Topic: HARP Hack & Slash and the elemental scaling problem

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

We are currently working simultaneously on a series of adjustments to HARP Fantasy, Martial Law, and College of Magics. It has been suggested that we include the Hack&Slash rules set into the GCP release of Martial Law. As many have noted, the critical size scaling options applied to Elemental Bolt and Ball spells simply don't make sense for spellcasters to use when Hack&Slash tables are in play.

We've explored a number of possible ways of correcting this problem, and have come to the conclusion that the fix needs to be made in the tables themselves (rather than being accommodated in another part of the rules set, i.e. Hack & Slash is an optional combat rules set, it should conform to the rest of the rules rather than changing them)

So we've taken the Heat attack table and adjusted it such that elemental scaling should always give a caster more hits and where possible a better critical letter than not scaling a spell. The downside is that this makes Hack&Slash tables more lethal and there is more crit duplication (there aren't enough letters in the alphabet and no space for more on the tables).

I've attached the adjusted Heat table as xls and pdf for comments from you, before we make a decision as to whether to apply equivalent adjustments to all the tables (so that Elemental Attacks don't become much more powerful than all others) or whether we simply leave Hack&Slash out of Martial Law

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Ecthelion]

IMO the problem is somewhat mitigated with the modified table, but it still exists. While previously the criticals (until reaching a 'V' crit, which is killing anyway) were just the same for an unscaled and a scaled version of an elemental attack spell, each scaling now effectively increases the critical severity the caster can expect for his attack by one. Additionally the difference in concussion hits between the different attack sizes is now more pronounced.

This is certainly nice, but OTOH it does not equal more than a +5 bonus. Would I have my spell caster invest 5 PP instead of 3 PP for an Elemental Bolt, putting almost double PP into the spell, for such a small bonus? Or scale up the spell even higher requiring more than one round to cast? Not often. Better shoot two tiny bolts instead of one medium or larger one (2 chances for a good critical roll). Firing a small bolt instead of the tiny bolt might more often make sense.

Whether scaling is useful certainly also depends on my bonus with the Elemental Bolt/Ball spell and the opponent's DB. If my spell caster has a low OB and/or the target a high DB, then scaling might make sense to increase the chances to get a critical at all or for getting a good one. But if instead my spell caster has e.g. 120 OB with his Elemental Bolt and the opponent has a low DB, so that I might have something like 90 + dice roll for my attack, then chances are quite high (almost 50%) that the spell caster reaches a result of 146 or more, which would be an instant kill. Increasing these chances for a killing spell makes little sense. Instead just cast again next round with the same high chance to kill. This is IMO a fundamental flaw of the H&S system, that once just reach 146-150 or max out the chart, then you have a guaranteed instant kill. That's even true if you use a dart or dagger against a super-large creature. And this flaw does not get removed with this change.

I think it helps taking a look at RM's Spell Law attack tables or the MERP spell attack tables. If you compare a small spell attack, like a Shock Bolt, to a larger attack (i.e. the equivalent of a scaled version) like a Fire Bolt, then it in most cases makes sense to use the larger attack version because only that is able to achieve the higher criticals. The maximum for a Shock Bolt for most ATs is IIRC a B-Critical, while for a Fire Bolt it is a D- or E-critical. And that means significantly more stuns, bleeding plus double or higher chance to get a killing blow.

With H&S the incentive for using a scaled version of an elemental attack spell is significantly lower (at least for a power gamer) and it often does not outweigh the costs (in terms of PPs, time and increased spell failure severity).

Just my 2 cents

[Pat]

How about bringing in crit limits as well? (I know this goes against H&S but.....) Say make a tiny max 80, small 90, med 110, large 130, huge 150.

This would mean that investing pp's in scaling would be beneficial. A tiny maxes at 5H, small 12M etc.

[Ecthelion]

This would OTOH mean that for some attack sizes a fatal critical would not be possible at all. Is that really good???

[WoeRie]

I like the new tables, this wa sone of my first approches to the problem. But this is not the solution as Ecthelion already said. Compare 2 Tiny Spells with one Small or reduce the additional -10 for faster casting and you still have the problem.

I would go for the Crit limit! In addition drop the Huge and Large tables, and reduce the weapon sizes by one (or give a -50) for each attack above your size, this would result that a Tiny attack won't hurt a Large creature at all. This makes sense, as I think it is impossible that a bee will kill a whale.

Of course as Ect also wrote, you should always give a chance of success. So, allowing to ignore the crit limitations for open ended rolls.

