From now on (actually, awhile ago) I'm going to add things as I think of them - I think I'm largely out of ideas now, so posts are likely to be just single "hey this is cool" things I've found, in no particular order. Assuming I do find something new of course.

(edit - added Point section 17/5/2014 since doesn't really go anywhere easily)

Point Systems: totally free points allocation (have 100 points and go wild - GURPS, HERO) gives players a lot of leeway to min/max even while being theoretically equal, so its not uncommon to divide points into subcategories to limit this a little; e.g. Savage Worlds with 5 stat points/15 skill points/1 Edge if human, or oWoD Storyteller which goes further with priority allocation between Physical/Mental/Social attributes and three subtypes of skills (academic, practical, etc.) + freebie points or points from disadvantages.
Certain things are actually more difficult to model in free-point systems - a super-race with huge stat bonuses would need a point cost that left a character with no points left over to buy stats so that the PC wasn't actually all that competent, whereas in a game with multiple subcategories the race cost could come out of a separate skill, merit (or whatever) pool so that there was genuine stat advantage.  

Separated (silo'd) point systems sometimes build in additional dodges for redistributing points anyway - for instance, oWoD storyteller has a flaw which lets a character start with fewer knowledge dots (or equivalent for other subcategories), bringing the question of why have the suballotment in the first place?

Similarly, Skills and Powers let characters move unspent points from earlier in chargen to later (race, then class(es), then skills/advantages; overall messy since characters got hugely varying numbers of points and costs were wild estimates.
Direct exchange rates can be set up between different point subquotas (2 points of type A = 1 point of type B). Systems can also, accidentally have 'exchange' because as well as this high abstraction level transfer, there can be concrete options that allow for exchange; a disadvantage might give you more type A points, but be largely countered by another ability than can be purchased with type B points. As a hypothetical example, you might take Clumsy as a disadvantage to get more stat points, this triggers more critical fumbles but you can then buy "Lucky" as a feat that gives you rerolls, meaning that effectively the flaw is offset and you're bought more stat points with a feat.

Purely point-based games can often assign varying costs to options (Alien - 40, Merchant - 10) when other systems sometimes evolve multiple sets of options, then have to work to keep options within that list balanced. e.g. compare how in FantasyCraft some element of a character concept might be a class level, feat, background or ability in a slightly arbitrary way - it may be difficult to build your adventurer/merchant character because those are both selections from the 'crud' category you get one flavour-enhancing selection from, rather than because its overpowered. The same concept may also underlie multiple items on different lists, all designed to be individually balanced rather than perfectly representational of whatever it is.

Points can be based on a game use function, or on real world time to learn. A couple of games (2E D&D skills and powers), costs were mostly based on reverse engineering existing rules so that existing characters were a possible option, which gave often inflated costs.

Total number of points a character is given to start generally should be enough that there are some genuine 'trade-offs' in character design - mirroring the sort of decisions that are overtly coded-in for 'class' systems (probably with more flexibility, but still its desirable that characters differ to some extent rather than being capable at everything).

Interesting variants: Supers! (Hazard Studios) is simple enough that a character can be point-built with a budget of e.g. "25D", directly divided as dice among Resistances/Aptitudes/Powers.

Rant: Point systems that use individually variable costs

A few systems attempt to charge characters different numbers of points for the same ability. For example +1 to a skill costs character A one point, and character B two points.

*Aces and Eights (I believe) does this for some advantages, so that you can be a dwarf magic-user costs more points than being an (anything else) magic user.
*Skills and Powers D&D also made certain advantages or disadvantages cost more or less for certain races (or classes), as well as having certain proficiencies cost more for characters with low scores (>9); and had class features which were cheaper to some classes than to others.
*Savage Worlds' varies skill costs depending on how high your stats are - with cost changes being non-retroactive so that the guy with [Agility d6, Fighting d6] who raises first Fighting, then Agility is worth less points total than the guy who raises Agility, then Fighting.
*GURPS has a photographic memory advantage which has a point cost, but then quadruples skill point investment in mental skills.
*4E Hero has perks (Jack of all Trades, Linguinst, Scientist, Scholar, Traveler, Well-Connected) modifying costs of skill groups e.g. trades for Jack of all Trades).
*Rolemaster and subsequently 3.5 D&D have varying costs to puchase individual skill ranks depending on whether skills are cross-class or not.
*Conversely Exalted reportedly has different character types all starting with the same number of points, but with some types having far more powerful abilities for the same cost, causing problems if a character gets access to some way of selecting abilities off alternate lists and deliberately hiding actual power levels.
(and something similar can happen as a result of e.g. racial modifiers, as noted under attribute scores - e.g. if a +2 to Strength is costed differently from race and level-advancement).

