Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => HARP => Topic started by: Falenthal on June 28, 2013, 02:55:51 AM
-
p. 12
Picture is very, very dark.
p.23
In the table for Racial Stat Modifiers, the line doens't include the Presence column.
p.33
In the Master Skill List the Subterfuge category is not indicated. The subterfuge skills are together with the Physical ones.
p.157
Question: Is the Hobgoblin a level 1 creature, equal as the plain Goblin? From the skil description I see they are (maximum of 6 ranks in skills), but is that correct?
-
P157 - This is the only one I can comment on....
All Humanoids are portrayed as 1st level characters of their race.
Therefore the stats are correct.
Thom
-
Oh, I see. I guess the idea is that, with the rules that will be given in the forthcoming Bestiary, we can adjust the level and it's bonuses to our needs, thus being able to have lvl. 1 goblin scouts, lvl. 2 goblin warriors and their lvl. 3 hobgoblin leader.
Is that right?
-
Oh, I see. I guess the idea is that, with the rules that will be given in the forthcoming Bestiary, we can adjust the level and it's bonuses to our needs, thus being able to have lvl. 1 goblin scouts, lvl. 2 goblin warriors and their lvl. 3 hobgoblin leader.
Is that right?
Essentially correct.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I was reading through the descriptions of the monsters and I found there are quite a few inconsistencies with the table.
For example, the Giant Ant DB description on pg. 156 states:
+18 Stats; +20 Instinctive Defense; +60 Tough Hide (Greater)
This totals to a DB of 98. The on pg. 157 gives a DB of 18. Which is correct?
There are several others like this that are fairly easy to find.
-
Found another error on page 36 Table 6.3. Subterfuge category is missing and those skills are part of the Physical category.
-
Found another error on page 36 Table 6.3. Subterfuge category is missing and those skills are part of the Physical category.
Ooops! I said previously that this error was on page 33, but dagorhir's right, it's on 36.
p.8
A very dark picture or a dwarf inside his mine at night :)
p22
There's a black rectangle at the bottom right of the page.
-
Found another error on page 36 Table 6.3. Subterfuge category is missing and those skills are part of the Physical category.
Ooops! I said previously that this error was on page 33, but dagorhir's right, it's on 36.
Explain why I didn't see it before posting, I was looking at the page numbers. ;)
-
A few very slight mistakes:
p.118 Spell "Boost Presence", the RR field has two short lines (--) instead of the normal long one of other spells
p.145/146/147 Herbs Table. P.145 is ok, but p.146 and 147 both have the type of effect (Stun relief, etc.) centered as a title. To me, having it to the left like in page 145 is easier to read and locate.
p.146 also has the title Organ Repair not in bold characters.
p.146 the herb Canadin, under Physical Alteration, has a second line for its effects which is under the name of the herb. It would be nicer if the second line followed under the first one in the Effects column.
p.147 The herb Viracon has an extra line of space under it.
Monsters: According to what dagorhir said about the DBs not matching in the description and the table, there's also a "style" issue in the DBs descriptions: some monsters lack the stat bonus when it's 0, others have "0 Stats" and still others have "+0 Stats".
Also when indicating armor bonuses, some monsters have "+30 Armor (Rigid Leather)" while others have "+30 Rigid Leather", like in page 162 with Ogres and Orcs.
-
Not sure if this is errata, but is certainly seems wonky to me.
For the spell Projected Light, the base range is only 20' the same as the light spell. Light costs 6 PP and Projected Light costs 5 PP, but Light also has a much longer base duration than Projected Light, and the Light spell says it can "turned down" to the size of a small point - not so the Projected Light. I don't think that 1 PP base cost is worth all that extra ability. Perhaps Projected Light should have a base range of 50-feet, not 20.
-
Not sure if this is errata, but is certainly seems wonky to me.
For the spell Projected Light, the base range is only 20' the same as the light spell. Light costs 6 PP and Projected Light costs 5 PP, but Light also has a much longer base duration than Projected Light, and the Light spell says it can "turned down" to the size of a small point - not so the Projected Light. I don't think that 1 PP base cost is worth all that extra ability. Perhaps Projected Light should have a base range of 50-feet, not 20.
Feel free to add the ability to turn down the Projected Light. The difference in 1 PP base is essentially the difference in duration and area of effect. These two spells have been troublesome ever since the reworking of spell durations that occurred between 160 and 192 page HARP, and I tried all the tricks to push down their base PP cost.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
I don't understand why saying Projected Light is a base 50-feet instead of 20 overpowers it. Of course, I can (and will) change it for my game, but I don't understand the problem here. In all ways, Light is a better spell for only 1 PP. (I guess the "directional" aspect is that cool then?)
-
I don't understand why saying Projected Light is a base 50-feet instead of 20 overpowers it. Of course, I can (and will) change it for my game, but I don't understand the problem here. In all ways, Light is a better spell for only 1 PP. (I guess the "directional" aspect is that cool then?)
If i increase the base range of Projected Light to 50', then its base PP cost goes up to 6 PP.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
This is Not really an Errata but just something I notice in the Hard cover PoD.
All of the examples in the italicized text seem really faintly printed. sometimes making you have to peer a bit closer to the page to read them.
This is consistent throughout the book so Im guessing it was intentional but it would be nice if it could be just a few shades darker
-
The new Core Book is full of error!!! And many of them are non-sense...How could a Zombie has a -7 to Initiative??? Why a Heavy Horse has Initiative 2 if he has +7 to Quickness??? There were a lot of error even in the previous version, but in these one, the work done is simply terrible. Too many mistakes and no logical stuff in there: How is it possible that a Goblin (ST +3) is stronger than a Horse (ST +1) or a Tiger (ST +2)??? Are you become insane???
-
Initiative is determined by Quickness and Insight, so negative Initiatives are quite feasible for slow and/or mindless creatures or creatures of animal intelligence. Horses' "strength" is reflected in their carrying capacity etc
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
The new Core Book is full of error!!! And many of them are non-sense...How could a Zombie has a -7 to Initiative??? Why a Heavy Horse has Initiative 2 if he has +7 to Quickness??? There were a lot of error even in the previous version, but in these one, the work done is simply terrible. Too many mistakes and no logical stuff in there: How is it possible that a Goblin (ST +3) is stronger than a Horse (ST +1) or a Tiger (ST +2)??? Are you become insane???
It isn't that bad. I have seen much worst when it comes to ICE products in the past. There are many inconsistencies between the creature descriptions and the grid. I'm slowly reviewing all of them, as I find the time, to make up my own bestiary.
-
Note that the -1 ST for horses is from the Racial Stats table (13.7).
It does not include the size impact. Being large size gives horses a +5 in ST, and a -1 in Quickness. This chart assumes everything is a medium size creature (4' max at the shoulder for a quadruped) and you adjust from there.
I could not find reference to the Tiger being only +2 ST. Table 13.5 shows Large Cat at +6 and Sabretooth Tiger at +8. Please advise where you see a ST+2.
The reason why we reflected a horse's ST using portage skills talent is because we didn't want to turn that high strength into a combat machine.
Dagorhir - we have some of the table typo's collected, but would be interested in seeing those you believe are inaccurate also. Ideally we can explain the perceived inconsistencies, but if not we can update the files for re-download and provide an errata version of the table.
-
Initiative is determined by Quickness and Insight, so negative Initiatives are quite feasible for slow and/or mindless creatures or creatures of animal intelligence. Horses' "strength" is reflected in their carrying capacity etc
First of all you can't put a maximum of 3 to initiative to a creature. It NEVER attack first!!! There's necessary a leverage to make every combat as balanced as possible. Zombies are not ALWAYS slow, as we all know. Because if they are ALWAYS slow, every their bites must be fatal and ALWAYS turn people to a new Zombie. Zombies have lost now the capacity to be dangerous even at the 1st level.
