Topic: Stacking Buffs: Brilliant Strategy or Terrible Exploit?

[Davrem]

An interesting exploit, or fantastic strategy occurred during our last session.  It has resulted in a house rule, since I'm not sure (and couldn't find) if it was an official one.

1. A ranger who fights with two weapons (ambidextrous, Multiple Weapon, and paired weapon style ) Usually throwing two Cormals per turn. This means he roles once and doubles the hits for the chart result. (not sure if this is in good form or not)

2. Along comes Cleric, casts Nature's Strength (ox) on the Ranger

3. The ranger is now throwing two Cormals, for a X5 hits multiplier for 30 rounds. Ouch...but wait...there's more

4. Cleric then throws Devine Hammer onto one of the Cormals thrown and Ranger hits for a X8 hits multiplier for that turn.  And any turn that he throws that particular Cormal.

So we decided that a house rule of "1 damage buff per character" and no more would at least mitigate the horrendously powerful front line this party can build.  Did I mention he stacks these on the warrior as well?  No? Well, yeah, they can kill anything in 1-3 turns (after the 4 turns it takes the Cleric to buff them up).

Questions:

1. Can you throw both throwing weapons in a round (instead of a two hits with a melee weapon as "multiple weapons" would suggest)?

2. Should the Cleric be able to Buff a weapon, then a person, and stack a X6 hits multiplier on them?

 



 

[Bruce]

First I am not so sure paired weapon style works with thrown weapons.
Second in the spell description Ox Strength can't be used with missile weapons (nor can the character parry), and thrown weapons are missile weapons.
Third, the cleric would need to have a minimum of 15 ranks to cast the spell and would thereby take 3 rounds to cast. Though you could easily reduce  it to 1 round by taking the penalties (-20), but it raises the chance of failure up. That included with the base rule of -5 per scaled PP (which gives you a -50 for 10 ranks) makes it very dangerous to cast the spell with a total base negative modifier of -70. In my group the players avoid negative modifiers that high because they have learned better.
Fourth, even if the cleric cast that last spell in one round it still takes him a whole other round to cast a second spell, minimum. If the Ranger is holding their action then this point is mute.
Fifth, I am pretty sure there is a rule somewhere that states you can only use one type of spell casting buff at a time. I am unable to find it right now.

As a side note I had the Gryx monk in my group do like over 260 points in damage in one shot because the cleric cast divine hammer on him with it scaled to a x3 damage and the cleric rolled open ended in his casting roll so he was able to double one parameter of the spell and he chose the damage multiplier which made it a x6 damage. The Gryx monk was also using paired weapons style with his Kamas and he rolled openended and maxed out the crit roll. I do not remember all the particulars exactly so I may be off a little in some of the modifiers there but I do remember the plant monster they were fighting had around 310 HP and the it was down in two hits, one from a warrior mage and the other from the monk.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

An interesting exploit, or fantastic strategy occurred during our last session.  It has resulted in a house rule, since I'm not sure (and couldn't find) if it was an official one.

1. A ranger who fights with two weapons (ambidextrous, Multiple Weapon, and paired weapon style ) Usually throwing two Cormals per turn. This means he roles once and doubles the hits for the chart result. (not sure if this is in good form or not)

Paired Weapon Style not intended for thrown weapons.

2. Along comes Cleric, casts Nature's Strength (ox) on the Ranger

3. The ranger is now throwing two Cormals, for a X5 hits multiplier for 30 rounds. Ouch...but wait...there's more

Ox Strength is for melee attacks - no parry, no missile attacks. Ox does not throw projectiles.

4. Cleric then throws Devine Hammer onto one of the Cormals thrown and Ranger hits for a X8 hits multiplier for that turn.  And any turn that he throws that particular Cormal.

No throwing weapons, while under Ox Strength.

So we decided that a house rule of "1 damage buff per character" and no more would at least mitigate the horrendously powerful front line this party can build.  Did I mention he stacks these on the warrior as well?  No? Well, yeah, they can kill anything in 1-3 turns (after the 4 turns it takes the Cleric to buff them up).

