Topic: What problems are there with the "Hack and Slash" combat tables?

[Bruce]

In the Hack & Slash supplement that ICE produced for HARP many years ago there were alternate combat tables for those that wanted a little more than just the basic limited HARP Fantasy combat tables. But apparently many people complained about the tables. I thought (possibly incorrectly) that people thought the elemental attack tables in H&S were under balanced, meaning they did less damage than they were supposed to. In my project to develop a more balanced st of combat tables for HARP using ideas from H&S and the "RM to HARP combat tables" from "The Guild Companion" article, I discovered something interesting. The Hack & Slash Tables actually do a lot more damage than the HARP fantasy tables do at the same rolls. To make matters worse the H&S tables go up to 150 whereas the HARP Fantasy tables only go up to 120, with mods for the various weapon sizes.

So am I to understand that those who noticed where actually pointing out the tables did to much damage?
Could those who know or have used the H&S tables please chime in and let me know why they didn't care for the H&S tables.

Thank You.
Bruce

[RandalThor]

The only "problem" that I heard of (I didn't encounter it myself when playing) was that when scaling an elemental spell, it became basically a "push" between the negative mod for scaling and the increased damage from increased critical size. Meaning that they basically cancelled each other out, so that there was no point to scaling the spell. When I looked at this it didn't seem to be exactly the case, the increased scaled spell did, on average, at least a couple of points more damage. But, they did have the same critical code ('A', 'B', 'C', etc...), so they do have a point. I am not sure exactly what to do about that if it really bothers you (it doesn't really bother me), but I am sure an easy solution has be posed before on these forums, somewhere.

Other than that, I don't know of any big problems.

[Bruce]

Thanks RandalThor for replying so quickly. I see what your saying. Oh and I see where I misinterpreted something. I thought it was simply a -5 mod for every scale affect and not for every PP invested. I see the same problem on my tables also....But one of the differences is you can get higher results on the H&S tables.
Besides I think a simple fix would be that the -5 per PP invested is only for checking if the spell fumbles or not and does not apply to the total attack roll. Essentially what one could do is after the roll is made and as long as it doesn't fumble or fail then they get a +5 per PP invested on the total result only.
Truth be told I feel that -5 per PP scaled is a bit much, especially when you get to the higher level scaling, like the one spell that has a + 24 PP scaling option (Bless, in the cleric sphere). With that you have to have a minimum of 30 ranks which will give you a total bonus of +80, and lets say total stat bonuses are ...+20 (give or take) for a total bonus of +100, now with that -5 per PP invested over the base, you would receive a -120 total to your roll. So overall you get a -20 to cast the spell. Doesn't that seem a bit unfair to anyone? I think I am going to have to make a house rule on this.

Bruce

[GrumpyOldFart]

I didn't use them much, but the once or twice I did I encountered that problem. It's been a while back, so let me see if my memory can dredge this up...

-5 per PP invested.

Elemental Bolt has a base cost of 5 PPs (I think it was 4 in earlier versions), so you have a minimum +25 for skill when casting it. Each PP worth of scaling also requires an extra minimum rank. So just figuring skill and scaling penalty and assuming everything else is the same across the board...

...a Tiny attack is +25-0=+25...
...a Small attack is +35-10=+25...
...a Medium attack is +45-20=+25...
...a Large attack is +52-30=+22...
...a Huge attack is +56-40=+16.

In short, if you scale past Medium attack size, you've already hit a diminishing return.

[RandalThor]

How about this:

1. Every 10-ranks in a spell is a free scaling bonus, something specific to that spell. So, for elemental attack spells it could be a free size increase on the attack type; tiny up to 10, 10+ = small, 20+ = medium, etc... or range increase, if that is what they prefer. Perhaps limit the free scaling to an option that is equal to or less costly than the original spell. No matter what, once chosen, the free scaling option is static, it does not change for each casting of the spell.

2. Actual scaling is like so: Up to # of ranks in spell, no negative mod (or just -1 or -2% per scaled PP), but every rank past the characters # of ranks in the spell is -5% up to double # of ranks in spell. As usual, the increased fumble range is still in effect. (If remember right, the increase in the critical fumble range is +1/5 PP scaled. I would be willing to increase this to 1 for 4 or even 3 PP scaled, and in the method I give here, +1 per PP past # of ranks in spell. Meaning if you go over your # of ranks by 8 PP, then you get a +8 to the critical fumble chance in addition to what you got from scaling it up to your # of ranks in the spell, so fumbling becomes a real chance.)


Those are just ideas I am tossing off the top of my head right now. 

[Thom @ ICE]

We did consider a number of options, but most (like these) would impact other areas of the game beyond the crit charts and we were targeting trying to get HARP back out with some quick enhancements without creating a whole new version.  It will be at least a few years before we do any kind of full revision to HARP, but some of these kinds of concepts could certainly be on the table at that time.  From my point of view, when looking at HARP rules try to think in terms of less complexity and not more... 