Initiative is a filter of every combat situation. It's important for a good playing that every situation can be full of suspence, intrigue, adrenalin, etc... If we already have a short montrous compendium, in wich half of the creatures are useless for the entertainment, the GM works becomes very hard. I can assure you.
-
Note that the -1 ST for horses is from the Racial Stats table (13.7).
It does not include the size impact. Being large size gives horses a +5 in ST, and a -1 in Quickness. This chart assumes everything is a medium size creature (4' max at the shoulder for a quadruped) and you adjust from there.
I could not find reference to the Tiger being only +2 ST. Table 13.5 shows Large Cat at +6 and Sabretooth Tiger at +8. Please advise where you see a ST+2.
The reason why we reflected a horse's ST using portage skills talent is because we didn't want to turn that high strength into a combat machine.
Dagorhir - we have some of the table typo's collected, but would be interested in seeing those you believe are inaccurate also. Ideally we can explain the perceived inconsistencies, but if not we can update the files for re-download and provide an errata version of the table.
All the data is in the table 13.5 (pag. 169). Battle Demon (ST+3), Goblin (ST+3); Cat, Large (ST+2), Sabertooth Tiger (ST+4); Spider Giant (ST-1), Spider Greater (ST+10), Spider Lesser (ST+1)??? What does it means???
Why the chart express values for medium creature if many of them are not??? I guess it's important to give clear information. In fact even if i give a final +4 ST final bonus (-1 Stats, +5 size bonus) and considering the portage skill (x3 weight allowed) the sum is: 34x3=102 lbs, 46 kg!!! Only 46 kg before having -10 to Qu and Ag, and the speed limited to Fast sprint??? It's a joke??? And in fact, if i look in the chart 8.3 (pag. 65) i find the column capacity and the pony has maximum capacity of 300 lbs, 181 kg. The Pony BMR in Table 8.3 (pag.65) is 14, to a maximum of 4.5 mph (7,2 km/h), in the table 13.6 (pag. 170) has BMR 28. It's not clear and even real!!! A Bosnian Pony is able to transport 100 kg (220lbs) for 16km, in only 75 minutes, that means at 12.8 km/h, otherwise 21 feet/round.
Not using the Horse Strenght to the combat would be easy: the difference between a war horse and a normal horse is the training. A normal horse would rather combat and even if he does, he's not trained (Combat skill) and would have a low bonus. The warhorse is trained to combat and answers also to specific command to perform special action (this, in the reality, not in the game). So can have a better bonus. Easy! But if i make calculation, i loose myself cause the results doesn't corresponds with ones expressed in the various chart.
Do i have to send you my PDF version???
Ps:Sorry for my bad english!!! :)
-
This is Not really an Errata but just something I notice in the Hard cover PoD.
All of the examples in the italicized text seem really faintly printed. sometimes making you have to peer a bit closer to the page to read them.
This is consistent throughout the book so Im guessing it was intentional but it would be nice if it could be just a few shades darker
Y'now? When you posted this, I was sure I had already mentioned it, but I looked up thread and..... nope. Well, anyway, I think so too.
-
Dagorhir - we have some of the table typo's collected, but would be interested in seeing those you believe are inaccurate also. Ideally we can explain the perceived inconsistencies, but if not we can update the files for re-download and provide an errata version of the table.
This is what I found so far:
Ant, Giant DB – +18 Stats; +20 Instinctive Defense; +60 Tough Hide(Greater) Total: 98 Table 13.4 DB=18
Battle Demon DB – +16 Stats; +20 Tough Hide; +60 Armor (Plate); +40 Shield; Total: 136 Table 13.4 DB=138
Centaur DB – +4 Stats; +30 Rigid Leather; +30 Full Shield Total: 64 Table 13.4 DB=75
Gargoyle DB – +8 Stats; +5 Dense Musculature; +60 Tough Hide Total: 73 Table 13.4 DB=69
Goblin DB – +4 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Soft Leather; +15 Buckler Total: 45 Table 13.4 DB=49
Hippogriff DB – +24 Stats; +0 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide (minor) Total: 64 Table 13.4 DB=68
Hobgoblin DB – +6 Stats; +30 Rigid Leather; +20 Target Shield Total: 56 Table 13.4 DB=64
Kobold DB – +6 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Soft Leather; +15 Buckler Total: 47 Table 13.4 DB=51
Lizardmen DB – +0 Stats; +20 Tough Hide; +20 Target Shield Total: 40 Table 13.4 DB=46
Orc DB – +4 Stats; +5 Dense Musculature; +30 Rigid Leather; +30 Full Shield Total: 69 Table 13.4 DB=72
Spider Giant: +18 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide (Minor) Total: 64 Table 13.4 DB=76
Spider Greater: +16 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide (Minor) Total: 62 Table 13.4 DB=74
Spider Lesser: +16 Stats; +4 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +10 Tough Hide (Lesser) Total: 50 Table 13.4 DB=58
Wolf DB – +12 Stats; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide(minor)Total: 50 Table 13.4 DB=60
-
All the data is in the table 13.5 (pag. 169). Battle Demon (ST+3), Goblin (ST+3); Cat, Large (ST+2), Sabertooth Tiger (ST+4); Spider Giant (ST-1), Spider Greater (ST+10), Spider Lesser (ST+1)??? What does it means???
It means that you have an old version of the book. Your PDF needs to be updated. If you purchased it from rpgnow or drivethrurpg you should be able to download an updated copy. Note that there are still some typo's that we're getting straightened out but the concept and layout is much better in the newer release.
Why the chart express values for medium creature if many of them are not??? I guess it's important to give clear information. In fact even if i give a final +4 ST final bonus (-1 Stats, +5 size bonus) and considering the portage skill (x3 weight allowed) the sum is: 34x3=102 lbs, 46 kg!!! Only 46 kg before having -10 to Qu and Ag, and the speed limited to Fast sprint??? It's a joke??? And in fact, if i look in the chart 8.3 (pag. 65) i find the column capacity and the pony has maximum capacity of 300 lbs, 181 kg. The Pony BMR in Table 8.3 (pag.65) is 14, to a maximum of 4.5 mph (7,2 km/h), in the table 13.6 (pag. 170) has BMR 28. It's not clear and even real!!! A Bosnian Pony is able to transport 100 kg (220lbs) for 16km, in only 75 minutes, that means at 12.8 km/h, otherwise 21 feet/round. [\quote]
The encumbrance table is designed for humanoid NPC characters, not for animals.
The carrying capacity is listed for horses on table 8.3.
A mature pony can carry 300 lbs with no penalty a rate of 4.5 mph. The pony can increase up to dash speed (x5 speed) for a short time. If they carry over 300 lbs. there are penalties for encumbrance.
Not using the Horse Strenght to the combat would be easy: the difference between a war horse and a normal horse is the training. A normal horse would rather combat and even if he does, he's not trained (Combat skill) and would have a low bonus. The warhorse is trained to combat and answers also to specific command to perform special action (this, in the reality, not in the game). So can have a better bonus. Easy! But if i make calculation, i loose myself cause the results doesn't corresponds with ones expressed in the various chart.
Feel free to house rule it as you see fit.
Do i have to send you my PDF version???