Questions:

1. Can you throw both throwing weapons in a round (instead of a two hits with a melee weapon as "multiple weapons" would suggest)?

What do you mean by "multiple weapons"? Do you mean the combat style Two Weapon Combat (if so, it is melee only)

2. Should the Cleric be able to Buff a weapon, then a person, and stack a X6 hits multiplier on them?

which spells are you trying to combine?

Best wishes,
Nicholas



 
[/quote]

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

As a side note I had the Gryx monk in my group do like over 260 points in damage in one shot because the cleric cast divine hammer on him with it scaled to a x3 damage and the cleric rolled open ended in his casting roll so he was able to double one parameter of the spell and he chose the damage multiplier which made it a x6 damage. The Gryx monk was also using paired weapons style with his Kamas and he rolled openended and maxed out the crit roll. I do not remember all the particulars exactly so I may be off a little in some of the modifiers there but I do remember the plant monster they were fighting had around 310 HP and the it was down in two hits, one from a warrior mage and the other from the monk.

Double, Triple results etc on Utility spell casting only affects three specific spell attributes:  the range, duration, or number of targets of the spell. So increasing damage multiplier not allowed.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[RickInVA]

On the other hand, magic is, well, magic, so if you want it to work any particular way in your game then go for it!

[Bruce]

Double, Triple results etc on Utility spell casting only affects three specific spell attributes:  the range, duration, or number of targets of the spell. So increasing damage multiplier not allowed.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

As a side note I did forget to mention this is a house rule. Which I do have a number of that change the base rules. For my group the house rules I have implemented truly make HARP a high adventure RPG. It's not that they give the players to much of an advantage or that they can make the players uber powerful. It makes the game that much more fun for my players and myself. For some reason open-ended rolls like that are very few and far in between  but fumbles and failures are much more prevalent at least amongst my players. As the GM I am just the opposite, fumbles are far and few and open-ended rolls are much more prevalent. So I have implemented house rules like this to help alleviate that stress of constant failure.
The moment when this happened was truly an epic moment and it was fun for the players to have been able to kill such a powerful monster so quickly. It was almost a "single arrow Smaug shot" moment, but the overall scene was not as epic.

[Davrem]

Thanks for the replies guys!  Bruce and Nicholas, I appreciate the feedback and comments.

Nicholas in answer to your questions:

What do you mean by "multiple weapons"? Do you mean the combat style Two Weapon Combat (if so, it is melee only)
Yes I meant "Two Weapon Combat".

which spells are you trying to combine?
Ox Strength (Nature's Strength OX) and Divine Hammer.  The cleric made the compelling argument that he was technically not stacking buffs because he was blessing the weapon and the person separately.  I decided to allow it for one session, to see how it would go and it was monstrously OP.

Bruce:
Third, the cleric would need to have a minimum of 15 ranks to cast the spell and would thereby take 3 rounds to cast. Though you could easily reduce  it to 1 round by taking the penalties (-20), but it raises the chance of failure up. That included with the base rule of -5 per scaled PP (which gives you a -50 for 10 ranks) makes it very dangerous to cast the spell with a total base negative modifier of -70.
You are correct, but with a -70 he has a 50/50 chance to cast it successfully if he does it in one turn.  He's comfortable taking that chance on occasion.  Crazy, I know.

I am pretty sure there is a rule somewhere that states you can only use one type of spell casting buff at a time. I am unable to find it right now.
I figured as well, but couldn't find it..and the players hadn't come across it either.  Granted, we're Rolemaster converts and we're still learning the system.

[Thom @ ICE]

Two-weapon combat requires the weapons to be different.
For two of the same weapon, you use Paired Weapons.


In regards to the Nature's Strength and Divine Hammer combo - I would permit it. The argument is valid that one is weapon based and the other individual based.   


