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

[Bruce]

Thom,
The diminishing returns from the skill bonuses is fine and I think it works pretty good. Though The drop from a +5 per rank to a +2 at 11 ranks is a huge drop. Like it's been posted before that most players stop really developing their ranks at that point. But that's not a big deal to me. The diminishing returns I believe grumpy and myself are talking about is the -5 per PP investment to the skill roll. After a certain point there are certain spells that become impossible to cast unless the cast rolls an open ended roll (which is rare). Even with Spell adders and spell bonus items it is still pretty much impossible to cast a spell that has been scaled to level 30 or so in a short enough time to be of real help.

I wonder if using a formula similar to the skill rank progression of 5/2/1 would work in the per PP investment.......(-5 for the first 10 ranks, -2 for ranks 11-20, etc..).
For now though the -2 per PP invested I use in my group seems to be working pretty well.
Unfortunately there are days when it seems my entire group is set to keep rolling fumbles.

Bruce

[pyrotech]

Hmmmm Thom,

Your idea has set the gears spinning in my mind.

As you state, I'm not looking for Rolemaster out of Harp.  So a flat skill progression simplifies a lot of things and alleviates many problems people complain about in Harp.

This change would have a lot of far ranging impacts on the game.  Magic items for high level characters would be less of an impact for example (A swordsman with 55 ranks attacks another swordsman with 45 ranks but a +15 bonus magic sword - the much lesser skilled combatant tends to win now, but with the flat progression he would likely lose).  I'd expect some skills to stop being developed earlier, while others (opposed skills and skills that often find higher difficulty checks) would be further developed.

It is a very interesting question, and one that should be carefully considered if an when HARP ever gets a revision.  I am tempted to like the idea right now.

[WoeRie]

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

No, 71 only counts for Utitlity spells, not for any form of Attack spells, as you have the defensive bonus of your opponent (see page 73 and 77). But I think you have not finished reading my post as I clearly said that it IS A problem regardles of the number of ranks, but I think that the problem is on a different location.

But anyway, even unscaled Tiny Elemental Spells can kill all your opponents with H&S and the Mage will be a killer as good as any fighter, even without scaling.

[Thom @ ICE]

Thom,
The diminishing returns from the skill bonuses is fine and I think it works pretty good. Though The drop from a +5 per rank to a +2 at 11 ranks is a huge drop. Like it's been posted before that most players stop really developing their ranks at that point. But that's not a big deal to me. The diminishing returns I believe grumpy and myself are talking about is the -5 per PP investment to the skill roll. After a certain point there are certain spells that become impossible to cast unless the cast rolls an open ended roll (which is rare). Even with Spell adders and spell bonus items it is still pretty much impossible to cast a spell that has been scaled to level 30 or so in a short enough time to be of real help.

I wonder if using a formula similar to the skill rank progression of 5/2/1 would work in the per PP investment.......(-5 for the first 10 ranks, -2 for ranks 11-20, etc..).
For now though the -2 per PP invested I use in my group seems to be working pretty well.
Unfortunately there are days when it seems my entire group is set to keep rolling fumbles.
Bruce

The transition to a flat bonus progression addresses your Scaling penalty concern.
If Joe is casting a spell at base 6 PP with scaling up by 20 (total PP = 26) then they need to be ranks = 26 and level of about 8th level.  Assume he's got about another +40 in bonuses beyond his 26 ranks.  26 ranks = +76 and then +40 for a total bonus of +116.... then -100 for scaling so final is +16 and it takes 6 rounds to cast.
Using the flat progression at +4 per rank his 26 ranks give a +104 instead of +76, so the end result is +44.  A much better chance of success.

Now instead of Joe pushing his scaling to the max, lets say he is level 15 and has bumped this spell up to 48 ranks because he wants to be a master at it.
Old style = +40 (other stuff) and +90 for ranks = +130    -100 for scaling    end result is +30
New style = +40                 and +192 for ranks = +232    -100 for scaling    end result is +132    His mastery of this spell is clear, and now he can even consider trying to cast this spell in 1 round.   