Ps:Sorry for my bad english!!! :)
[\quote]
I have no problem with bad English, but you may want to review your phrasing. Calling things ridiculous, asking if things are a joke, and calling them nonsense are not very positive ways of communicating. I've got no problem explaining things, or even acknowledging errors in the product. Thanks! :)
-
Armor maneuver penalties
Dagorhir - we have some of the table typo's collected, but would be interested in seeing those you believe are inaccurate also. Ideally we can explain the perceived inconsistencies, but if not we can update the files for re-download and provide an errata version of the table.
This is what I found so far:
Ant, Giant DB – +18 Stats; +20 Instinctive Defense; +60 Tough Hide(Greater) Total: 98 Table 13.4 DB=18
Battle Demon DB – +16 Stats; +20 Tough Hide; +60 Armor (Plate); +40 Shield; Total: 136 Table 13.4 DB=138
Centaur DB – +4 Stats; +30 Rigid Leather; +30 Full Shield Total: 64 Table 13.4 DB=75
Gargoyle DB – +8 Stats; +5 Dense Musculature; +60 Tough Hide Total: 73 Table 13.4 DB=69
Goblin DB – +4 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Soft Leather; +15 Buckler Total: 45 Table 13.4 DB=49
Hippogriff DB – +24 Stats; +0 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide (minor) Total: 64 Table 13.4 DB=68
Hobgoblin DB – +6 Stats; +30 Rigid Leather; +20 Target Shield Total: 56 Table 13.4 DB=64
Kobold DB – +6 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Soft Leather; +15 Buckler Total: 47 Table 13.4 DB=51
Lizardmen DB – +0 Stats; +20 Tough Hide; +20 Target Shield Total: 40 Table 13.4 DB=46
Orc DB – +4 Stats; +5 Dense Musculature; +30 Rigid Leather; +30 Full Shield Total: 69 Table 13.4 DB=72
Spider Giant: +18 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide (Minor) Total: 64 Table 13.4 DB=76
Spider Greater: +16 Stats; +6 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide (Minor) Total: 62 Table 13.4 DB=74
Spider Lesser: +16 Stats; +4 Agile Defense; +20 Instinctive Defense; +10 Tough Hide (Lesser) Total: 50 Table 13.4 DB=58
Wolf DB – +12 Stats; +20 Instinctive Defense; +20 Tough Hide(minor)Total: 50 Table 13.4 DB=60
Ant, Giant DB should be 98 (Typo in table)
Battle Demon DB my table 13.4 shows 136 (Please make sure you have the most recent version of the core pdf)
Gargoyle DB should be 73 (error was in my data file - it showed 69 as a carryover from Centaur)
Hippogriff Agile Defense is +4 and that brings it up from +64 to +68
Spider Giant: Agile Defense should read +18 and total is +76
Spider Greater: Again Agile Defense should read +18 and total is +74
Spider Lesser: Agile Defense should be +12 and total is +58
Wolf DB Stats should show +20 and total is +60
Need to dig out some files for humanoids. Will advise later tonight (sorry for the delay)
-
The current version of Harp fantasy that I have dates back to April 2013. Was it updated since?
-
Yes. New release was as of May 9, 2013
-
Hi,
me back once more! ;)
I didn't mean to offend anyone. But the feeling i've got, reading this revised version (december 2012), is that the work is a little bit imprecise, equivocal. If i say that there are some non-sense feature is only to highlight that the version i read is made without a respect for the previous version and the standard knowledge of the fantasy that a veteran player and GM, as me, has (30 years of RPGing) :o
Simply i don't understand these modifies and i don't find them correct. But not for this, anyone can feel hurt, it's not what i meant. My argumentation is different: i found a lot of errors and it is a fact. Now you tell me that my new version is an old version, at least the first of three. For me, used to normal editorial books, three versions in less than 7 months it's a little bit strange. :o
Moreover, at the beginning, i wanted to buy the paper version, and if I did it so, i would have bought a wrong one. ???
But it's not the problem. As you adviced me i already make some modifications to the rulebook to better adapt it to our game. I just have to keep on. 8)
Thank you for everything and sorry again for the misunderstanding.
-
Actually, the current rules are based upon the standard construction methods used throughout the book. The previous rules were filled with rounding and made every creature a Fighter. There were a number of other issues with those creatures. We've now cleaned it up, built everything from ground up and made it consistent throughout. I am saddened to hear that you don't believe it was done with respect to standard knowledge of the experienced GMs.
As for 3 versions in 7 months... not quite accurate, but I agree with your point. Believe me, we wish that the last update had not been necessary either. Unfortunately the layout work needed to be redone and there were issues with a few different sections (including monsters) which needed correction. We'd rather correct it then simply leave it in place wrong.
For some they may see the changes we made as being inaccurate or inappropriate, but I would ask that before they make that judgement, ask us why the change was made. We did not make these changes without reason. I hope you'll give us that chance in the future and you'll realize that we put a lot of thought and effort into this.
-
Yes. New release was as of May 9, 2013
That's strange. I just double-checked on RPGNow and the latest version I could get is from April 2013 :'(
Have you forgotten to upload the new version or is it a special edition?
-
Actually, the current rules are based upon the standard construction methods used throughout the book. The previous rules were filled with rounding and made every creature a Fighter. There were a number of other issues with those creatures. We've now cleaned it up, built everything from ground up and made it consistent throughout. I am saddened to hear that you don't believe it was done with respect to standard knowledge of the experienced GMs.
As for 3 versions in 7 months... not quite accurate, but I agree with your point. Believe me, we wish that the last update had not been necessary either. Unfortunately the layout work needed to be redone and there were issues with a few different sections (including monsters) which needed correction. We'd rather correct it then simply leave it in place wrong.
For some they may see the changes we made as being inaccurate or inappropriate, but I would ask that before they make that judgement, ask us why the change was made. We did not make these changes without reason. I hope you'll give us that chance in the future and you'll realize that we put a lot of thought and effort into this.
I downloaded the latest version from RPGDrivethru and saw the corrections. Will those standard construction methods be available in the future? I have some custom creatures that need creating. ;)
-
Thank you. May 9th was the launch of the print copy. My error.
April 30, 2013 is the last revision date.
Easy way to confirm you have the most up to date copy...
Go to Table 13.5 (page 168 on the pdf) and Cat, Large Strength bonus is +6.
-
Thank you. May 9th was the launch of the print copy. My error.
April 30, 2013 is the last revision date.
Easy way to confirm you have the most up to date copy...
Go to Table 13.5 (page 168 on the pdf) and Cat, Large Strength bonus is +6.
I currently have 3 different versions of the core PDF.
One dated 2012/08/21
One dated 2013/04/30, which matches the Printed version
And the one a downloaded yesterday, which has the correction mentioned above.
-
Actually, the current rules are based upon the standard construction methods used throughout the book.
The previous rules were filled with rounding and made every creature a Fighter.
Yes, the structure is the same, but i don't agree your assertion. :P Cause the problem for us was only in few things, that we solved making some few changes. The version we have it's full of mistakes, and it's true. :-X I'm going to download the new-new version to see the difference, but actually we guess we use the old Bestiary until we make a new-one.
There were a number of other issues with those creatures. We've now cleaned it up, built everything from ground up and made it consistent throughout. I am saddened to hear that you don't believe it was done with respect to standard knowledge of the experienced GMs.
As always, I don't mean to upset anyone. But I can really assert a big knowledge and experience in RPG, of every kind. And sometimes there are things that leave the taste of vagueness. Even cause I also played MERP and Rolemaster. MERP was too simplistic and Rolemaster with too many new rules and option. But in most cases they were both balanced. In HARP, we felt to have lost something. And these new version, with the problems it had with the corrections, it give us a unpleasant feeling. I know that it's always annoying when someone criticize the own work, but it's even true that you must listen to the different opinions too.