My advice would be to avoid doing this when building a system. If you want a system to be balanced the cost of something is based on how good it is - its effect on play. If something has a fixed benefit therefore, it should have a fixed cost. Charging more to some characters based on concept is deliberately building in trap options; it rewards players who are gaming the system.

Giving certain characters discounts or bonuses gives them more or less total value, from an objective viewpoint (rather than the POV of the games' point math). For instance if you let elves take Ultimate Bow Mastery at half cost, this is a benefit to the elves who want Bow Mastery and no benefit to elves who don't; consequently someone is getting a freebie, someone is getting shafted, and you're building in a trap option (either Bow Master characters who aren't elves, non-Bow Master elves, or both, depending on how costly being an elf is).

There is a caveat to this: if the actual benefit an ability grants varies, you should consider varying the cost, or consider adjusting the benefit to make it equally useful to more potential buyers. - e.g. if a character has 4 arms, you probably should charge them more for ambidexterity (if it applies to all their limbs).

Particularly a concern for balance may be abilities than have intrinsically variable value depending on a character's attribute scores (or even skills); if the ESP merit lets a PC brain probe someone with a successful Intelligence check, this is of course going to be more useful to a character with higher Intelligence (even though it'll probably have the same cost to all characters). A Int-based merit alters the relative value between Int and the other scores as soon as its taken.
This sort of thing is IMHO, undesirable, but not always avoidable; the same sort of problem applies e.g. to class features which derive largely from a stat (If most of a wizards' powers get a bonus from Intelligence, expect wizards to have high Int scores).

As another interesting example of varying point costs, we could look at GURPS Old West: Roleplaying on the American Frontier. Its note on Odious Personal Habits notes:

QuoteWhen assessing a habit's value, the GM should consider the company the character will keep. An Odious Personal Habit is worth points only if it affects many people the PC is likely to meet, or if roleplaying the habit is likely to affect the other players. Colorful swearing for a cowboy is only a Quirk, a -5 pt habit for a merchant, - 10 for a Mormon elder, and -15 points for a schoolmarm.

This immediately looks to me, IMHO, very abuseable - giving schoolmarms 15 points of stuff for free (which they'll probably spend on guns).

Another version of this appears in games with 'talent trees' including Star Wars - Edge of the Empire and Warhammer 40K based games like Deathwatch: an ability can appear on multiple lists at different costs, and a player needs to check multiple lists to find the cheapest version or get overcharged.

Related to the same idea it may be worth considering some other unbalanced or uncosteable transactions in character generation.
Configuration limits i.e. 'May not buy X': this common limitation prevents a character with the disadvantage (or whatever) from picking up some other desirable power. For instance, a cyborg or dwarf may not be a magic-user, or a character with super powers may not also have psionics.
In a point-based game, this sort of thing is arguably unbalanced since the purpose of points is to enable characters of equivalent value to be costed. Two 100-pt characters should be equivalent whether they bought a given ability or not - if this is true then not being able to buy something has no net negative value.  In practice however, most point systems are unbalanced anyway and so being unable to buy a particular power is a disadvantage, though assigning its value is very difficult.
Consider for example Elderly disadvantage in Savage Worlds; this reduces Pace and reduces Str and Vigour by a dice type (to a minimum of d4), as well as preventing them from being raised thereafter. If a character doesn't buy up Str and Vigour from d4 initially, they suffer no stat penalty, but also means that the character is stuck with a d4 attribute permanently.
(As another example of an interesting configuration limit, 3E D&D 'Unearthed Arcana' has a 'pathetic' flaw which gives a character a -2 to one attribute, in exchange for a bonus feat. To prevent this being abused by super-high-rolling characters it can only be taken if total attribute modifiers are +8 or less, giving low scores a potential hard-to-value benefit - at best a character with it might get into a PrC earlier than one without it for instance).
Another case of this is disadvantages that limit skill choices - say, an "illiterate" disadvantage might prevent a character buying the Read/Write skill. If read/write is normally cheap and everyone who can would pick it up, this patchfixes the cost problem, but it introduces a cost differential between two characters who don't buy the skill if one has the disadvantage (and bonus points) and the other doesn't but has in practice the same game capabilities. So having it as either just the skill or just the disadvantage is better.