[RandalThor]

We did consider a number of options, but most (like these) would impact other areas of the game beyond the crit charts and we were targeting trying to get HARP back out with some quick enhancements without creating a whole new version.  It will be at least a few years before we do any kind of full revision to HARP, but some of these kinds of concepts could certainly be on the table at that time.  From my point of view, when looking at HARP rules try to think in terms of less complexity and not more...

Agreed. Keeping it simple is the better way to go in my book, too.

[Bruce]

We did consider a number of options, but most (like these) would impact other areas of the game beyond the crit charts and we were targeting trying to get HARP back out with some quick enhancements without creating a whole new version.  It will be at least a few years before we do any kind of full revision to HARP, but some of these kinds of concepts could certainly be on the table at that time.  From my point of view, when looking at HARP rules try to think in terms of less complexity and not more...

So true. Here are a few simple options:
1. -5 per scale option instead of a -5 per PP invested.
2. -1 per PP invested.
3. -2 per PP invested.
4. A base -10 plus one of the above options.
5. Use the -5 per PP invested but with a max negative (-) modifier of -30, or whatever is seen as balanced.

Like I said earlier, that -5 per PP option is unbalancing for spell casters in general. My original assumption that it was a -5 per scaling option fits fine.
You can sift the bonuses as you see fit and for balance issues.

Honestly I think it would be perfectly balanced even if you threw that modifier out completely, and that is the most simple option.

So the question is: How would throwing out that bonus unbalance anything?
Bruce

[Thom @ ICE]

So true. Here are a few simple options:
1. -5 per scale option instead of a -5 per PP invested.
2. -1 per PP invested.
3. -2 per PP invested.
4. A base -10 plus one of the above options.
5. Use the -5 per PP invested but with a max negative (-) modifier of -30, or whatever is seen as balanced.

Like I said earlier, that -5 per PP option is unbalancing for spell casters in general. My original assumption that it was a -5 per scaling option fits fine.
You can sift the bonuses as you see fit and for balance issues.

Honestly I think it would be perfectly balanced even if you threw that modifier out completely, and that is the most simple option.

So the question is: How would throwing out that bonus unbalance anything?
Bruce

#1 - Doesn't account for the fact that some scaling options are much more beneficial than others.
#2 and #3 - OK, just a toned down version of standard rules
#4 - I don't see the need to start at -10 before the scaled penalties
#5 - Once you max out then why not pump it up all the way?  Not balanced.

I've got a few ideas myself, but nowhere near ready for public discussion.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

If you don't have a scaling penalty, then spell users get more and more powerful as they throw DPs into buying spell skill ranks.  It becomes no more difficult to cast a Huge Elemental Attack than a Tiny Attack say  (modulo casting time penalties and burning PP but they were there before so no change there) and because there are no scaling penalties Attack and Elemental Attack spells will have higher end results.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Bruce]

If you don't have a scaling penalty, then spell users get more and more powerful as they throw DPs into buying spell skill ranks.  It becomes no more difficult to cast a Huge Elemental Attack than a Tiny Attack say  (modulo casting time penalties and burning PP but they were there before so no change there) and because there are no scaling penalties Attack and Elemental Attack spells will have higher end results.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

True, but there is another side of the coin. In the bless example I gave above it will take 6 rounds to cast the spell scaled to that level. IMHO and my experience waiting more than one or two rounds most of the time is not a good idea. So it would be impossible for someone to cast Bless scaled to get the +25 bonus in less than 6 rds. With the example I gave above with all the bonuses, the total mod is a -20. So the caster must roll a natural 91+ (71 target # with a -20 to casting roll = a "91") to successfully cast the spell, which doesn't happen as often as it would be needed in that case. Reducing casting time 1 rd brings the number needed to a natural 101, and the only way to reach that is with an open ended roll.

Now that I think about it a -2 per PP investment sounds more reasonable and very simple. In the example listed above the total negative mod would be -48 which would give a total bonus of +32 to the die roll. Which I think is still high but fair. Hopefully the caster has some bonus items by this time to improve his/her chances. That would also improve the scaling options for elemental attack spells.

Bruce

[RandalThor]

I forgot about the time delay with scaled spells, that does put another wrinkle in spell casting. Reducing the modifier down to -1 or -2 seems much more reasonable in that light. Plus, there is still the increased fumble range to make it dangerous to do.

[Alwyn]

If I remember correctly, and mind you it has been a while since I played HARP, I did not have issues when I used the tables from the Condensed Combat Rules from the HARPers Bazaar.  They seemed to work rather well with scaling the elemental attack spells and had more of a RM feel, which I liked.