;)
As for 3 versions in 7 months... not quite accurate, but I agree with your point. Believe me, we wish that the last update had not been necessary either. Unfortunately the layout work needed to be redone and there were issues with a few different sections (including monsters) which needed correction. We'd rather correct it then simply leave it in place wrong.
So you can see how we feel with it. If I didn't come in the forum to tell you my osservations about the Core Book, I would have not know that ICE made two new editions. Can you imagine? :o
For some they may see the changes we made as being inaccurate or inappropriate, but I would ask that before they make that judgement, ask us why the change was made. We did not make these changes without reason. I hope you'll give us that chance in the future and you'll realize that we put a lot of thought and effort into this.
??? You have to forgive me but what you say has no much sense to me. I'm sure there was a logical, rational and intellectual work behind this remastered manual, but this is your point of view. If you look from this part, the thing turn out to be different. :( So I don't understand why i have to ask you why you did what you did :-\ There's surely a reason, but as I always say: In the life, as in soccer, score matters. If you played well, but you've lost, you've lost :D (It's a joke, so don't be upset for that)
For whom, as me and my party, is really attached to ICE product, he could easily say to feels a bit let down for this outcome. :(
-
Thank you. May 9th was the launch of the print copy. My error.
April 30, 2013 is the last revision date.
Easy way to confirm you have the most up to date copy...
Go to Table 13.5 (page 168 on the pdf) and Cat, Large Strength bonus is +6.
I have the proof hardcover here and I can confirm that on page 168 that the Cat, large has a strength bonus of +6. It is the same +6 on the pdf that I've just downloaded.
Best wishes,
Nicholas
-
Yes, the structure is the same, but i don't agree your assertion. :P Cause the problem for us was only in few things, that we solved making some few changes. The version we have it's full of mistakes, and it's true. :-X I'm going to download the new-new version to see the difference, but actually we guess we use the old Bestiary until we make a new-one.
Agreed that the version you have does have mistakes, that's why we released a new updated version. If you review the new and still believe it to have issues, please identify them and I'll either explain why we did what we did, or admit that it's an error and mark it for correction.
As always, I don't mean to upset anyone. But I can really assert a big knowledge and experience in RPG, of every kind. And sometimes there are things that leave the taste of vagueness. Even cause I also played MERP and Rolemaster. MERP was too simplistic and Rolemaster with too many new rules and option. But in most cases they were both balanced. In HARP, we felt to have lost something. And these new version, with the problems it had with the corrections, it give us a unpleasant feeling. I know that it's always annoying when someone criticize the own work, but it's even true that you must listen to the different opinions too.
;)
I don't believe we've done anything but listen and respond to any criticism that was made. We will continue to do so, and hope that you'll find that we've enhanced the product with the changes we made.
So you can see how we feel with it. If I didn't come in the forum to tell you my osservations about the Core Book, I would have not know that ICE made two new editions. Can you imagine? :o
If you have purchased from rpgnow or drivethrurpg and you have notifications turned on, then you will receive notices whenever the product is updated. Additionally, you can keep advised by reading these forums and subscribing to the mailing list. Every update has been announced using all of these different methods. There's not much more we can do to ensure you know about updates to the products.
??? You have to forgive me but what you say has no much sense to me. I'm sure there was a logical, rational and intellectual work behind this remastered manual, but this is your point of view. If you look from this part, the thing turn out to be different. :( So I don't understand why i have to ask you why you did what you did :-\ There's surely a reason, but as I always say: In the life, as in soccer, score matters. If you played well, but you've lost, you've lost :D (It's a joke, so don't be upset for that)
For whom, as me and my party, is really attached to ICE product, he could easily say to feels a bit let down for this outcome. :(
On this I can only state that you are entitled to your opinion, but since you do not have the most recent version perhaps your opinion will change. We like to think that with the enhanced version of HARP we have won, and that we have set the foundation for the future products that are being developed. Products that maintain consistency and build upon each other and in the end will win over many fans. Hopefully you will be one in the end.
-
... We like to think that with the enhanced version of HARP we have won, and that we have set the foundation for the future products that are being developed. Products that maintain consistency and build upon each other and in the end will win over many fans. Hopefully you will be one in the end.
I have to agree with this, the enhance version of Harp is quite good, despite the various mistakes that are found in the product. I come from RM and those products always had errors of all sorts in them. Harp fantasy is a great enhancement from the original Harp.
-
Thanks. We appreciate the support, and we do acknowledge the errors that have been identified. From a layout point of view we've already learned a lot and have made additional improvements (and will continue to do so). From an error checking, we've expanded our stable of proofreaders, and we are tightening up table data reviews (which can be extremely boring to double check every number but is critical for product quality).
If there are concepts that you don't agree with, or believe we missed the mark on something, please let us know. We may end up agreeing with you, or we may convince you based upon why we did what we did, or we may simply disagree - and any one of those options is fine.
-
Gaming products are classically full of errors. I think the procedure of releasing the PDF early, getting input, and making revisions before releasing the print version is great. Takes full advantage of what is possible today. It does mean there is a flurry of updates, but everything before the print version is no big deal. It's errors that are left in the print version that are annoying (sadly, I don't think you can ever get them all).
Also I totally did the same for my game so it must be genius! ;)
-
While it's sometimes a little bit inconvenient to reload new versions frequently (and of course a little disappointing if somebody might be stuck with an erroneous printout), I absolutely appreciate corrections going into the real product as early as possible.
For me, it's very nice to have a regularly MAINTAINED product (and very high quality, free of charge support via forum) for a (imho) very, very fair price and I'd always chose the current process over the old Harp with a core-book, some semi-compatible extensions and a bunch of official and unofficial errata and forum posts (of course accumulated over years) to clarify things. So I like the new release(s)!
If there was something left on the wish list, it'd be even more detailed changelogs to make it even easier to identify sections/words/layouts that might have changed.
-
If there was something left on the wish list, it'd be even more detailed changelogs to make it even easier to identify sections/words/layouts that might have changed.
Certainly something we can look at doing better in the future.
Thanks for the feedback.
-
It's errors that are left in the print version that are annoying (sadly, I don't think you can ever get them all).
Agreed.
I bought my printed copy without PDF and, right now, it's the latest version (Large Cats have a +6 to ST). But I was wondering if there was something that could be made so that we buyers of printed books might get the errata/updates from newer versions. After all, the printed copy is more expensive than the pdf version. I don't mean getting new pdfs for free or things like that, but maybe we could by them for a smaller price, or receive a list of the corrections or something like that. I have no idea of business and costs, so maybe I'm talking nonsense here, but I would be very grateful not to have an errated book just a few months after I bought it.
Other from these, I'm really happy to have bought the book (along with PDFs for Martial Law, Colleg of Magics, AutoHarp, Harp SF and Harp SF Extreme) and the support I feel I'm getting from Thom, Nicholas and everyone in the forum is superb.
The mistakes the books might have are, in my experience and opinion, overly surpassed by the help the creators give in this forums.
-
It's errors that are left in the print version that are annoying (sadly, I don't think you can ever get them all).
Agreed.
I bought my printed copy without PDF and, right now, it's the latest version (Large Cats have a +6 to ST). But I was wondering if there was something that could be made so that we buyers of printed books might get the errata/updates from newer versions. After all, the printed copy is more expensive than the pdf version. I don't mean getting new pdfs for free or things like that, but maybe we could by them for a smaller price, or receive a list of the corrections or something like that. I have no idea of business and costs, so maybe I'm talking nonsense here, but I would be very grateful not to have an errated book just a few months after I bought it.
