of damage. But due to the limitations of trying to keep this as simple as possible they will be close in damage.

I guess really it depends on where you call the line of balance into the game.

That is the clincher here and why I think the elemental type spells start off with tiny damage. The spells themselves only cost 5 (bolt) and 6 (ball), and it is relatively cheap to scale them up.

[Cory Magel]

Hard thing to balance and it depends on how you run Rolemaster.  For example, do you not use exhaustion points (as most of us don't - I think)?  If you don't you need to consider that a Pure Arms User with a weapon will never run out of spell points.

So, speaking utterly generically, I say Spells should be slightly more powerful than Arms.  But only just slightly.  There's all kinds of caveats to that however.

[Bruce]

Hard thing to balance and it depends on how you run Rolemaster .

Corey, if you didn't know this is a HARP thread....
 Off topic to this thread: In all actuality I do run Rolemaster much differently. I was one to use exhaustion points, though they weren't something that was a hard line rule. I used them as a basic idea of how far someone could last. I only used hard core line rules like that when a player was being annoying about what they were trying to do. In the end I was always a little more lenient than the actual rules. Truth be told I used a lot of optional rules that Rolemaster had to offer, just not the similar skills rules (in one of the companions), and wow was that a mess.

Okay, back on topic: RM and HARP should be similar in a way but HARP needs to much more basic overall.  I think RM combat is a little more gruesome and realistic than HARP is with it's original tables. My current project is "yet another" attempt to bring HARP combat closer to RM's.

So Corey, I will take it that even in HARP you believe that elemental damage should be overall more deadly than physical attacks as defined above. Which actually is where my current tables stand. Though I do like Thom's suggestion above.

Bruce

[Cory Magel]

Oops, forgot this was HARP...

So yeah, as you guessed, I think if there's no limitation on how long a fighter can make melee attacks, but the mage is limited by power, then spells should be slightly more effective.

[Bruce]

So yeah, as you guessed, I think if there's no limitation on how long a fighter can make melee attacks, but the mage is limited by power, then spells should be slightly more effective.

Well there is a RM discussion on that very topic and how people are wanting a better balance for arms users, especially at later levels. Honestly the same goes for HARP. At higher levels  the mage has many more options and powerful spells, whereas the non-spell using types are limited on the things they can do with what they've learned. Even with magical assistance they still lose out, as mages can also get magical assistance and probably be better at it, i.e. mages can more easily attune to magical items than non-spell users. Point for point as time goes on the balance is always in the mages favor. But in my games I have drawbacks for mages and their ilk, things I will be porting over from RM when i get the chance.

So in the "Elemental vrs Physical" attacks, this isn't a major issue if you keep the damage close. Which so far it is on my tables, except the crits for elemental attacks happen sooner. You see on the tables I am developing a crit doesn't happen automatically all the time, like in HARP fantasy and Martial Law. I leaned towards the RM style of handling how often a crit happens.  The tables I am designing are sort of a morph between the RM to HARP combat tables in The Guild Companion article and Hack & Slash (but with more balance). I may also be including a set of tables and rules where you have one (maybe two) page(s) for all damage and crits for all attack types. They are simple linear tables but they will work good for those who desire less tables.

So in essence (and to try and keep the thread going) on the tables I have developed so far, elemental attacks do slightly more damage than physical attacks and crits happen sooner. But, I would like to incorporate Thom's suggestion above:

I would say that elemental should begin doing damage at lower levels and continues with a low slope while physical begins at higher levels and has a steeper slope. Concept being that physical has to definitively hit while most elemental attacks simply need to be close to start damage.

.
What do you guys (and gals) think about this; I will decrease the basic damage done by elemental attacks but keep the crits if not possibly starting them a little earlier.

Bruce

[Zut]

I wonder if your considered armor type vs attack type. Elemental attacks are more likely to hit no matter what armor type the defender is wearing (and more likely an electrical attack vs a metal armor). Armors were made specifically to defend against physical attacks. Protection against magical attack is rare.

So I think that in a fantasy setting, even if magical attacks do less damage than physical ones (chart-wise), they will successfully do damage more often as less people can defend against them. Maybe something to consider?

[Bruce]

I wonder if your considered armor type vs attack type. Elemental attacks are more likely to hit no matter what armor type the defender is wearing (and more likely an electrical attack vs a metal armor). Armors were made specifically to defend against physical attacks. Protection against magical attack is rare.

So I think that in a fantasy setting, even if magical attacks do less damage than physical ones (chart-wise), they will successfully do damage more often as less people can defend against them. Maybe something to consider?

In the tables I am working on there is already planned an optional table that takes into account armor types vrs the various attack types. Optional because it would add some complexity and since this is HARP I want to keep it as simple as possible.

Also like I posted previous to your post, I plan on increasing how early crits happen but maybe also decreasing the damage done overall. That would reflect less damage but harder to defend against.

Bruce

[Cory Magel]

I wonder if your considered armor type vs attack type. Elemental attacks are more likely to hit no matter what armor type the defender is wearing (and more likely an electrical attack vs a metal armor). Armors were made specifically to defend against physical attacks. Protection against magical attack is rare.

At that point, imo, you want RM, not HARP.

[Thom @ ICE]

Agreed - keep in mind that RM's roots were the idea of using Arms Law as an add-on to other gaming systems. What gaming system would it work better with than HARP?   Tweaking it to work with HARP better than simply bolting it on is fine.