Unknown in-game effect: an ability lets a character get other powers, depending on the campaign. For instance, a wizard might be able to cast spells if they find enemy spellbooks/scrolls, a herbalist might learn recipes for new poisons, or a character might find different magic weapons (which depending on weapon proficiencies or race they might or might not be able to use). The value of such abilities are entirely context-dependent and cannot be predicted within the game system without building campaign assumptions into the ruleset. Many if not all abilities are like this to some extent, so the optimum situation may be where every character has equal access rather than where this is disallowed.

Attempts to limit this are often fairly heavy-handed and may have unforeseen consequences e.g. Savage Worlds alchemy has a character burn power points to create potions, which cannot be regained until the potion is used - something that balances it against other spellcasters (preventing alchemists from essentially converting cash into limitless numbers of 'spells) but is at odds with 'alchemist shops' and somewhat nonsensical.

Buy Now, Pay Later/Building for the future: a strategy lets a character get power now with some payback later, or vice versa. Examples include demihumans in D&D (level limits in exchange for other abilities), Juicers in Rifts (die in 7 years in exchange for super-athletic powers now), wizards vs. fighters in AD&D (where a wizard is more powerful at high levels, but squishy in the early game), or 3.5 prestige classes which gain strong powers in exchange for taking crappy prerequisite feats at earlier levels to qualify.
Or characters who get 'bonus xp' each session just for being humans/halflings/whatever.
 Such things cause problems in one-shot games or games starting at higher levels etc. where a player can escape the downside to just get the benefits, though may be fine if the players don't mind varying power levels among themselves. In the case of 3.5, painfulness of prerequisite feats got worse through the edition as more and more other feat options were released, while the benefit of taking a PrC also varied as new synergistic options were added to the ruleset.

Different exchange rates going in different directions - e.g. a feat can be traded in for 5 skill points, or for 10 skill points you can buy a feat. This sort of thing again demands that someone be screwed, theoretically speaking.

Edit notes: 12/8/17 extra note on multiple subcategories of points (*).

Running a D&D adventure with lots of low-level monsters on the weekend (specifically, Gates of Firestorm Peak, which has a chamber with 70+ duergar in it - fortunately one of the PCs decided to challenge their leader to a duel...) had me pondering systems that streamline mass combats.
Savage Worlds and Tunnels and Trolls are two of the better ones. T&T gives monsters lots of dice, which you can roll as a group. Thinking about MR, its actually slightly awkward since you generate an MR, each MR generates some dice, you roll all the dice, then when the monster takes hits the MR goes down and that drops the dice roll.
You could streamline this by having a monster described as just a dice total; "hits" come directly off the dice somehow. Now, I don't even need to keep track of hit points on a piece of paper, or individual monsters - the pile of dice in front of me represents the monsters that are there.
 
A Savage Worlds-type interpretation of this would give monsters varying dice (d4s, d6s, d8s, etc), which you roll to hit/damage for the monsters. The PCs would do damage expressed as negative dice steps: a monster with a d8 die could be injured (stepped down to d6 or d4), or removed completely if its dice is reduced below d4.
So enemy monsters are 5 goblins, 3 orcs and 2 ogres, the enemy attack total might be 5d4 + 3d6 + 2d8. A hit kills a goblin (d4), while 2 hits kills the orc [one would reduce it to d4] and 3 would kill the ogre. Hence, the system allows for the existence of hit points (rather than things being just "up, down, or off the table") while still having monster tracking be quite simple.
 
Edit 23 May: no new ideas under the Sun. I've found Risus handles monsters as totals of d6s more or less as above - unsurprisingly, its combat system is descended from Tunnels and Trolls'.

Edit 30 Jan '14- Not quite the same but I've also found elsewhere (OD&D boards, user.. Zaltyn?) the idea of rolling monster Hit Dice in D&D, and keeping the rolls in front of the DM to be subtracted from with damage, rather than recording the number. Works good with 0D&D D6 monster HD.