I'd say that this method now becomes far more High Adventure...  And, if you do it for 1 skill, you have to do it for all skills.  Now that swordsman at level 15 is wielding his blade at +232 - meaning he can do it blindfolded and land a kill shot almost every time, let alone considering other special maneuvers (but no more about that right now...)

[Thom @ ICE]

This change would have a lot of far ranging impacts on the game.  Magic items for high level characters would be less of an impact for example (A swordsman with 55 ranks attacks another swordsman with 45 ranks but a +15 bonus magic sword - the much lesser skilled combatant tends to win now, but with the flat progression he would likely lose).  I'd expect some skills to stop being developed earlier, while others (opposed skills and skills that often find higher difficulty checks) would be further developed.

Your example assumes a 10 rank difference (or 4 levels).
Level 1 vs level 5  or 6 vs 16 ranks    +30 vs +62      higher level wins despite +15 sword
Level 3 vs level 7  or 12 vs 22 ranks   +54 vs +72     higher level wins despite +15 sword
Level 5 vs Level 9  or 18 vs 28 ranks    +66 vs +78    lower level wins because of +15 sword
Those are the current rules.

Flat progression
X ranks vs X+10 ranks        4x vs (40 + 4x)   higher level ALWAYS wins with 25 more bonus regardless of level

I prefer a consistent expectation of success.  Keep in mind, this is just another crazy concept that I'm throwing out there....

[Ecthelion]

So just out of curiosity... how critical is diminishing returns for your game?

It's probably not critical, but IMO it nicely and in a simple way models learning curves. Therefore I see no reason to remove it.

[RandalThor]

I'd say that this method now becomes far more High Adventure...  And, if you do it for 1 skill, you have to do it for all skills.  Now that swordsman at level 15 is wielding his blade at +232 - meaning he can do it blindfolded and land a kill shot almost every time, let alone considering other special maneuvers (but no more about that right now...)

Agreed, I like it. It also addresses my issue with level in the ICE mentality (though, to be fair it was primarily aimed at RM/SM): I currently believe that if one was to equate a D&D character to a RM/SM one, the later would need to be at least twice as high in level to compare in capabilities - really I thought two-and-a-half times was more like it. With this flat progression you guys are talking about, I think the levels would be much closer, though still not exactly aligned as D&D has a lot of basic class abilities automatically going up each level, whereas in RM the player has to take DPs to increase them and cannot do so for everything. (Just the number of weapons a D&D fighter can be able to use without penalty (they gain proficiency in groups, not individual weapons) would sink all the DPs for a RM/SM fighter.

[Thom @ ICE]

With this flat progression you guys are talking about,

Just to clarify...  this was just something I tossed out there to see what people thought about it.  It may play into some thoughts I have, but it is not part of a managed revision effort at this time.

[Bruce]

Just to clarify...  this was just something I tossed out there to see what people thought about it.  It may play into some thoughts I have, but it is not part of a managed revision effort at this time.

I might ask my players if they would be willing to playtest this idea. Unfortunately I am not entirely sure how this would affect the creatures/monsters and their attack bonuses. Maybe once the new criteria for monster builds is put out it would be easier to figure out.

Bruce

[Bruce]

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

No, 71 only counts for Utitlity spells, not for any form of Attack spells, as you have the defensive bonus of your opponent (see page 73 and 77). But I think you have not finished reading my post as I clearly said that it IS A problem regardles of the number of ranks, but I think that the problem is on a different location.

But anyway, even unscaled Tiny Elemental Spells can kill all your opponents with H&S and the Mage will be a killer as good as any fighter, even without scaling.

Actually the rule on Page 77 under casting attack spells indicates: "the result can then be cross-indexed on the RR column to determine the "target number" for resisting the spell." Which in my own interpretation means that the spell still needs to succeed on the utility column first. It would seem unfair if the fail range for utility spells was that much higher than attack spells, as failure means the spell does not go off. Fumble range is different.
Now Elemental attack spells are different (as indicated) and only fail on a fumble, but I still see it as being unfair since the spell still goes off and a majority of the time the spell will do damage.