Other from these, I'm really happy to have bought the book (along with PDFs for Martial Law, Colleg of Magics, AutoHarp, Harp SF and Harp SF Extreme) and the support I feel I'm getting from Thom, Nicholas and everyone in the forum is superb.
The mistakes the books might have are, in my experience and opinion, overly surpassed by the help the creators give in this forums.
QFT
-
Still putting the errata together for this most recent version. So far it's only been minor typo's. Once we've got the full list put together (at least as good as we can get it) we'll review the total impact and determine how best to handle it. I'll definitely bring up this concern.
-
In table 13.4, both the Giant Ape and the Battle Demon have a single treasure code "P2".
Which type should this be? And do they really have the same type?
-
According to my notes, Giant Ape should be PPP and Battle Demon should be P2 - -
Thanks for catching that.
-
I'm updating the database file for AutoHarp, so I'm going through all of them. I have a few other errors:
Ape, Giant Skills Endurance (18) 86, Table 13.4 hits 176.
Centaur Resistance - Magic (5) 36; Resistance - Stamina (6) 63; Resistance - Will (5) 39; Table 13.4 Stamina 53 Will 29 Magic 26
-
Giant Ape - 176 is correct and 18 ranks for 86 bonus is correct.
This comes from a base of 60 Endurance with a Size Large 1.5x Endurance multiplier.
60*1.5 = 90 + 86 skill bonus = 176
Centaur - Need to access my files at home for this. My apologies but I am on holiday and won't be home until Sunday. I'll set up some reminders and follow up on this as soon as I can.
-
Giant Ape - 176 is correct and 18 ranks for 86 bonus is correct.
This comes from a base of 60 Endurance with a Size Large 1.5x Endurance multiplier.
60*1.5 = 90 + 86 skill bonus = 176
Centaur - Need to access my files at home for this. My apologies but I am on holiday and won't be home until Sunday. I'll set up some reminders and follow up on this as soon as I can.
Indeed,
According to table 6.2 18 ranks yields a bonus of 66. So the total would be 66 + 11 (Co Bonus) -1 (SD Bonus) + 90 (60 *1.5 Enlarge Minor) + 10 (Toughness Talent)= 176. I guess the Endurance entry is wrong.
For the Centaur, I get the same number as in the Table 13.4 for Stamina, the other two do not match any number:
Stamina: 30 (6 Ranks) + 8 (Stat Bonus) + 15 (Stamina bonus) = 53
Will: 25 (5 Ranks) + 0 (Stat Bonus) + 10 (Will Bonus) = 35
Magic: 25 (5 Ranks) + 0 (Stat Bonus) + 5 (Magic Bonus) = 30
Let us know which are the correct numbers when you can. Thanks
-
Giant Ape - 176 is correct and 18 ranks for 86 bonus is correct.
This comes from a base of 60 Endurance with a Size Large 1.5x Endurance multiplier.
60*1.5 = 90 + 86 skill bonus = 176
Centaur - Need to access my files at home for this. My apologies but I am on holiday and won't be home until Sunday. I'll set up some reminders and follow up on this as soon as I can.
Indeed,
According to table 6.2 18 ranks yields a bonus of 66. So the total would be 66 + 11 (Co Bonus) -1 (SD Bonus) + 90 (60 *1.5 Enlarge Minor) + 10 (Toughness Talent)= 176. I guess the Endurance entry is wrong.
For the Centaur, I get the same number as in the Table 13.4 for Stamina, the other two do not match any number:
Stamina: 30 (6 Ranks) + 8 (Stat Bonus) + 15 (Stamina bonus) = 53
Will: 25 (5 Ranks) + 0 (Stat Bonus) + 10 (Will Bonus) = 35
Magic: 25 (5 Ranks) + 0 (Stat Bonus) + 5 (Magic Bonus) = 30
Let us know which are the correct numbers when you can. Thanks
In the monster descriptions the Skill Endurance is listed as a skill, not to be confused with the use of it for Concussion Hits (which includes the base Endurance part). If you want do a standard Endurance skill check then use it without the base Endurance bonus. It's a bit confusing, and maybe could be spelled out more clearly.
-
It states in the skill description of the Endurance skill that it is the concussion hits of the character/creature. I don't remember reading anywhere that the racial base Endurance bonus was not used for Endurance skill checks.
-
I found another typo in table 13.4.
The Minotaur Stamina Bonus is 6. That's impossible considering it can't be lower than 17 (22 (Stat Bonus)+20(Base Stamina Bonus)-25(0 ranks)).
I'll venture a guess that it is 67 (i.e. 5 Ranks).
-
Minotaur Stamina... should be 96
20 from racial base
54 from Rank bonus (12 ranks)
22 from stat bonus
-
It states in the skill description of the Endurance skill that it is the concussion hits of the character/creature. I don't remember reading anywhere that the racial base Endurance bonus was not used for Endurance skill checks.
My apologies. Last reply included my own "house rule" use of Endurance, which should not have been referenced in regards to the book errata. For the book, Endurance is generally not listed in the description section skill list (appears about 5 times). This is consistent with Resistance skills. I may have left them in the list in error when they were submitted for inclusion in the revision. When you see them in the skill list in the description section for each, realize that they do not include the racial base.
-
thanks, I've noted it.
-
I have found another typo on page 163. In the abilities for the Great White Shark the talent Enhanced Smell is listed. It should be Enhanced Scent, I think.
-
And I find some more. There are multiple references to Giantism (Minor), which I can't find in the book. I guess it has been replaced by Enlarge (Minor). I don't think I saw any Giantism (Major).
EDIT: Posted to early, there is also Giantism (Major), spotted in the Abilities for Spider, Greater.
-
I have found another typo on page 163. In the abilities for the Great White Shark the talent Enhanced Smell is listed. It should be Enhanced Scent, I think.
Correct - Enhanced Scent
-
And I find some more. There are multiple references to Giantism (Minor), which I can't find in the book. I guess it has been replaced by Enlarge (Minor). I don't think I saw any Giantism (Major).
EDIT: Posted to early, there is also Giantism (Major), spotted in the Abilities for Spider, Greater.
Correct, monsters will not have Giantism, it should be Enlarge.
-
Is it normal that the Spider, Greater does not have the talent Natural Weapon?
-
I've posted that earlier, but probably in a bad location, so not sure whether it was picked up:
The index on p201 still has the talent "Outdoorsman" (pointing to p56) which should be removed from the index. I guess "Outdoorsman" was replaced with "Survivalist" which should be added to the index on p202, pointing to the respective talent on p58.
-
Outdoorsman = Survivalist, correct - thanks for noting it. That was a last minute change and we missed the index.
Spider, Greater - Concept here was to make a super-sized spider with great intelligence and mystical capabilities. I removed the Natural Weapon abilities so that the emphasis would not be on physical but instead on special abilities (spells, webs, etc.) If you want to put 2 Natural Weapons back in you can, and then I would reduce jumping to 33 ranks (+106 total).
-
If anyone knows of other errata, specifically related to the creatures/monsters in chapter 13 please try to point them out within the next week. I promise to try my best to respond to any errata observations with a less than 24 hour turn-around (humanoids to be addressed by Tuesday AM). I'd like to get Monk an updated table by the end of the day Friday for his AutoHARP program.
-
Chapter 10 COMBAT-
Determining Initiative on page 91 does not actually state how to calculate your initiative.