This thread is fantastically useful.

I an nit sure (because this thread is also fantastically long and not necessarily fantastically in a sensible order) but I don't see the Silcore method of dealing with skills, here skills are split in the aptitude (not sure its called that) rated 1 to 3 and the Complexity (rated 1 to 3). So you would have a skill Melee 3/2. With would allow you to use your characteristic + aptitude to perform Complexity 2 tasks without penalty, but would impose a modifier (-2?) on complexity 3 tasks.

I am unconvinced its very good, but I don't think I have seen it anywhere else.

Hi Jadrax, glad you’re finding it useful! Sorry its a bit haphazard. I may attempt to reorganize the information into a .pdf at some point, time permitting, although it’d be a fair amount of work.
 
Also thanks - I hadn’t heard of Silcore. I have seen something like that mechanic, though I didn’t think to discuss it earlier – JAGS has a “Level of Mastery” (Beginner, Professional, Expert, Master) which is bought separately to the characters chance of success, so you can have characters with skills of “Professional, 13-“ or “Expert, 13-“.
This is used for (sometimes fuzzy) GM adjudication of whether the character can make a roll without penalty. In JAGS the levels also often have associated special abilities, and L3 or L4 skills reduce negative difficulty modifiers.
 
The point of either the JAGS or Silcore setup (I think) would be that a highly-skilled character has a decent chance of performing a high-difficulty task, without necessarily having a huge chance of success at a low-difficulty task.
 
I'd say the arrangement is a bit over-complex, since you need an extra value or descriptor for each skill to do something might work just from designing the core system correctly (choosing the right numbers and dice types to get the probability spread desired). So it looks more like a patchfix, although I guess other mechanics could build off it in a perhaps interesting way.
 
Its still perhaps less complex than the other possible approach to solve that problem, where each complexity level gets a separate skill (e.g. Palladium’s Basic Mathematics vs. Advanced Mathematics, and Computer Operation vs. Computer Programming vs. Computer Hacking, etc.).

Its been incredibly useful, not least when I think I have a new idea only to see its been done. ;o)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;520354I'd say the arrangement is a bit over-complex, since you need an extra value or descriptor for each skill to do something might work just from designing the core system correctly (choosing the right numbers and dice types to get the probability spread desired). So it looks more like a patchfix, although I guess other mechanics could build off it in a perhaps interesting way.

I think the reason Silcore uses it is that its skill only go from 1-3, so it allows another 3 points worth of differentiation. Realistically though, only tech and combat manoeuvres seem to take any note of it, from what I remember at least.

(This last post is more about a principle I'm trying to work out in my own mind, rather than a list of design options - apologies for that. The examples here are somewhat dodgy, since they oft involve some speculation into designer intent.)

Good design ideally requires the designer know what is going on within the system- in order to predict how rules will interact with each other.

What will happen in play will depend on chance, circumstance, player behaviour and GM fiat. However, I'm not so much speaking of that here, as how the design of the system itself is impacted by the designer's available information or lack thereof, when generating the basic numbers that run the rules. Inclusion of certain rules may be avoided because they *might* become unworkable in some circumstances; and the likelihood of that is unknown; or it may be evident during play that numbers have been included that don't seem to work, due to miscalculation on something that was quite hard to calculate.

Unknowns that have been encountered by designers may include:
*unknown dice probability i.e. likelihood of character's rolling X number of successes in dice pool systems - isn't easily apparent to designers, and may result in mis-estimates of likely # successes for performing various actions. (possible example: Burning Wheel is sometimes mentioned as having routine rolls be extremely difficult - although I may misunderstand, and it could be deliberate intent).

*unknown average i.e. average ability scores. In a 3d6-down the line system, 10-11 (or 9-12) is normal and so no modifier. Consequently it is fair to have skills etc. unadjusted by any ability modifier. Shifting to [4d6-lowest] and having modifiers be more frequent changes "add no modifier" from being just different, to being a penalty condition. This increases the tendency to add modifiers to rolls since the exact penalty from getting a 'nonadjustment' to a rating is unknown and potentially large. 3.5 shows additional rules being generated as a consequence of this; in particular "nonabilities" have additional rules for how alternate ability scores apply their bonuses to various checks; Pathfinder and late (MM III onward) 3.5 monsters with no Con start adding Cha bonuses to hit points since these ended up fairly low.