Two Notes
- Divine Hammer only works for the cleric's weapon - and it cannot be cast upon others.
- Nature's Strength - Ox Strength only works on melee attacks and would not work on a thrown weapon - as a matter of fact, the individual is prohibited from parrying or using missile weapons for the duration.


For you to stack those 2 spells it would need to be the cleric who is buffed, and he would need to wield the weapon in melee.

[Davrem]

Great! I appreciate the insight.

[Thom @ ICE]

no problem

[Bruce]

Delete this post

[Bruce]

- Divine Hammer only works for the cleric's weapon - and it cannot be cast upon others.

I disagree with this statement. This is what it states in the book: "This spell allows the character to increase the damage he does with his weapon. In its base form, the spell causes the weapon to do double Concussion Hit damage when it strikes." The way I interpret that is it does not say the character has to cast the spell, it says it "allows the character to increase the damage he does with his weapon", which to me means it allows the character controlling the weapon of the target of the spell to do the extra damage.   I do not see as to why a cleric should not be able to buff other people's weapons as a result. The cleric is generally a support character and is normally prone to casting buff healing spells.
Now as an example of a spell I deem that explicitly mentions the caster has to cast the spell is Elemental Weapon (Warrior Mage). It states "The caster is able to temporarily enchant his weapon to deliver an extra elemental critical when attacking with the weapon". It clearly states the caster can only enchant his weapon.

Regardless this is what works for me and my group, it is much more enjoyable and exciting for the way we play.

I have been thinking of writing an article about the ways I and others have either changed HARP or interpret the rules to fit their games. I was thinking of calling it "Hacking HARP". I am currently working on adding something I thoroughly enjoy from a couple other games I play, Plot Points. I think something like Plot Points adds flavor to a game especially for some of the more shy role players.

[Thom @ ICE]

Interpret it however it works for your game - just have fun.


As an explanation of my interpretation...
This spell is to be cast by a cleric, and it says it allows the character, I believe the assumption is that the character referenced is the caster and the enchanted weapon is the cleric's weapon.


Other similar spell wordings
* Read Holy Symbol description... it also refers to the character, but it is pretty clear that the reference to the character is a reference to the owner of the symbol.
* Summon Animal - Guardian... it refers to the character in the first sentence, but I am confident that the character is the caster.
* Summon Animal - Mount ... an animal to act as a mount for the character.  Again, this is a reference to the caster.

[Bruce]

Interpret it however it works for your game - just have fun.


As an explanation of my interpretation...
This spell is to be cast by a cleric, and it says it allows the character, I believe the assumption is that the character referenced is the caster and the enchanted weapon is the cleric's weapon.


Other similar spell wordings
* Read Holy Symbol description... it also refers to the character, but it is pretty clear that the reference to the character is a reference to the owner of the symbol.
* Summon Animal - Guardian... it refers to the character in the first sentence, but I am confident that the character is the caster.
* Summon Animal - Mount ... an animal to act as a mount for the character.  Again, this is a reference to the caster.

Holy Symbol starts with: "The caster enchants his Holy Symbol..."
The Summon Animal range clearly states "self".

You are correct in that we can each interpret as we like and what really counts is how fun the game is for everyone. The first part of the Divine Hammer spell is tricky and can easily be seen as only for the caster, "This spell allows the character to increase...", but it does not explicitly state "only the casters weapon". As a GM I think that spell works great for the cleric in being a supporting character. In the current game I am running I have up to 7 players a game, with 5 regular players. There is a Gryx monk, a Human magician, a Human cleric, a Gryx/Elf Warrior Mage, an Elven Ranger, a Human(?) rogue, and a Dwarven bard. The way the players use the characters in combat is: The monk and the warrior mage are the front line characters, the cleric, the ranger, and the bard are the supporting character and the mage is kind of supporting but more like long range front line, the rogue can be a front line character but not directly. When he is played effectively he makes a great swashbuckling parkour scoundrel (he has been played by 5 different people now). The cleric has been in melee combat quite a few times and I'd have to say my dice do not like him in combat. So far he has had both his left arm and left leg removed because he got involved in combat, they have since been "repaired" (one was a humorous mini quest). The cleric has a number of very useful spells that has helped the party quite often. In fact all the characters fill their rolls quite well. Both the cleric and the mage are spell casters and focus on such as they should. If the cleric was a "Paladin" type then he would have had to sacrifice many of his spells to be useful in combat. Honestly if it wasn't for the cleric's divine hammer spell on either the warrior mage or the monk's weapons then the party would've faced certain defeat quite a few times. They are currently level 7 and will soon be facing an enemy monk/warrior mage character whose total level is above 15. He will of course have help in the form of his special military unit. I was thinking of using the 5th level base fighter example from the core books, but we'll see.