But I could be wrong.
Thom, could you please clarify this?

Bruce

[Thom @ ICE]

I might ask my players if they would be willing to playtest this idea. Unfortunately I am not entirely sure how this would affect the creatures/monsters and their attack bonuses. Maybe once the new criteria for monster builds is put out it would be easier to figure out.

Monsters would similarly have increased combat OB - however the special part is that they'd be able to more maneuvers to.... but nothing's available to playtest at this time. I'm just playing with ideas.

[dagorhir]

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

No, 71 only counts for Utitlity spells, not for any form of Attack spells, as you have the defensive bonus of your opponent (see page 73 and 77). But I think you have not finished reading my post as I clearly said that it IS A problem regardles of the number of ranks, but I think that the problem is on a different location.

But anyway, even unscaled Tiny Elemental Spells can kill all your opponents with H&S and the Mage will be a killer as good as any fighter, even without scaling.

Actually the rule on Page 77 under casting attack spells indicates: "the result can then be cross-indexed on the RR column to determine the "target number" for resisting the spell." Which in my own interpretation means that the spell still needs to succeed on the utility column first. It would seem unfair if the fail range for utility spells was that much higher than attack spells, as failure means the spell does not go off. Fumble range is different.
Now Elemental attack spells are different (as indicated) and only fail on a fumble, but I still see it as being unfair since the spell still goes off and a majority of the time the spell will do damage.

But I could be wrong.
Thom, could you please clarify this?

Bruce

My interpretation for casting attack spells, the spell fails if the target succeeds the RR or the spell is fumbled.. Otherwise it goes off. Utility and attack spells are separate entities that each use their own rules.

Of course ICE/GCP are the final judge on the matter.

[WoeRie]

My interpretation for casting attack spells, the spell fails if the target succeeds the RR or the spell is fumbled.. Otherwise it goes off. Utility and attack spells are separate entities that each use their own rules.

Of course ICE/GCP are the final judge on the matter.

Same here! That's how it is said in the rule book, but maybe Nicholas or Thom can clarify that.

[Bruce]

Interesting thing is, if that is the case, then this is reflected back on the earlier part in this discussion about scaling spells. Elemental and any attack spell under other interpretations become that much more powerful as scaling does not have that much affect on them, except to make them more deadly. In essence seriously unbalancing any attack spell with the normal rules. If in your eyes as a GM think this is balanced then utility spells become that much less effective and less popular. Where is the balance?
In my experience as a GM that could eventually lead to heavy focus on hack and slash in a game (not in reference to the original topic of this thread) and less on role playing.

Bruce

[Pat]

Thom,
The diminishing returns from the skill bonuses is fine and I think it works pretty good. Though The drop from a +5 per rank to a +2 at 11 ranks is a huge drop. Like it's been posted before that most players stop really developing their ranks at that point. But that's not a big deal to me. The diminishing returns I believe grumpy and myself are talking about is the -5 per PP investment to the skill roll. After a certain point there are certain spells that become impossible to cast unless the cast rolls an open ended roll (which is rare). Even with Spell adders and spell bonus items it is still pretty much impossible to cast a spell that has been scaled to level 30 or so in a short enough time to be of real help.

I wonder if using a formula similar to the skill rank progression of 5/2/1 would work in the per PP investment.......(-5 for the first 10 ranks, -2 for ranks 11-20, etc..).
For now though the -2 per PP invested I use in my group seems to be working pretty well.
Unfortunately there are days when it seems my entire group is set to keep rolling fumbles.
Bruce

The transition to a flat bonus progression addresses your Scaling penalty concern.
If Joe is casting a spell at base 6 PP with scaling up by 20 (total PP = 26) then they need to be ranks = 26 and level of about 8th level.  Assume he's got about another +40 in bonuses beyond his 26 ranks.  26 ranks = +76 and then +40 for a total bonus of +116.... then -100 for scaling so final is +16 and it takes 6 rounds to cast.
Using the flat progression at +4 per rank his 26 ranks give a +104 instead of +76, so the end result is +44.  A much better chance of success.