*unknown range. A large range of values can lead to rules generating funny results; rules may be designed to avoid possible problems with high values, by not taking a value into account. For instance T&T had a more divergent ability scale (since race, level, and magic bonuses can staggeringly raise attributes); weapons have a "STR-required" value which could be used to determine whether a weapon is one-handed or two-handed, except that increases to STR would rapidly give rise to ridiculous results - halflings who could use a greatsword in each hand. Likewise, solo adventures sometimes contain "you fail a saving roll and are stabbed in the chest and die", despite characters being able to have hit point values that could make a surprise attack from a normal monster non-lethal; (Palladium has the same problem due to HP bloat and so has a "you automatically die if you smother a grenade with your body" realism rule). Comparatively, other systems may be able to directly use STR to determine height or other such "tight couplings" (as Kirk might say).
(EDIT: Rules might be added to cap ranges due to them possibly becoming a problem (unknowns) rather than actually being a problem - limits that are too harsh ?)

*unknown equivalence. 3.5 D&D has a GP:XP equivalent set at 5:1 (1 xp is worth 5 GP, for instance when buying a spell or creating a magical item). This is an ad-hoc simplification of what's probably a quite complex relationship; available XP to spend scales proportionally with level (level x 1000 to go up a level in 3.5), while gold snowballs (perhaps polynomially).
(this is more speculation: I imagine designers trying to work this one out, going "ah, screw it, lets just use 5:1" and just going with the 5:1.
Although it might be a matter of avoiding over-complexity rather than a true unknown.)

EDIT TO ADD: (again thinking out loud here): Related to #1 above, variable rolling-up chances - are somewhat limited in how these can be applied because the actual % improvement is 'fuzzy'. For example, a Specialty in storyteller letting a character reroll any 10s has a somewhat variable benefit depending on the existing dice pool size and target number; a difficulty increase might be a minor shift like '+1 to difficulty' or 'needs 1 extra success' and its possible that a Specialty could provide more boost than that, making it awkward to define specialties that apply predominantly in negative (penalizing) circumstances since this could result in a character performing better in difficult circumstances than they would normally (the character with a 'cateyes' Perception specialty getting more successes in the dark than they would have gotten if it was just daylight).

Note - Modelling of complex variables is sometimes handled with a 'monte carlo' method where the process is run through say 1000 times and results counted to get a typical result or see what % work.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;522902Unknowns that have been encountered by designers may include:
*unknown dice probability i.e. likelihood of character's rolling X number of successes in dice pool systems - isn't easily apparent to designers, and may result in mis-estimates of likely # successes for performing various actions. (possible example: Burning Wheel is sometimes mentioned as having routine rolls be extremely difficult - although I may misunderstand, and it could be deliberate intent).

That's why I used this: http://www.unseelie.org/cgi-bin/dicepo.cgi?number=2&sides=20&target=16&action=Press+once+to+send

Scott Gray's Dicepool Calculator

Invaluable

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;522909That's why I used this: http://www.unseelie.org/cgi-bin/dicepo.cgi?number=2&sides=20&target=16&action=Press+once+to+send

Scott Gray's Dicepool Calculator

Invaluable

-clash

That's gonna be useful - even if I can do the most of necessary calculations anyway, with bigger dice pools they do take me a few minutes . Cheers.

Quote from: Rincewind1;522912That's gonna be useful - even if I can do the most of necessary calculations anyway, with bigger dice pools they do take me a few minutes . Cheers.

Particularly when you have varying TNs...

-clash

Nice, thanks Clash.

Here's another one that does some of the funkier systems (more versatile, though output maybe not as convenient).

http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp

(EDIT: hey I just tried out the chart function with Savage Worlds d6. Man that is a weird distribution).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;522950Nice, thanks Clash.

Here's another one that does some of the funkier systems (more versatile, though output maybe not as convenient).

http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp

(EDIT: hey I just tried out the chart function with Savage Worlds d6. Man that is a weird distribution).

Very interesting indeed!

-clash

(This is more of an abstract principle rather than a specific list of engineering options. It may be of interest although the analysis here risks becoming a matter of philosophy rather than engineering).
 