[RickInVA]

Holy Symbol starts with: "The caster enchants his Holy Symbol..."

Is there any reason to think that once the Holy Symbol (or weapon) is enchanted that it can't be given to another character and thereby grant that other character the benefit?

I could easily ready "his Holy Symbol" (at least in isolation without any other context) to mean any Holy Symbol of his order, not just his personal, owned by him, Holy Symbol.  I would think that it would not work for "unbelievers", but if a whole group is of the same faith, and they all have a Holy Symbol of that faith, why couldn't the cleric enchant them all?

There is always a lot of interpretation of the wording of these spells (and other rules).

The best advice I ever received for writing directions for someone to follow was, "Don't write instructions any idiot can understand, write instructions no idiot can misunderstand!"  If that same care was followed here we would not have so many different understandings of the same text.

[Thom @ ICE]

Do you know what the least interesting thing to read is.... Directions.
If the books were written in the same manner as directions or instructions, then few people would ever be able to read them - and it would lead to frustration when the rules prohibited something that the GM or player thought were valid ways to use the spells.


The fact that Bruce's interpretation works for him is great.  It gives him more freedom to run his game his way, and is not so impactful as to destroy the game overall.  I normally would not have even corrected it, except the original poster was explaining a situation where the rules could be abused, and Nicholas and I have both explained separately why the abuse wasn't correct according to the official interpretation.

[Bruce]

Military tech manuals top that list of extremely boring things to read. Some of them are not even instruction books....

Thom is absolutely correct in his statements.

If using a the Holy Symbol spell to enchant another's holy symbol of the same faith works for your game then why not. TBH I don't see why that is not the case now. I have always viewed clerics as spell casters that tend to have the ability to aid or buff others even if only those of their own faith. It makes them that much more distinct than other types of spell casters.

[RickInVA]

Well, in any game I run I don't let "the rules" get in the way of things working the way I want them too.  I do, on the other hand, understand your point.

I wonder though from your comment if you understand my point.  It is no more work to write "the caster" than "the character", and if the intent is "the caster" then why not say that?   The frequency that people have differing interpretations of the same text simply leads me to the conclusion that the text has often not been carefully written with a view to avoid ambiguity.  Avoiding ambiguity is not the same as turning the text into a set of "directions" that you, for some reason, seem to abhor. 

If the rules are intentionally written with ambiguity, then I don't see how there can be an "official interpretation".  If there is an "official interpretation", then why not write the rule or spell/skill description so that is clear?  I'm surprised that you find that idea so controversial.

[Thom @ ICE]

I would say it is a poor choice of words.  My recommendation would be that the wording should read -
"This spell allows the caster to increase the damage he does with his weapon. In its base form, the spell causes the weapon to do double Concussion Hit damage when it strikes.


As I mentioned earlier, with the exception of a couple of other spells (where there is no ambiguity due to the context) this is the only spell where the text reads "the character".  If you wish to say that is the official ruling - go for it.  If you wish to go with Bruce's interpretation and it works for you, I don't think it will break the system.  My only definite recommendation is that it be consistent in your game.


My concerns were that I don't want Bruce to feel that he is forced to change his interpretation if they are working for him, and I don't want to ever have authors feel the need to write their words in legal or precise language.  I do agree that whenever possible we should use language that is not ambiguous - but sometimes ambiguity is not a problem.