It lists plenty of modifiers but no rule on how to actually work it out
-
Page 91 - Left column near the bottom has: (Bold done by me for emphasis)
Determining Initiative
In a combat round lasting only two seconds, most actions occur very close together. HARP makes use of an Initiative system to assist the Gamemaster in keeping track of the order in which actions are taken by the Player Characters, monsters, and/or NPCs during the combat round. All players must declare their actions for the round before
rolling Initiative, and then roll to determine who actually gets to act first. Each player rolls a single ten-sided die adding in their character’s Quickness and Insight bonuses, taking into account any situational modifiers. The character with the highest total acts first, then the second highest, and so on, until everyone has had the opportunity to act.
The GM must also roll Initiative for any monsters or other foes as well, adding their Initiative bonus to the result.
With this system, players are required to roll Initiative each round due to changing conditions, such as combatants entering or leaving the fray, wounds received, or even magical effects. These uncontrollable instances can easily alter when characters will be able to take action.
Is this what you are looking for? Or did you want more details?
-
yep..
totally stared at that paragraph for about 10 minutes and never saw that line..
I knew I'd read it somewhere o.O
-
If anyone knows of other errata, specifically related to the creatures/monsters in chapter 13 please try to point them out within the next week. I promise to try my best to respond to any errata observations with a less than 24 hour turn-around (humanoids to be addressed by Tuesday AM). I'd like to get Monk an updated table by the end of the day Friday for his AutoHARP program.
I may well spot some more as I complete my update of the AutoHarp database. I'm currently at the Trolls.
I have also notice that some creatures (like the spiders) have only one Natural Weapon entry, yet Table 13.4 states more the one physical attacks based natural weapons. I couldn't say if that was an error or by design.
-
More of a clarification then an error.
Wasp, Giant has a BMR Type Flight/Multi-legged and a BMR 20/44. Am I to understand that it flies at 20 and walks at 44?
-
The Zombie has a few talents that don't look right:
Demon Fear (Class 1), shouldn't it be Undead Fear (Class 1)?
Demon Vision, shouldn't it be Undead Vision?
-
More of a clarification then an error.
Wasp, Giant has a BMR Type Flight/Multi-legged and a BMR 20/44. Am I to understand that it flies at 20 and walks at 44?
Correct, they are reversed. 44 is the flying speed. 20 is the walking speed.
-
The Zombie has a few talents that don't look right:
Demon Fear (Class 1), shouldn't it be Undead Fear (Class 1)?
Demon Vision, shouldn't it be Undead Vision?
Correct - looks like a miscopy on my part when I passed the raw data for layout.
Thanks!
-
If anyone knows of other errata, specifically related to the creatures/monsters in chapter 13 please try to point them out within the next week. I promise to try my best to respond to any errata observations with a less than 24 hour turn-around (humanoids to be addressed by Tuesday AM). I'd like to get Monk an updated table by the end of the day Friday for his AutoHARP program.
I may well spot some more as I complete my update of the AutoHarp database. I'm currently at the Trolls.
I have also notice that some creatures (like the spiders) have only one Natural Weapon entry, yet Table 13.4 states more the one physical attacks based natural weapons. I couldn't say if that was an error or by design.
I'll do a full review of Natural weapons and physical attacks across the board. Not every physical attack should have a corresponding natural weapon.
-
Hello...new to the forum so I apologize if I should know this:
I was about to buy the HARP Fantasy book on RPGNow, but then looked at this forum and see this errata thread. If I purchase the PDF now, will I get the update when the corrections are made?
Thanks!
-
Yes, once the pdf is updated with the corrections from this errata, everyone who has registered on RPGNow.com for update notifications will be advised and will be able to download the update for free.
If you don't set up RPGNow for notifications you can always follow this thread as we will announce any new releases here when they are done - but the RPGNow method is a good confirmation.
Welcome to the forums!
-
As I was looking at Instant spells (based on the thread below), my 2nd edition PDF (of indeterminate vintage) has the following ...
pg 116 (PDF, book page 115) - 2nd Para is titled "Anonymous Spell *" ??
also there are two "= spell is cast instantaneously" on the page (2nd col bottom and below the table) with no "*"
Has this been fixed?
-
As I was looking at Instant spells (based on the thread below), my 2nd edition PDF (of indeterminate vintage) has the following ...
pg 116 (PDF, book page 115) - 2nd Para is titled "Anonymous Spell *" ??
also there are two "= spell is cast instantaneously" on the page (2nd col bottom and below the table) with no "*"
Has this been fixed?
I have Anonymous Spell * on page 117(look at the page number printed at the bottom of the page), but this is an example of a spell description. This is not an error as far as I can see
You should go to RPGnow and download the latest version, unless you download your copy after May 2013.
-
Ah so you think "Anonymous Spell *" means something like - "Sample Spell" ok ... Does your version have the * in front of
"= spell is cast ... "?
-
Ah so you think "Anonymous Spell *" means something like - "Sample Spell" ok ... Does your version have the * in front of
"= spell is cast ... "?
Yes is does.
-
Anonymous Spell = Sample Spell....
It is just to show you what the entries in the Spell section will look like and the * is there to show where you would find the * in the Spell section.
-
Try fighting Zombies with their immunity to stun, bleeding and reduced damage from various weapon types and then tell me they are harmless. So you hit first so what, if you don't get an instant kill they are going to hit you back and keep hitting you.
This was in response to someone complaining about -7 init on Zombies
-
Try fighting Zombies with their immunity to stun, bleeding and reduced damage from various weapon types and then tell me they are harmless. So you hit first so what, if you don't get an instant kill they are going to hit you back and keep hitting you.
This was in response to someone complaining about -7 init on Zombies
They are certainly a challenge. ;D
-
I haven't noticed any errata so far, but all I have is the PDF, a printed copy is on the way! I will post anything I find that hasn't been listed here. I prefer a printed book for easier access and quicker look ups for rules clarifications and errata checking. IMHO a physical book is simply so much easier to use. Please note that a printable errata PDF would be extremely helpful to me in addition to any updated PDF downloads.
I have been with ICE since the mid 80's and have thoroughly enjoyed all of their products, even the RM Companions. I altered/changed rules where I saw fit and completely discarded rules where I saw fit, I mean honestly who used the "similar skills" bonus rules in whatever companion that was in? Good Lord that would have been to much more book keeping. There has been errata and I think I have seen more typos with HARP than any previous ICE game. It can be very frustrating.
But honestly, ICE has been through hell over the last two and a half decades. Especially with how many changes to their small staff and financing issues. Yet they lasted longer than TSR before having to go through a bankruptcy and might not have had to if it wasn't for Tolkien Enterprises (RIP MERP). And they still go head to head with the largest RPG game companies out there, that have much much larger editing staffs and mad resources. Yet ICE still produces some very complete and complex gaming products. Not to mention their excellent community support and the fact that they take our opinions very serious. So ICE I raise my glass (or bottle) to you (it's funny because I drink ICEhouse). You will always have my support, maybe not always financially, but you have it. Hopefully sometime in the future I can actually produce something you can use......
I am doing my part by trying to advertise and run HARP demos, though the gaming store owner has yet to post my ads. Word of mouth seems to be slowly working and the people I have demo'd with so far made characters for a regular HARP campaign this very night!
Bruce
-
I found a little bit of errata.
Please note this is a repeat of the same issue report in the Martial Law errata. I though to include it here as it applies to both books.
First off I found this errata by researching the Battle Runes skill in Martial Law, it does not have any stats listed for use of the skill.
