Topic: Tweaks for HARP Fantasy core rulebook

[NicholasHMCaldwell]

As stated elsewhere, we will have to open HARP Fantasy up for its rebranding, and will be taking the opportunity to retrofit some improvements from HARP SF and the years of experience that folk have had in playing/GMing HARP Fantasy. So if you have spotted an error that has niggled at you for years (hello to the 5d6 max option on Arcane Bolt) or have found an issue that you think is a problem, post here please.

Best wishes,
Nicholas

[Ecthelion]

What we dislike in my group:
a) All of the HARP combat systems are, at least to us, inferior to the RM combat system. The core system is boring with its limited number of critical results and also has the flaw (as we see it) that large weapons are the only weapons with a reasonable chance to achieve a killing critical, while all smaller weapons only can do so when rolling open-ended (99-00). The ML combat system I never tried, but I was told that it also has its flaws, with heavy armor becoming very powerful. H&S too easily kills with only one open-ended roll, regardless of weapon or opponent (it matters only very little whether you want to kill a dragon with a dagger or a two-handed sword, overcoming the huge DB is the hardest part - this is weird). Also it seems as boring as the core system, with bleeding, stuns, hits etc. just increasing in a very linear way. HB 11, which is most akin to RM, seems the best to us, but, in contrast to the other systems, the built-in ~50 additional DB has combat last too long. We'll most likely offset this a bit and hopefully be glad with it.

b) The 2 sec combat round is nice for simplicity, but a fight against a group of opponents now only lasts 10-20 seconds, too little time for any tactical changes, like new opponents getting in sight and appearing on the battle field a few rounds later. With the movement range adapted to 2s rounds such opponents can only be 30m or so away from the combat when it is starting, so they'd be visible from the start (unless you always happen to have combat take place in heavy forest or dungeon crawls). For spells there is a similar problem: If a character is casting a Blur spell (or any other combat-related spell) to prepare for combat and it takes a mere 10s longer for the combat to start than expected, the spell is likely to fade out prior or early in combat. Somehow the 10s RM combat rounds did not have these problems.

c) The Human profession seems a bit weak compared to the other races.

d) The rules for half-breeds are prone for abuse. For a power-gamer it is the best choice to choose one race, pay the 1-2 DPs for a Lesser or Greater Blood Talent and exchange the (usually cheap) worst Talents for better (and usually more costly) Talents of the second race. IMO this could easily be fixed by requiring the DP cost difference to be expended if the new Talent costs more DPs that the old one.

Personally I also don't like that, with the HARP add-on books, the Mage profession got more and more spells (probably ~100 with Core plus C&M plus The Codex) while other professions received only a small amount of additional spells or, like the Cleric, are restricted to a limited number of spells. Of course a Mage is also limited by his number of DPs and will never have a chance to learn all of these spells, but it seems weird that one profession (perhaps also the Mage-like professions like Elementalist etc.) have access to so many spells while others are much more limited.

Just my 2 cents

[munchy]

I agree on the critical situation but have commented on that in another thread already. I am not sure how to fix this in one book; I gave a 21st century idea of a solution for this.
Changing the combat system might, however, be a task for HARP 2nd Edition.

An issue that I think should definitely be fixed are the spell costs and durations. Maybe the spells in the HARP core rules should be revised according to your spell creation system, Nicholas. Some spells maybe have to be split into more than one spell - Minor and Major Healing have been discussed A LOT on the forums.
However, this again might rather be something for HARP 2nd and not for a retrofit.

I think with the human skill flexibility talent the weakness of humans should be fixed, maybe even two skill might be allowed but I am not sure about that, never tested it with two.

Again maybe for a second edition it might be a nice idea to have more blood talents available. I quite like the flexibility the system for quarter- and half-breed offers and although it could easily be abused I think it is the duty of the GM to step if someone tries to. It has worked in our group extremely well. The idea with the DP, however, seems interesting. It should be paid attention to not make the system more complicated than healthy for the system.

So, most of the issues I see are probably things that a HARP 2nd edition could fix - probably only a second edition could fix it and not a retrofit version - as mentioned before.

Coloured pictured might also be an idea for a 2nd edition.

Sorry for all those ideas for a 2nd edition but I went that way.

[WoeRie]

Ok, I couldn't resist, but checked my house rules for things wich are not already covered by HARP SF or the errata:


- Sylvan Culture should get 2 ranks in missile weapon and only one rank in melee weapons.