[Pat]

This would OTOH mean that for some attack sizes a fatal critical would not be possible at all. Is that really good???

I think it shouldn't be a problem. The way I see it if I'm throwing a fire bolt (for example) that produces only a tiny critical then my bolt would only be 1/2" in diameter. I've seen candle flames bigger than that 

[Mitchiban]

By adjusting the Crit result on the Right side Chart so that a max for tiny 80 = R small 90 =T, medium 100 = V, Large 110 = X, and Huge 120=Z scaling would have a purpose.  Additionally a small bonus could also be added to the spell to help offset the extra scaling penalty and perhaps ease the Speed casting penalty (2 pp to increase size and gain +5 bonus).  Still have the problem just now it will be at medium for the V crit but you have given back +10 to offset the -20 from scaling(4pp) and -10 from speed casting(1 R).  Is -20 enough to have a solid chance to kill somebody each round?

What I dont like about the above solution is that the core spell is being altered with the bonus to fit an optional combat system.   It only moves the problem up to medium but that might be enough to add some color. 

Perhaps throw in a few critters that only can be harmed by open ended crits and large/huge attacks and extra scalling has usage.

[Mitchiban]

Another thought would be to extend the size of the attack modifier down so that a T attack vs a Large or huge would give a special result.  So instead of another -2 column shift you would say no critical just hit damage.  Open ended crits and manuevers could change that.  This would apply to all attacks not just magical.  So power striking (against a large)with Tiny or using skills like ambush or sniping would still allow criticals do to pin point targeting.

Moves the problem up to small scaling of the Elemental Bolt against large and medium with Huge targets but doesnt mess with core spells.

[Thom @ ICE]

The intent of this review is to see if the proposed solution addresses the issue satisfactorily enough so that Hack & Slash can be included in the Martial Law re-release.  We will not be revising other areas of the rules to try to address the shortfalls in Hack & Slash.

Hack & Slash is designed with variable damage and criticals based upon attack size, therefore any further reduction of the result prior to consulting the charts is doubling the impact of the size effect as well as adding yet another calculation.

Similarly, the charts by their very nature have a max at 150, which for a Tiny attack is less than the same result for a Huge attack but is still a kill. Adding a max at a lower value, even allowing for special circumstances to exceed the cap, will result in the max result becoming so commonplace as to remove the fun from the battles. 

In order to avoid the repetition at a damage cap level and minimize the extra calculations, as the charts progress in size, the associated criticals now guarantee a more significant result when any elemental attack is scaled up.  That increase in the result always includes an increase in concussion hits delivered, but also (approx 70% of the time) delivers an increased critical value.  It more than compensates for the -10 associated with for the scaling penalty, but whether or not it makes up for the other effects related to scaling (casting time, use of PP, etc.) that all depends. If the 2 extra PP pushes it out another round of casting then it may not - but that's no different than what you get in the Core rules.

The question here is, without re-writing Hack & Slash entirely (making it something completely different), and without changing HARP in other areas, does the new chart address the problem with the scaling penalty offsetting the results on elemental attacks?  We believe it does, but we'd like you to try playing with it and give us specific reasons why this chart is not better than what was in use with the original release of Hack & Slash.

Thanks for taking the time to give it a try, and we look forward to your results.

[Mitchiban]

You cant just change the charts without effecting all other spells.   The proposed is fair for Elemental Bolt and Balls: With totals including casting penalties to get down to 1 round of S+M = -10 for the additional hit damage, and L+H for -20. Basically your chart gives them the PP penalty offset in a form of +10 and changes the hits by about 1.5 per level.  There is added variance to fill out the chart but that is the crux of what I see. 

However, think of stun cloud and like spells that get a free +10 bonus per size for free with the new charts.  Not to mention other physical impacts.  Torches gain a bonus to hit if the flame is small and not tiny etc. Dragons get a huge boost.    Go Smaug!!

If the problem were mages are too weak this is an overall boost to direct elemental damage capabilities.   Which in turn makes spells like Spikes less valuable as they do physical damage slash that does not receive the same +10 per size damage increase and the increased hits.   I believe mages are too strong and dont need this boost.   

The problem is with no need to scale using Hack and Slash.   So the chart needs to reflect a need to scale such as above where tiny non scaled Elemental Ball/bolt is useless against Large or something to that effect. Or change the spell which you stated wasnt a likely option.