In the HARP core book under the runes skill it lists an option to inscribe a rune with spells. It states the character can inscribe 1 spell per 5 ranks of rune skill, which is exactly how the battle runes skill in martial law describes it. The problem now is that the runes skill (in the core book) description does not go into the needed detail for balance issues, like the battle runes (Martial Law) skill does.
Is it safe to assume that the battle runes skill description in Martial Law is simply an extension or better explanation of the runes skill in the core book? That is what I plan on using at least until I get an official word from ICE.
It seems to me this description should have been in the core book and not in Martial Law.
Bruce
-
In the index, Crush & Crushing are both under K and spelled with K's. Everywhere else it's with a C.
-
I haven't noticed any errata so far, but all I have is the PDF, a printed copy is on the way! I will post anything I find that hasn't been listed here. I prefer a printed book for easier access and quicker look ups for rules clarifications and errata checking. IMHO a physical book is simply so much easier to use. Please note that a printable errata PDF would be extremely helpful to me in addition to any updated PDF downloads.
I have been with ICE since the mid 80's and have thoroughly enjoyed all of their products, even the RM Companions. I altered/changed rules where I saw fit and completely discarded rules where I saw fit, I mean honestly who used the "similar skills" bonus rules in whatever companion that was in? Good Lord that would have been to much more book keeping. There has been errata and I think I have seen more typos with HARP than any previous ICE game. It can be very frustrating.
But honestly, ICE has been through hell over the last two and a half decades. Especially with how many changes to their small staff and financing issues. Yet they lasted longer than TSR before having to go through a bankruptcy and might not have had to if it wasn't for Tolkien Enterprises (RIP MERP). And they still go head to head with the largest RPG game companies out there, that have much much larger editing staffs and mad resources. Yet ICE still produces some very complete and complex gaming products. Not to mention their excellent community support and the fact that they take our opinions very serious. So ICE I raise my glass (or bottle) to you (it's funny because I drink ICEhouse). You will always have my support, maybe not always financially, but you have it. Hopefully sometime in the future I can actually produce something you can use......
I am doing my part by trying to advertise and run HARP demos, though the gaming store owner has yet to post my ads. Word of mouth seems to be slowly working and the people I have demo'd with so far made characters for a regular HARP campaign this very night!
Bruce
I would like to raise my glass, mug, cup, etc. to ICE as well. I have been playing their games off and on since the early 80s and I have always liked their products, especially RM, MERP, and HARP, much more that the various d20 systems out there. Their staff has always been very responsive to our needs. What TE did prior to the release of the movie never set well with me either.
-
Could there be something wrong with the grid and text for the Kobold? I've been trying to figure it out but I just can't get the same results.
All the skills except Appraisal and Melee Weapon have the same skill bonus and rank. Appraisal needs to have only 2 ranks to get the same result. The Melee Weapon appears to be missing the Assassin Training bonus.
Also, Ambush and Stalking and Hiding either have too many ranks or are missing the Assassin Training bonus.
I get an initiative of +15 and a DB of 55.
I also don't have enough of 100 DPs to get all the ranks as listed in the core book.
I chose Shallow Warren culture (best fit) and Fighter profession.
Stats are as follows:
St: 60
Co: 70
Ag: 70
Qu: 50
SD: 70
Re: 70
In: 75
Pr: 50
I'm so close I can feel it.
-
Current PDF-Version, p. 41 still seems to have wrong numbers in the Disarm Foe example, the number to beat should be 130, not 105 (see: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=7927.msg116910#msg116910 (http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=7927.msg116910#msg116910))
-
The Appraisal skill has Percentage as resolution method (p. 37), but the table on p. 36 lists All-or-Nothing.
-
Found a new (I think) one in the creatures:
Scorpion, Giant Page 162
The text says: "...it attacks using either its pincers (Large Puncture) or its stinger (Medium Puncture)."
The grid has both attacks as Large.
-
My creation notes show both as Large. Text was written after so Nicholas may have modified it.
-
Greetings!
I've been a Rolemaster and MERP player since the eighties. Wow, I remember the excitement of buying the original MERP boxed set- the one with the red cover and the adventurers in a treasure-filled cavern. This one:(http://www.icewebring.com/ICE_Products/M1/images/merp.jpg)
Anyway, I have identified a few problems with the latest HARP. Great product, of course. And thanks for it.
On p51 the note says that:
XXNote: Pole Arms are unique in that they may be used
equally well either one-handed or two-handed. If used
one-handed, they do a maximum of a Medium critical. If
used two-handed, they do a maximum of a Large critical.
The spear is included in the "polearms" list of individual weapons but also under 2-handed "Staves". It seems to indicate that any polearm besides the spear can be used 2 handed using the polearm skill but the spear requires the "Staves" catagory to use two-handed. This also creates an issue with the Martial Law expanded polearm list which includes weapons that are only possible to use two-handed. But going back to the note quoted above can be used one or two handed. One-handed halbard or poleaxe would be an impressive, if not impossible feat!
Table 8.4 p.68-69 shows that both polearms and spears do Large criticals but probably should be broken down into medium and large 1 or 2 handed as the claymore, katana etc. This is assuming that polearms can be used one handed.
Maybe it'd be better if basically all the polearms listed in Martial Law should be in the staff weapons category (Staves) and spear removed from "Staves" allowing it to be used 1 or 2 handed as other polearms.
p91. Initiative Modifiers should mention staves along with polearms if spear is in staves. If a spear is used 2 handed do the "polearm" initiative modifiers apply or 2 handed?
Table 8.5 p.69 shows "Studded Leather" as a full armour set. It should probably be "Rigid Leather" to be consistant with other armour lists- table 8.7 p70, for example.
I'm not sure if you want typos brought to your attention or not..?
I came across these issues when creating a spear-fighter character.
Matthew
-
Also wondering if the p32 Table 5.5 Adolescent Skill Ranks weapon skill*** comment should say "select one missile or thrown weapon group" rather than just missile. Many cultures even in our own world didn't use bows but did use sticks/spears/darts/rocks. I reckon more kids become skilled at throwing stones during the adolescence than learn archery. At least it should be an option.
-
Also wondering if the p32 Table 5.5 Adolescent Skill Ranks weapon skill*** comment should say "select one missile or thrown weapon group" rather than just missile.
I just assumed that "missile" includes thrown, and honestly thought that most RPG gamers did these days. Sort of like how bows are included in "Firearms" in World of Darkness.
-
Also wondering if the p32 Table 5.5 Adolescent Skill Ranks weapon skill*** comment should say "select one missile or thrown weapon group" rather than just missile.
I just assumed that "missile" includes thrown, and honestly thought that most RPG gamers did these days. Sort of like how bows are included in "Firearms" in World of Darkness.
I think you're right that, in this instance at least, missile and thrown should be equated. But, with "Missile" and "Thrown" being two distinct categories in the rules, one is not abiding by the rules if a character put these ranks in "Thrown." At present, the rules are that during adolescence a character can only put these ranks in bows, crossbows or slings according to the un-numbered table on page 51.
Given the purpose of this thread I thought it should be mentioned.
-
That is indeed the way it is mentioned and the way the groups are separated. I was merely mentioning a modern gamer convenience.
-
Wording should probably be revised to say "Range weapon"...
-
I can't believe me it took me this long to notice this, so:
I was comparing the previous version and current version of HARP, both physically and on screen as PDFs. For the Fighter profession, in the previous version, I noticed that it says "weapon skill" both times for the level based bonus, whereas with the current version it says "Combat skill" first then "weapon skill" for the bonus cap. Based on some other threads where multiclass caps for the same ability were discussed, this is the same ability as the Warrior Mage's combat bonus, just fewer levels between. In both versions of HARP it stays "Combat skill" for the Warrior Mage.