- Reload times for all Bows should be reduced to 1 round or +10 to Initiative with the Speed Loader talent.

- Aiming with Missile Weapons should be possible in the same way as for spells. This means each round of aiming gives a +5 to the OB up to a maximum of 6 round (+30).

- The OB resulting from any Combat Style can never be higher than the OB of the used weapon, even if the total skill bonus is higher.

- Staves (Quarterstaff, 2-handed Jo, Cudgel, 2-handed Club and other possible wood-only weapons) should be reduced to Medium Criticals. One-handed Jo and Club should be reduced to Small Criticals.

- Casting Spells in Melee: Characters casting spells while in melee combat are at a distinct disadvantage, as a foe may disrupt the concentration by waving or by striking a blow. Being attacked while casting a spell, results in a -100 modifier, even if the attack misses. If the attack succeeds a spell currently cast is lost, but the character does not lose the Power Points used by the spell. Characters must be within melee range to disrupt a foe’s spell casting, and must be able to act (i.e. have a higher Initiative value) before the foe can cast. Trying to deliberately disrupt a spell without making an attack against the caster is a Light Maneuver Roll (using the skill value of the weapon, if used, or the Strength and Agility bonuses if unarmed). The result is resolved on the Percentage column of the Maneuver Table. The value from the table is then used as the negative modifier to the maneuver of the character attempting to cast a spell. Instantaneous spells won’t be modified by this rule.



Well and as a last thing... maybe changing to the metric system

[GrumpyOldFart]

I think with the human skill flexibility talent the weakness of humans should be fixed, maybe even two skill might be allowed but I am not sure about that, never tested it with two.

If you want a tweak whose power is in between the two, specify that the two skills chosen for Skill Flexibility must be in two different non-favored categories. Or the same one, whichever you see as most/least limiting, according to the balance you want.

Again maybe for a second edition it might be a nice idea to have more blood talents available. I quite like the flexibility the system for quarter- and half-breed offers and although it could easily be abused I think it is the duty of the GM to step if someone tries to. It has worked in our group extremely well. The idea with the DP, however, seems interesting. It should be paid attention to not make the system more complicated than healthy for the system.

I like blood talents, but I can see the point about the potential for abuse. It might help if blood talents were all effects that couldn't be purchased at all using DPs.

[Usdrothek]

I agree whole heartedly with Ecthelion, in that combat is too simple. The addition of proper armour/hit charts/criticals to make it, in this aspect, more akin to RM would be a vast improvement.

The addition of criticals would necessitate the need for additional healing spells as I don't think HARP healing can currently cope with any penalty greater then -50.

[kasalin]

1) The Eloquence talent does not have a comparable non-spell user talent.

Rework the Eloquence talent to be

** +10 instead of +25 (+10 is the best bonus a user can get for a weapon via talent)
** Have the Eloquence bonus be +5/every 5 levels

OR

Add a Weapon Master talent that gives a similar +25 for weapon skills

2) make Talents of similar costs have similar bonus

ex. Physick gives +10 to healing and medical skills (affects maybe 3 skills).  Quiet Strike gives +25 to stalking (affects 1 skill). Scholar gives +10 to potentially dozens of skills.  All cost 10 DP.

3) penalties related to spell scaling discourage spell scaling

4) Each profession should only get General and 1 other skill family as favored. 


***
In the HARP v2 category,

1) Something I think that needs to be addressed is that as a party of characters gets to higher levels, they tend to converge into the same character - the diminishing returns skill progression leads the characters to multi-class and buy talents and stats.  Non-caster types have nothing to acquire skill wise, while casters can throw endless ranks into spells for diversity and scaling.  To have something to do with their dev points, non-spell users have to multi-class.

I tried to address this by making magic skills cost more for non-casters and weapon skills cost more for casters (and then not allowing multi-classing).  There needs to be something at higher levels for characters to spend their DPs on.  Maybe this would mean getting rid of the diminishing returns concept of skill progression, which discourages players from advancing skills after a point.

2) More differentiation in skill costs.

3) I agree on the spell costs/durations issue Munchy mentioned.  I think the spell creation system needs to be simplified a bit.  It's confusing and leads to situations where a light spell costs more than a lightning bolt.  The base size for a spell should be Medium, not Tiny. Medium is the standard used for creature sizes, weapons, criticals, etc.  Casting the Tiny or Small versions of spells should be done at a lower cost (i.e., a scaling option of -2/-1 for Tiny/Small).