Possibly include your +10 bonus in the Elemental Ball/Bolt spell PP scaling description and perhaps the 1.5 damage modifier as well.  2 PP 1.5 hits, +10 to hit, +1 size.   Or 2 pp x2 hits(easier math) and a seperate 2pp for+10 bonus/ size level.  Those changes are to the spells and then leave the charts alone.  The effect this may have on other combat systems may unbalance things again.   Not an easy fix.

My 25 cents....inflation.   

[jurasketu]

I use a concept in my own combat charts (a location/severity based matrix) that might apply to HackNSlash.

In my game, the target of an attack gets a "Complication [Critical] Negation" check. The concept of the check is quite simple. Armor, Hide, attack size and target size can reduce the effect of an otherwise well-placed blow. So while the target suffers the hits - they can avoid (negate) the critical by making a successful Complication Negation Check.

D100+ plus Armor/Hide Bonus plus Attack Size Modifier plus Target Size Modifier

Result > 100 - complication is negated (avoided) including stun, bleeding, etc.
A fumble (5 or less) automatically fails regardless of modifiers.

Attack Size: (Tiny +40, Small +20, Medium +0, Large -20, Huge -40)
Target Size: (Tiny -40, Small -20, Medium +0, Large +20, Huge +40)

Since we exclusively use hit location based attacks, we also use the equivalent full armor bonus pertinent to the hit location. So a player wearing nothing but a metal helmet gets a +60 on the negation check on blows to the head. A blow to the unarmored throat gets nothing - just size differential.

Example: Large Troll attacked by a high skilled rogue wielding a short sword. The rogue open-ends and gets a 19W. Troll with Tough Hide +40 with Large Target Size +20 against a Small Attack Size +20 needs only to roll 21+ to avoid the nasty death critical and continue the fight.

Yeah... Its an extra roll - but it makes heavily armored and large foes darned hard to bring down if the attacks are puny. So mages are forced to scale spells against large foes and fighters are forced to use HEAVY weapons and Power Strikes to kill Trolls, Giants and Dragons or risk their double open-end slash combat roll turning into a nice "29" hits but nothing fatal. Obviously, using this choice would throw out the Large and Huge tables (since the critical avoidance is sufficient).

It makes "location" important and wearing a helm and breastplate very logical if using hit locations. And then "picking" a hit location becomes more interesting.

[Thom @ ICE]

Jurasketu - Sounds interesting, and maybe something to look at more closely in the future, but it is too far of a departure from HARP core rules for what we currently looking to do.

Mitchiban -
* We can't add that +10 into the spell as it would introduce multiple sets of spell rules for the various combat systems. 
* We are looking at applying the same type of chart adjustment to the other attack types, which would address your concern regarding the Spikes spell, and would also make those large/huge foes a lot more deadly with their melee attacks.
* I am not following the comment about Stun Cloud. Can you elaborate on that?

[Mitchiban]

The Stun Cloud reasoning is below....however if you apply the damage change to the physical charts this point becomes moot. As all damage receives a boost.  Not just he Elemental.

The stun cloud produces multiple crits on the same chart that will be changed as electricity is used for Air Bolt/Balls.  Changing the chart to make it more effective by +10 per size increase will result in more damage being produced for the spell.  During the first 2 rounds (Non Scaled) 2 medium crits on the new charts will produce extra hit damage and also achieve crits at 20 result point lower.  Same for the next 2 rounds for Small but the bonus is only +10.

These changes will make hack and slash more deadly.    Which isnt such a bad thing.

Two additional thoughts now that I understand the above change more clearly. 

First the good.  With deadlier Hack and Slash the optional armor adjustments from Martial Law will work a bit better for taking down heavily armored targets (more hits being done not to mention easier to bleed, stun, etc).

Secondly, smaller weapons take another hit as the damage tables of hack and slash will favor the larger weapons even more.  Tiny no bonus, small +10, med +20, and Large +30.  Basically the larger weapons will do more damage than before and with no other change are that much more the weapons of choice.  Not accounting for world laws or environment there is little reason not to carry a large weapon as they are vastly superior to the smaller ones.  While this may have some real truth it does hinder the desire for variance within a party.  Two henchman show up one with shield and a short sword another with shield and a long sword.  Who do you hire?  lol  Shouldnt matter in roleplaying but if they were equal in cost and skill go with the long sword.

[Ecthelion]

The intent of this review is to see if the proposed solution addresses the issue satisfactorily enough so that Hack & Slash can be included in the Martial Law re-release.