Now instead of Joe pushing his scaling to the max, lets say he is level 15 and has bumped this spell up to 48 ranks because he wants to be a master at it.
Old style = +40 (other stuff) and +90 for ranks = +130    -100 for scaling    end result is +30
New style = +40                 and +192 for ranks = +232    -100 for scaling    end result is +132    His mastery of this spell is clear, and now he can even consider trying to cast this spell in 1 round.   

I'd say that this method now becomes far more High Adventure...  And, if you do it for 1 skill, you have to do it for all skills.  Now that swordsman at level 15 is wielding his blade at +232 - meaning he can do it blindfolded and land a kill shot almost every time, let alone considering other special maneuvers (but no more about that right now...)

I don't know if it would work but it could be allowed that a PC would get a "free" upgrade for every 10 ranks. So the PC can upgrade to a  small from a tiny free of charge in ranks 11-20, medium 20-30 etc. It would reward casters in specialising and also restrict access as the PC can only invest so many ranks per level. It could be like the Scaled Actions in Martial Law but for spell casting.

[WoeRie]

Interesting thing is, if that is the case, then this is reflected back on the earlier part in this discussion about scaling spells. Elemental and any attack spell under other interpretations become that much more powerful as scaling does not have that much affect on them, except to make them more deadly. In essence seriously unbalancing any attack spell with the normal rules. If in your eyes as a GM think this is balanced then utility spells become that much less effective and less popular. Where is the balance?
In my experience as a GM that could eventually lead to heavy focus on hack and slash in a game (not in reference to the original topic of this thread) and less on role playing.

Bruce

Have you ever "tried" to play it? I never had any issues with balancing in HARP and we played a lot, one of our campaigns ended with the characters up to Level 16. The mage used a lot of Utility spells and he had no problems with them being to ineffective (except of Light, which simply lasts not Long enough). But Boost Quickness, Bladeturn, Minor/Major Healing, and a lot more were absolutely essential spells as powerful as any Elemental attack spell.

[Bruce]

I wonder if we are going to get an ICE ruling on this? I know they read these forums......

[Thom @ ICE]

Sorry, missed the comment in overlapping posts....


According to the rules as written:
Utility spells require casting roll with a result roll exceeding 70 to be successfully cast.


Attack spells require the caster to roll once and compare to the RR column to obtain a target value that the target individual must exceed with their RR in order to resist the spell.


Elemental Attack Spells require the caster to roll once and it counts as both the casting and attacking roll.




It is easy to understand why there is confusion. I hope this clarifies it as it is how I play it (though I will ask Nicholas to confirm before calling it the official ruling)


* Every spell casting attempt requires a casting roll (regardless of the type of spell).  They are always checked against the last column of the Maneuver Table.  Therefore a Fumble or Fail is possible - as are Double, Double x2, or Triple results are also possible.


* If a Utility Spell is cast, then it acts as planned.


* If an Attack Spell is cast, then your roll also sets the resistance target for the defender to try to resist the spell.


* If an Elemental Attack Spell is cast, then your roll also acts as the attack roll to compare against the DB, dodge, etc. to avoid the impact of the spell that was cast.


(I will ask Nicholas to review this and correct or approve it)

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

Not quite.

Utility spells are looked up on Utility column.

Attack spells are looked up on RR column ONLY.

Elemental Attack spells are just attacks. If you fumble, you fumble the spell, otherwise resolve as an attack.
Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Thom @ ICE]

So, based upon Nicholas' OFFICIAL RULING (and he's the boss on this call  )
Casting an Elemental Attack Spell is successful unless the spell is fumbled (01-5), but hitting the target needs you to beat the defense.


Casting a Utility Spell requires a 70+ casting roll.  With that it is cast.


Casting an Attack Spell requires a 10+ casting roll in order for the spell to be cast.  Success requires a failed resistance.


I personally don't like that as every spellcasting attempt should have an equal chance of failure or dramatic success (IMO), but those are the rules as written.