4) casting penalties in general should be looked at.  Every time someone casts, the penalty varies depending on quick casting, scaling, base PP cost, armor penalties, situational penalties, scaling items, etc.  Smooth this out.  Maybe instead of all these unique penalties, have a single difficulty modifier assigned by the GM. Figuring out spell costs is one of the most tedious items our group has.

[Mungo]

Hi,

I agree with the problems of the combat system. If this is too difficult to change: the minimum I would expect that the variety of HARP combat systems is reduced (HARP, ML, ...)

BR Juergen

[pastaav]

Can you all agree about what combat system that should be the right one...I think not....but how do you then hope that GCP shall be able to choose something that makes you happy?

Fundamentally I think combat systems are hard because you can't please everyone no matter what you do. I suggest the way forward is more to have combat systems that can be swaped in. Having Armslaw (with Spell Law criticals included) being one of the options that can be made to work out of the box would open for more sales of Armslaw and give Harp users more choice. When Armslaw like combat is available the remaining combat systems for HARP can be redesigned to fit other desired playstyles better.

 

[Arioch]

I made a topic, some time ago, in which I talked about what I don't like about HARP and why. You can read it here: http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=9107.0
Beside that, I think that there are some balance issues that need to be fixed, mainly in the spells (sleep is ridicously powerful as written, for example) and talents area (blood talents, eloquence, etc).

[Mungo]

Hi,

Agree, difficult to agree on one system. But some time ago (ended in a nice mail conversation with Nicholas) I made a post about the different combat systems with the bottomline that in each there is missing something. E.g. I use Arms Law for HARP bu the problem is the Bolt and Ball tables - thtey do not match with the HARP spell system.

So a) I would love to get an official and complete version of RM combat system for useage with HARP and

b) I think in HARP the Bolt / Ball spells are broken, i.e. scaling up does not make sense (there are long discussions about this on the forums I think). Getting this into something more sensible would be highly appreciated as well.

BR Juergen

[aelfwine]

To be mildly controversial, perhaps ditching the Gryx?

At heart, the thing is a great idea - slotting in the half-orc or half-beastie-whatever without any of the overtones. But it does some across like some sort of specific IP in a game that is supposed to be generic.In theory, you bought HARP to play Midnight or even Forgotten Realms in because you were sick to the back teeth of the 3.5 D20. Rename and "refluff" the thing as a "half-giant" perhaps?

And yes, to echo something brought up in Arioch's thread, the Pathfinder/4E encounter building tools are something should be either looted or rivalled. Maybe a bunch of encounter templates that could be downloaded from the ICE website - an Orc ambush, an encounter with corrupt and backstabbing merchants, a passing army.

Also, merge Martial Law into the HARP core.

Gavin

PS: Also, why am I a fecking Apprentice again? :p

[Thom @ ICE]

Gavin,
When you came back you created a new profile which had a few issues, including starting your post count over at 0.  I'm trying to figure out what your post count was on your previous account, and if I can locate it then I'll combine the numbers.

As for the gryx... it is generally just to show a unique race concept, rather than the standard regurgitated races.  I personally am not a big fan of them but I understand why they were originally included.

[GrumpyOldFart]

As for the gryx... it is generally just to show a unique race concept, rather than the standard regurgitated races.  I personally am not a big fan of them but I understand why they were originally included.

It might be worth it to have several examples of "unique race concept", with the reminder that most worlds are unlikely to support more than one or two. Especially if it takes you through the race creation process, showing the new GM the balancing act involved and why it's important.

[jasonbrisbane]

Actually I like the gryx. Id like to see perhaps anothe race make it into core rules - maybe one from the harpers bazaar's? Winged humanoid race (aerie?).
But perhaps to satisfy all, maybe a BASE races and then an Optional Races section (has a paragraph about if you want to create a race in your game here are some ideas to use, etc).

I've not heard of Pathfinder/4E  tools? Do you have a website or details of this?
Im always looking to play with some programming... 

[aelfwine]

That "example build your own race" was going to be my next suggestion.

Appendix: "how to make something that is totally a Gryx as an example for you"

The 4E encounter thing is really just the "encounter budget" in the core rules. It's a way of figuring out how nasty the opposition is. I am told that Pathfinder has something similar.

Gavin

PS: I think my post count was something like 378 or 478.

[kreider204]

FYI, IMHO, YMMV, yada, yada, yada.