Btw., may I ask why the combat rules in HB#11 are not going to get included into the ML re-release? The HB#11 rules IMO don't have any weaknesses that prevent inclusion. Personally I'd rather include a rule-set that really works (HB#11) instead of including a broken rule-set that somehow was patched to mitigate the inherent problems (H&S).

And I have the impression that, in an almost desperate attempt to create combat rules that work with only one dice roll (as if that were the holy grail of role-playing), three new combat rules were created for HARP, that all had their inherent flaws (core rules: up to medium attacks can't kill at all unless a 99-00 gets rolled, while large and huge attacks  have fairly high chances ; ML: plate armor is almost impregnable ; H&S: elemental attack scaling problem) instead of simply taking the piece of the RM rules that probably many people think the best part of it, which are the combat rules. With HB#11 these RM combat rules were finally brought to HARP, and now it seems as if this one HARP combat system that works has no chance to get integrated into the core rules. If it's copyright issues that prevent HB#11 from getting into ML, then simply adapt the simplified combat rules from the RMFRP rules book to HARP. That's quite easy and does hopefully not have any copyright problems.

Just my 2 cents

[pastaav]

I don't really see the reason why you can't have a translation table for Hack & Slash and elemental attacks. Basically we are talking about an optional set of attack tables and having the requirement that including this optional rule will not affect parts of the game written in other books does not really make sense. The combat tables deal with rules about how much damage each kind of attack deliver, while the other books deal with how much PP and effort it would take to get a "more dangerous" kind of attack.

Personally I would be hesitant to mess with critical entries since there is a very delicate balance here between different weapons and spells. The central question is how deadly should Hack & Slash be? The risk of increasing the deadliness of elemental attacks is that at some point you reach a level when either weapons and spells give such advantage that the game experience suffer.

What if scaling an elemental spell on the Hack & Slash tables mean that you get concussion hit multiplier?
Or what if gets a hit multiplier that increases for more powerful armor?

My basic thought with the later is that when you make rule changes you should focus on actual issues. The problem is not really that scaling elemental attacks does not make always sense, but that there are not any reasonable situations when it makes sense. If you can match some issue in the game (like armor giving to good benefits) with a rule that makes elemental scaling reasonable then you are on spot. Without such a match you risk just passing the bucket around, fixing a "problem" at one point raises new problems in other part of the game and since people dislike having their toys taken they get very upset when their particular character build loose in potency. 

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

The intent of this review is to see if the proposed solution addresses the issue satisfactorily enough so that Hack & Slash can be included in the Martial Law re-release.

Btw., may I ask why the combat rules in HB#11 are not going to get included into the ML re-release? The HB#11 rules IMO don't have any weaknesses that prevent inclusion. Personally I'd rather include a rule-set that really works (HB#11) instead of including a broken rule-set that somehow was patched to mitigate the inherent problems (H&S).

Because they are essentially identical to RMX and that means they have the same legal issue.

And I have the impression that, in an almost desperate attempt to create combat rules that work with only one dice roll (as if that were the holy grail of role-playing), three new combat rules were created for HARP, that all had their inherent flaws (core rules: up to medium attacks can't kill at all unless a 99-00 gets rolled, while large and huge attacks  have fairly high chances ; ML: plate armor is almost impregnable ;

We are making armor adjustment in Martial Law optional.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Ecthelion]

Because they are essentially identical to RMX and that means they have the same legal issue.

Should I create new tables based on RMFRP? It's not too difficult IMO, but I'd only spend the time if there's a chance the tables are going to be used in some way for HARP.

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

PM sent to Ecthelion

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Yapadekoi]

Don't want to Troll or anything but I just wish to add the way my group handle this problem.

We made this change because we thought the Bolt were unabalance (weaker) compare to non-magical ranged attack like Bow/Arrow.
In addition to all the excellent demonstration upstair we found that
When scaling to make a medium bolt, launching the spell took as much time as shooting with a bow.
The two attack have a lot in common, Ranged attack with near the same range, same size of attack. The problem is that the Bolt COST PP while shooting an arrow cost nothing and the Bolt have a penalty to the attack roll.
Well that was a lot against casting bolt instead of just learn to shoot with a bow.


This is our houserule
When using Hack&slash all scaling for elemental attack don't suffer of a penalty to casting and so no penalty for the attack roll.
Instead each PP invested in addition to the cost of the basic spell increase by one the fumble range.
So a medium bolt (+4PP) have a fumble range increase of 4.

Well just to add ANOTHER houserule or opinion
Sorry for the poor english

[WoeRie]

I really like the idea! I think I will try this out in my next game.