Inspired by reading this here:
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/87/my-indie-realization/ (which I'd stumbled across mostly from its discussion on Dave Arneson/Braunstein, not that it matters).
 
Games vary considerably in the conceptual scope –the range of situations that they attempt to describe and implement within the game rules. There is a continuum running from extremely tightly focussed designs, to specific genres, through to generic do-anything systems. For example, from most general (wide scope) to most specific (narrow scope) to we could include:
 
Multi-genre: the 'generic' games e.g. GURPS and Hero System fall in here. Of these Hero's toolkit approach lets it model more or less anything (you buy your blast power and decide whether its a magic wand, a blaster or a psychic barrage); GURPS has comprehensive rules which are much more specific in nature, meaning less work for the GM but relying on multiple supplements for further details in many cases.
 
 
One genre. Genres themselves could be said to have variable width; the range of things which must be covered by a Western game (Boot Hill) is much narrower than that of a Fantasy game. Supers is perhaps the "widest" genre since it can encompass most fantasy or SF concepts (both Dr Strange and Iron Man), as well as having to cover variable power levels, and differing styles as to degree of realism/consistency.
Many genre-wide games still have varying degrees of fit to specific worlds/subgenres (magic rules or combat mechanics may support e.g. Sword & Sorcery better than Romantic Fantasy, or Greyhawk better than Dark Sun).
 
 
A particular world/setting- games highly tied to specific settings (Talislanta, Tekumel). Talislanta for example gives a range of "archetypes" for Talislanta games (Callidian Cryptomancer, Jakan Manhunter, Cymrilian Swordsmage), but it would be difficult to use the rules for other fantasy worlds – this would require GM preparation, handwaving and reskinning to some extent.
[On the other hand some specific worlds are very multigenre (TORG, Rifts) –and you could use the rules for these for a number of other settings if so inclined].
 
 
A very specific place/set of circumstances/situations (whatever you want to call that)– for instance, there have been a couple of games based around playing WWF wrestling champions.
 
A specific story – this is a very 'indie' concept but a niche game can be re-flavoured heavily across genres fairly readily, but lacks flexibility in how the story runs. Of those that I've read, "My Life With Master" (MLWM) comes to mind particularly here. The rules generate a particular story through interaction with abstract values such as PCs' Weariness and Fear ratings, while not having specifics of such things as hit points. An evil master is assumed (without one, the rules become meaningless) but the system could be 're-skinned' so the characters are talking field mice who work for a cat, oppressed goblins serving an evil human wizard, or a single agent of the Galactic Empire trying to resist the whispers of his brain parasite. This category is a bit unlike most of the others in that this category is a matter of how much thematic breadth the game has, rather than breadth of circumstances the game covers. Regardless of the fluff draped over it, certain things (e.g. killing the master prematurely in MLWM) are prohibited and most actions will end up heavily GM-adjudicated or simply irrelevant, so the game design is a "railroad" of a sort.
 
Specific character(s) -–play a specific set of characters with predefined character hooks and abilities e.g. Lady Blackbird, Everyone is John. Games like this may not even have character generation.
 
 
 
Some games may have mismatch between scope of the setting fluff and scope of the rules. 2nd Ed. D&D for instance inherits a big dungeon-focussed set of rules, although the game itself is intended to cover a wider range of game play (court intrigue, city adventures, etc); so GM adjudication and roleplaying will play a major part in how the game runs; which may be considered a feature rather than a bug by some, actually).
 
Note: Scale (of things in the game) is a concept somewhat associated with Scope, but indirectly. A narrow-scope game may still have to deal with conflict between large things/small things (Bunnies and Burrows) -the likelihood of this needing to be supported is something that increases with wider scope.

[Data edited into previous post on bonus types]

Hi everyone.
Not to be tiresome, but I thought I'd bump this since we seem to have quite a few new people, in case someone finds it to be of interest. As always I welcome additional comments/thoughts/flamewars.
 
 
PS - here's a nifty (albeit not overly scientific) chart of RPG interrelationships.
 
[/URL]
[/IMG]

BSJ, did you ever do an overview of critical hit systems, what they do in a game and different ways to do them?  Trying to remember...I know we did Hp and damage and combat....