In general, the whole book could use a serious editing for clarity, taking into account the most commonly asked clarification questions in the forums.

In general, the fewer options in the core rule book, the better.  Options are great for supplements, but if the idea is to have HARP serve as a relatively easy introduction to ICE games, you don’t want to overwhelm the newbies.  For example, one method of generating character stats seems best (option two …).  In general, that’s how HARP is already – I mostly just mean, “Keep it that way.”

The whole idea of creating monsters as Fighters with 75 in all stats always bugged me (just look at the Initiative bonuses … ).  Heck, the idea of creating monsters according to PC creation rules bugs me.  Monsters should just be made to be what they need to be without worrying about development points and classes and such.

Use the “Condensed Combat” system from HARPer’s Bazaar issues #11 & #12 – it’s the most like RM, so allows HARP fans to move over to RM (if they choose) the easiest. 

Fixed development points!  This seems popular, is a bit easier, and helps avoid munchkinism.

Get rid of training packages – WAY too munchkiny, especially since you can basically just make any training package that contains whatever specific skills you want (GM’s permission, of course – but with so many already, it’s hard to see how a GM could refuse … ).

Here’s some other house rules I use, just FYI (though some address what I think are overly powerful talents or spells, and rules clarifications for shields):

Eloquence: This talent costs only 20 DP, but only applies to utility spells.

Instinctive Defense: The +20 DB can only apply to one attack per round, and the character must be aware of the attack.

Reduced load times for missile weapons:
- Bows and slings can be fired every other round (i.e., they take 1 round to reload)
- Crossbows can be fired every third round (i.e., they take 2 rounds to reload).
- (Obviously, the speed loader talent would have to be modified.)

Elemental Ball: Instead of +20 OB to center of blast and +0 OB in rest of radius, it’s +0 OB in center and -20 OB in rest.

Shields:
- Normally, Shield DB is only applied to one attack per round, and that attack cannot be from the rear.
- If the character is performing a full parry, then the shield DB might apply to more than one attack, depending on the shield size:
-- Large shields (e.g., wall shields, full shields) can protect against up to three melee attacks per round, and against all standard missile attacks (e.g., arrows, sling bullets, crossbow bolts) in addition, but all the attacks must come from generally the same direction.
-- Medium shields (e.g., normal shields) can protect against up to two attacks per round (melee or missile), but all the attacks must come from generally the same direction.
-- Small shields (e.g., target shields, bucklers, shielding weapons) still protect against only one attack per round (melee or missile).

Thanks for listening, and good luck.  I gave up on HARP a while back, because I thought it needed too much work - if you guys do really come up with a new and improved version, I'll definitely give it another shot.

[Arioch]

The whole idea of creating monsters as Fighters with 75 in all stats always bugged me (just look at the Initiative bonuses … ).  Heck, the idea of creating monsters according to PC creation rules bugs me.  Monsters should just be made to be what they need to be without worrying about development points and classes and such.

Yes, creating monsters is easy, but should be much quicker, at least for most of the random critters fought by the PCs during their adventures. No need to worry about their profession, talents, stats... just give me their combat related value and a couple of special abilities.
Also, I really like the MaFG/Cyradon monsters' templates, they're a great way of increasing HARP bestiary wihtout actually having to create new monsters... we need MOAR of them! 

[Zhaleskra]

d) The rules for half-breeds are prone for abuse. For a power-gamer it is the best choice to choose one race, pay the 1-2 DPs for a Lesser or Greater Blood Talent and exchange the (usually cheap) worst Talents for better (and usually more costly) Talents of the second race. IMO this could easily be fixed by requiring the DP cost difference to be expended if the new Talent costs more DPs that the old one.

Okay, this particular concept has been bothering me. Both that some reviewers who didn't pay enough attention to the rules think you can play a character who's 1/4 of four races, and now players who think you can get away with only taking one Lesser Blood Talent. Neither of these is a valid choice.

You can be 1/2, 1/4, 1/4, you can be 1/2, 1/2 or you can be 1. That's it. Read the bloody blood talent rule. 1/4, 1/4, 1/4, 1/4 and 3/4, 1/4 are right out. You cannot take only one Lesser Blood Talent, it's forbidden in the rules.

[WoeRie]

Well, to be honest. I assume this is more a point for an errata. I assume it should read "one Greater or up to two Lesser Blood Talents". From a logical perspective it would make no sense to allow only two lesser blood talents.