[Ecthelion]

If I remember correctly, and mind you it has been a while since I played HARP, I did not have issues when I used the tables from the Condensed Combat Rules from the HARPers Bazaar.  They seemed to work rather well with scaling the elemental attack spells and had more of a RM feel, which I liked.

I also liked these rules quite well.

[Bruce]

If I remember correctly, and mind you it has been a while since I played HARP, I did not have issues when I used the tables from the Condensed Combat Rules from the HARPers Bazaar.  They seemed to work rather well with scaling the elemental attack spells and had more of a RM feel, which I liked.

I also liked these rules quite well.

Yes they do work quite well. But there is a problem when applying the rule of "-5 to casting per PP invested over the original cost". Meaning that in elemental attack spells there is a -10 to the roll (which also counts as your attack roll) per each scale on the attack table (each scale costs 2 PP so a -10 total). On the tables that means your doing the same damage and critical on the same roll as you would have if you didn't scale it. That is why I instituted a -2 per PP scaled, it's better overall.
Also, IMHO. the H&S tables do way more damage than the HARP Fantasy ones which is a little unbalancing especially for first level characters. I am attempting to balance that out to be more in line with the core HARP tables. Though it isn't easy (I'm on hold right now as I decide how to tackle this problem). The tables I am developing will have three options; 1. A single roll crit type. 2. A two roll crit type, roll for crit separately. 3. Two roll method but you use the appropriate Rolemaster critical table (with crits A,B,C,D, & E).
Oh and there will be a 4th option, that is nothing like what I've seen so far. It will be a single table look up for all damage types with a 2nd roll for crits (trying to implement a single roll method, but it doesn't look good).

Bruce

[Alwyn]

If I remember correctly, and mind you it has been a while since I played HARP, I did not have issues when I used the tables from the Condensed Combat Rules from the HARPers Bazaar.  They seemed to work rather well with scaling the elemental attack spells and had more of a RM feel, which I liked.

I also liked these rules quite well.

Yes they do work quite well. But there is a problem when applying the rule of "-5 to casting per PP invested over the original cost". Meaning that in elemental attack spells there is a -10 to the roll (which also counts as your attack roll) per each scale on the attack table (each scale costs 2 PP so a -10 total). On the tables that means your doing the same damage and critical on the same roll as you would have if you didn't scale it. That is why I instituted a -2 per PP scaled, it's better overall.
Also, IMHO. the H&S tables do way more damage than the HARP Fantasy ones which is a little unbalancing especially for first level characters. I am attempting to balance that out to be more in line with the core HARP tables. Though it isn't easy (I'm on hold right now as I decide how to tackle this problem). The tables I am developing will have three options; 1. A single roll crit type. 2. A two roll crit type, roll for crit separately. 3. Two roll method but you use the appropriate Rolemaster critical table (with crits A,B,C,D, & E).
Oh and there will be a 4th option, that is nothing like what I've seen so far. It will be a single table look up for all damage types with a 2nd roll for crits (trying to implement a single roll method, but it doesn't look good).

Bruce

Now that I think about it, our group came up with a solution for the casting mods as well.  I will have to see if I can find our fix in any of my old notes.  I know we rolled for the crits as a separate roll, but I can't remember what we did for the actual casting roll.

[sunwolf]

I used a more complicated casting penalty. -1 per PP for the first 5 ranks over base, -2 per PP for the next 5 ranks and -5 per PP therafter, works pretty well but not the simplest method.

[WoeRie]

I didn't use them much, but the once or twice I did I encountered that problem. It's been a while back, so let me see if my memory can dredge this up...

-5 per PP invested.

Elemental Bolt has a base cost of 5 PPs (I think it was 4 in earlier versions), so you have a minimum +25 for skill when casting it. Each PP worth of scaling also requires an extra minimum rank. So just figuring skill and scaling penalty and assuming everything else is the same across the board...

<...>

In short, if you scale past Medium attack size, you've already hit a diminishing return.

Sorry, but I don't think this is the problem as most players who wish to play a powerful magician increase their ranks in their main offensive spell. I think the main problem is the casting time:

Let's assume we have a magician with 15 ranks in Elemental bolt: Fire. This would result in a rank bonus of 60. Plus a good stat bonus of 20 would result in a total bonus of 80. The magician faces an Orc (M size) and he has to cast a spell in one round (if he had more rounds, he could cast the tiny bolt more than once, making even more damage).