-
Greetings!
I've been a Rolemaster and MERP player since the eighties. Wow, I remember the excitement of buying the original MERP boxed set- the one with the red cover and the adventurers in a treasure-filled cavern. This one:(http://www.icewebring.com/ICE_Products/M1/images/merp.jpg)
Anyway, I have identified a few problems with the latest HARP. Great product, of course. And thanks for it.
On p51 the note says that:
XXNote: Pole Arms are unique in that they may be used
equally well either one-handed or two-handed. If used
one-handed, they do a maximum of a Medium critical. If
used two-handed, they do a maximum of a Large critical.
The spear is included in the "polearms" list of individual weapons but also under 2-handed "Staves". It seems to indicate that any polearm besides the spear can be used 2 handed using the polearm skill but the spear requires the "Staves" catagory to use two-handed. This also creates an issue with the Martial Law expanded polearm list which includes weapons that are only possible to use two-handed. But going back to the note quoted above can be used one or two handed. One-handed halbard or poleaxe would be an impressive, if not impossible feat!
Table 8.4 p.68-69 shows that both polearms and spears do Large criticals but probably should be broken down into medium and large 1 or 2 handed as the claymore, katana etc. This is assuming that polearms can be used one handed.
Maybe it'd be better if basically all the polearms listed in Martial Law should be in the staff weapons category (Staves) and spear removed from "Staves" allowing it to be used 1 or 2 handed as other polearms.
p91. Initiative Modifiers should mention staves along with polearms if spear is in staves. If a spear is used 2 handed do the "polearm" initiative modifiers apply or 2 handed?
Table 8.5 p.69 shows "Studded Leather" as a full armour set. It should probably be "Rigid Leather" to be consistant with other armour lists- table 8.7 p70, for example.
I'm not sure if you want typos brought to your attention or not..?
I came across these issues when creating a spear-fighter character.
Matthew
I'm bumping the above message because I think it is important, but nothing has been said about it. I haven't actually looked up these rules to clarify their inclusion in the "updated" rules but the thing behind using a weapon that has both one and two handed capabilities comes to mind. One that isn't mentioned is the quarterstaff. When trained the quarterstaff is not specifically trained one or two handed, it is both. But hitting a target one handed will do less damage than when using two hands to strike with.
Bruce
-
Is it possible to find a complete list of errata in the Core Book, Martial Law and College of Magics? (pdfs)
-
As far as I know, the only one that exists are these topics. Don't think there are lists right now.
-
I just realized, HARP Fantasy considers the foil a legitimate combat weapon.
-
Spotted a little innacurate info on the Index, p. 199:
- On the G, and on the GM's Options, it refers to Life Points Option on p. 99, which has been removed from the book.
-
In the index too:
A
Accelerated Healing 54, 166, 168
There aren't any reference to this talent in the last two pages. This must be like this:
Accelerated Healing 54
-
Page 97: repeated sentence at the end of the "Full Shield" description.
"Usually 4’ to 5’ long and 3’ wide. This shield is usually gripped by a single handle and a forearm strap.
Typical length is about 4’ and 2’ to 3’ wide. This shield is usually gripped by a single handle and a forearm strap."
Page 121:
Minor Healing says "Reduce a maneuver penalty by up to 20 points." Shouldn't it be "by up to 25 points" to be consistent with the light injury rules?
Also, is there a rough estimate for the next update? Thank you!
-
I am reading the rulebook (print copy 2017) right now and I've found one issue. I don't know if this is errata or it's just me that couldn't find the rules in the book:
1.- page 58. Power Point Adder Example. (...) "Using this item, Jorge only has to use one Power Point over base cost, so he only receives a -5 modifier to the casting roll."
Where are the rule that explains these modifiers on the casting rolls?
-
1.- page 58. Power Point Adder Example. (...) "Using this item, Jorge only has to use one Power Point over base cost, so he only receives a -5 modifier to the casting roll."
Where are the rule that explains these modifiers on the casting rolls?
Using the April 2017 update, p. 114 under "Scaling Spells".
-
Hi guys, just an info...are these errata included in the last printed version of the rulebook...I’m gonna buyin’it.
Thanks
-
Not even an errata, I find the grammar for the note under Additional Profession to be awkward. The wording could be simplified to: "When adding an additional profession, Additional Profession must be the first thing you spend DP on that level." The current wording isn't grammatically wrong, and I know what it wants to do, it's just doing it in a way that seems needlessly complicated to me.
-
That wording is done that way specifically for characters using the stat-based development points per level rule (core rulebook, p. 20-21). Under that rule, some characters might not even have 20 points to spend in a given level, so they might need to stretch out purchasing the Additional Profession talent over a couple of levels.
Then again, if your stats are so low that you don't get even 20 development points when you level up, I would personally recommend dropping ALL your points into stats for several levels, before joining your new profession!
-
Excepting that I have run into online conversations with people whose reading comprehension shows that they need things that spelled out for them, I would say that my original shortening would still work.
-
Finally got to sit down and do an in-depth read through prior to starting a new game (hopefully to sway people to the fold!) and I noted a few things. Apologies if these have been called out before.
p27 - for 'Dwarven Blood (Greater)', the ability listed underneath 'Stone Sense' is not formatted as an ability in its own right (so the 4 lines appear as a subset of the Stone Sense ability)
p53 - 'For example, an Elven Harper would get Enhanced Senses twice gaining the +10 to Perception twice' - from looking into this on the forum I believe that this is a outdated refeence to the previous version of HARP, where the Harper received the 'Enhanced Senses' talent as a bonus talent?
55/56 - 'Focused Eloquence' is listed in Table 7.1 Master Talent List as a Talent which has different levels (in the same way as Regeneration and Succor are listed); howver, unlike these 2 talents (which have 1 description covering the multiple levels) there are discrete descriptions of 'Focused Eloquence (Lesser)' and 'Focused Eloquence (Greater)' . This does not seem to be a consistent approach
p83 - 'Fighting Blind' example 2 - 'horde of chittering giant ants of chittering giant insectoids'; need to remove one instance of 'of chittering giant [type]'
p94 - Table 10.1 Full Sets of Armor - refers to 'Studded Leather Armor' and 'Plate/Chain Armor'; as this table lists armor categories, should these be 'Rigid Leather Armor' and 'Plate & Chain Armor' to be consistent with 'Armor Categories' on p93?
P94/95 - the MxMP mentions 'The Maximum Maneuver Penalty... also modifies any DB gained from the Quickness stat bonus'; however, no mention is made of this for MnMP, UF MaxMP or UF MinMP
p95 - Table 10.2 (Armor By Location) lacks an entry for 'Shirt/hauberk'
p95 - 'Armor Skill Refresher' - Jax would need to add 11 (rather than 6) ranks to reduce the penalty of wearing plate chain to -15
p148 - the preparation methods are referred to as Contact/Ingest/INJECT, whilst the poison table uses Contact/Ingest/PASTE; as these are both the Prep portion of Form/Prep should these not be consistent?
-
p95 What were Jax's St and Ag modifiers?
-
Quick question: I own a hardback of the 2013 HARP Fantasy rulebook. Is it worth buying the 2017 version for play? I can’t find a list of the differences. Any advice on this welcome.
-
The 2017 is just a quick update to the 2013 PDF as I recall. So, clean up mostly. Which is not to say the 2017 update is without its own errors.