So, now assume the dice roll (e.g.: 50) and the DB of the victim (e.g.: 50) is identical, so we have a net result of 80 - let's look at the H&S tables:

Tiny Bolt: 5PP (1 rnd) => 80 - 0 - 0 => 80 => 5 H => 14 hits, 2 stunned, -15
Small Bolt: 7 PP (2 rnds) => 80 - 10 - 10 => 60 => 8 F => 15 hits, 1 stunned, -10
Medium Bolt: 9 PP (2 rnds) => 80 - 10 - 20 => 50 => 10 F => 17 hits, 1 stunned, -10
Large Bolt: 11 PP (3 rnds) => 80 - 20 - 30 => 30 => 9 D => 14 hits, 0 stunned, -5
Huge Bolt: 13 PP (3 rnds) => 80 - 20 - 40 => 20 => 9 D  => 14 hits, 0 stunned, -5

You see the same spell will get worse the more PP you invest to boost it, because of the "time reducing" casting Penalty, else it remains more or less identical. My "workaround" for this problem were two small changes:

1) Reintroduce very high damage caps, to prevent the killing blow for Tiny and Small. Tiny: 110, Small: 120, Medium 130, Large: 140, Huge: None
2) Remove the Large & Huge tables and reduce the size of the spells if the opponent is larger than medium by 1 or 2. (e.g.: Medium Bolt vs. Huge Enemy => Tiny Bolt).

These two changes resulted that the players scaled the spells sometimes. Of course, most of the time they still used tiny, but that was ok for me. Sadly, I never found a really satisfying workaround.

[Bruce]

Sorry, but I don't think this is the problem as most players who wish to play a powerful magician increase their ranks in their main offensive spell. I think the main problem is the casting time:

Let's assume we have a magician with 15 ranks in Elemental bolt: Fire. This would result in a rank bonus of 60. Plus a good stat bonus of 20 would result in a total bonus of 80. The magician faces an Orc (M size) and he has to cast a spell in one round (if he had more rounds, he could cast the tiny bolt more than once, making even more damage).

So, now assume the dice roll (e.g.: 50) and the DB of the victim (e.g.: 50) is identical, so we have a net result of 80 - let's look at the H&S tables:

Tiny Bolt: 5PP (1 rnd) => 80 - 0 - 0 => 80 => 5 H => 14 hits, 2 stunned, -15
Small Bolt: 7 PP (2 rnds) => 80 - 10 - 10 => 60 => 8 F => 15 hits, 1 stunned, -10
Medium Bolt: 9 PP (2 rnds) => 80 - 10 - 20 => 50 => 10 F => 17 hits, 1 stunned, -10
Large Bolt: 11 PP (3 rnds) => 80 - 20 - 30 => 30 => 9 D => 14 hits, 0 stunned, -5
Huge Bolt: 13 PP (3 rnds) => 80 - 20 - 40 => 20 => 9 D  => 14 hits, 0 stunned, -5

You see the same spell will get worse the more PP you invest to boost it, because of the "time reducing" casting Penalty, else it remains more or less identical. My "workaround" for this problem were two small changes:

1) Reintroduce very high damage caps, to prevent the killing blow for Tiny and Small. Tiny: 110, Small: 120, Medium 130, Large: 140, Huge: None
2) Remove the Large & Huge tables and reduce the size of the spells if the opponent is larger than medium by 1 or 2. (e.g.: Medium Bolt vs. Huge Enemy => Tiny Bolt).

These two changes resulted that the players scaled the spells sometimes. Of course, most of the time they still used tiny, but that was ok for me. Sadly, I never found a really satisfying workaround.

I think it is a serious problem, especially when as grumpyoldfart put it as in "diminishing returns". It doesn't matter how high you develop the ranks. The example I gave wasn't the worse one. So after a certain point you have absolutely no way of casting a spell, adding in the casting time that makes it completely ridiculous. There are spell adders and such that help alleviate the above penalties, but those are far and few.  After looking at your example, I wondered if you are aware that spells fail to be cast if the total roll is not equal to a 71 or higher? Unless, of course, that is a GM's option you elected.

Bruce

[Thom @ ICE]

So just out of curiosity... how critical is diminishing returns for your game?
I understand that it is a carryover from Rolemaster, but Rolemaster is not supposed to be High Adventure...
Yes, if you didn't have diminishing returns then skills would quickly reach incredibly high levels, unless you drop the bonus to a flat +3 (which levels off at 25 ranks or around 7th level), but at 50 ranks you'd be at +150 instead of +100.   If you use +4 it levels off at 15 ranks (or 4th level), but at 50 ranks you'd be at +200 instead of +100.  That also would increase the desire to keep buying ranks in a skill after 30 ranks.... and if you allow increased damage caps with different rank counts (25 ranks allows you to treat a weapon as 1 size larger, 50 ranks allows you to treat the weapons as 2 sizes larger)... now you can reach the point where that master dagger wielder can deal death with their blade...


For spellcasting you've now made it so you can cast those uber-spells in 1 round if you are an supreme wizard.... And lets not forget those non-Rolemaster players who can't stand having to calculate out the bonus on their 33 ranks without looking at the chart.  Now any fool can do a basic multiplication 33x4 = 132.