Topic: Levelling up and Multiple Professions

[Mormegil]

I understand it just fine.

And if I think something is broken I'll call it that way.

[Thom @ ICE]

In regards to power balance, the multi-profession rules for HARP are extremely solid.  The alternative - if you wish to grant 100% of initial profession abilities - would be to limit initial abilities to 1, and then grant more abilities at higher profession levels (similar to what d20 has done).  This was simply not the option chosen by the designers of the system.  Note that due to this HARP Fighter/Thief characters can appear completely different because of how they choose to select the new thief professional ability.  d20 rules effectively lead to less diversity in terms of abilities. 

One aspect of HARP that has been openly proclaimed, both from the designer and the player side, is that HARP is very modular and open to all kinds of House Rules.  I suspect that any HARP game you find will use at least 1 house rule. This is fully encouraged, and reflected in the numerous optional rules that have been published.

From Johnzkin's list of suggestions the fixed DP per level has been offered by many gamers on these forums. Some use a static 40 per level, others suggest a growing number of DP for each level (40, 42, 44, 46, ....).  His forced 20 DP spend with a new profession in place of spending it on a talent is an idea that intriques me, and I'd be very open to testing - I think his ** point may be inaccurate, but I'll need to review that more closely to ensure I understand his point fully before commenting further.  I suspect that once those ideas are tossed about by the individuals on these forums at least a handful of gamers will adopt them, or similar versions, into their own games.

To call something broken you need to demonstrate what is wrong with it empirically - not simply stating a personal bias of one's own preference.  Keep in mind that the word broken has very specific negative connotations which imply the rules were either not playtested well or that there is a specific imbalance in them.  Neither is the case here. I believe this is what RWW was suggesting.

[Right Wing Wacko]

To call something broken you need to demonstrate what is wrong with it empirically - not simply stating a personal bias of one's own preference.  Keep in mind that the word broken has very specific negative connotations which imply the rules were either not playtested well or that there is a specific imbalance in them.  Neither is the case here. I believe this is what RWW was suggesting.

Yes.

[masque1223]

I know - the alternative is they get none of that despite effectively paying for it in terms of xp. Broken either way.

They don't get none of it, they get one ability, and the added versatility of having more favored categories to choose from.  That counts for a lot in the long run, in terms of discounted DP expenditure.

As far as ranged combat problems go check the thread - reloading times basically mean that archers may get one shot off before getting engaged and if your opponents are capable of getting any cover as they approach you might as well snap the bow in two and use it for kindling.

The ranged combat rules do a great job of emulating how ranged (bow) combat works in real life, and there's plenty of opportunity to get more than one shot off if the archers actually act like real archers and fire from a distance (the whole point of ranged combat) and not from within melee range, even without the speed-loader talent. 

When the enemy does come into melee range, anyone who is still trying to use a bow instead of yanking out their sword is just not thinking tactically.  That's not the game's fault, that's the player's fault.  It's not meant to model Legolas (movie) style archery, but to me that's a feature, not a bug, and it's certainly not broken.

[Thos]

I also think that the ranged combat simulation is done very well in HARP for anyone who wants it done with a flare of realism. It may not be cinematic, but that doesn't contitute as broken in my personal opinion.

I also have to agree with the above statements regarding leveling up and multiple professions. For my group and I, it all seems very solid.

Of course, the beauty of HARP is that house rules are practically encouraged. If there is anything that I decide I would prefer another way, I change it. Any options and house rules that don't effect game balance but add a personal touch to the game are fabulous. The fact that HARP is so easy to personalize is one of it's greatest strengths to me.

[Pat]

I also believe that at higher levels there will be a lot of multi classing. Because HARP uses diminishing returns in skill development, eventually players will prefer to multi class and "branch out" into new skills rather than spending DP's for minimal return. To maximise this "branching out" I think you'll find fighter/ rogue combos or ranger/ cleric or mage/ monk etc.

At these higher levels,where DP's aren't quite as scarce, I could see 3 or more professions attached to a character to get access to cheap skill development (2 DP's instead of 4) and a bonus skill/ talent.

If all talents and skills were granted to a character upon multi classing I would definately be gaining extra professions every 1 to 2 levels. The bonuses received would outway the 15-20 DP cost, at least in my opinion.

[Mormegil]

To call something broken you need to demonstrate what is wrong with it empirically - not simply stating a personal bias of one's own preference.  Keep in mind that the word broken has very specific negative connotations which imply the rules were either not playtested well or that there is a specific imbalance in them.  Neither is the case here. I believe this is what RWW was suggesting.

Yes.

.

Ok.

Why is a fighter 3/rogue 3 a clearly superior character (talent wise) to a rogue 3/fighter 3?

The dropping talents thing only works if all classes start on an equal footing. They don't. As a result no sensible player would ever multiclass to fighter. Whereas rogue is an ideal class since it comes with very little in the way of talents and is basically a great way of getting some cheap skills tacked on to a fighter or mage type.

I understand that getting all the talents makes for an overpowered character - I just think the existing rule is an inelegant hack.

[masque1223]

As a result no sensible player would ever multiclass to fighter.

(masque1223 looks at his mage/fighter player)
I have a guy who started as a full mage, and took a few levels of fighter after his 3rd of mage, simply because he wanted to have at least minimal combat skills for emergencies.  It fits his character concept as primarily a mage, and makes sense.  He took the shield training talent, as the shields have no casting penalties.

[Mormegil]

Apologies to masque1223 - if it fits an RP concept I can buy that.

I speak from a powergaming/character optimisation perspective.

[Pat]

Ok.

Why is a fighter 3/rogue 3 a clearly superior character (talent wise) to a rogue 3/fighter 3?

I don't believe it is. I think that while a fighter does get significant talent bonuses the rogues number of favoured categories off sets this. I find a lvl 3 fighter to pretty much be a one dimesional "tank" since they have only 4 favoured categories. A lvl 3 rogue however would have access to so many skills that it can be designed in any given direction the player wants.

So a fighter changing to rogue would be understandable for the variety and a rogue changing to fighter would also be understandable especially if the GM runs a high combat campaign or if the party is "magic heavy" and needs some bulk.

Again, only my opinion.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Ok.

Why is a fighter 3/rogue 3 a clearly superior character (talent wise) to a rogue 3/fighter 3?

Is it? All this is a matter of style and opinion. Many of us don't have to worry about "powergamers".
Again, if something doesn't work for you, then change it.

[Thom @ ICE]

Why is a fighter 3/rogue 3 a clearly superior character (talent wise) to a rogue 3/fighter 3?

The dropping talents thing only works if all classes start on an equal footing. They don't. As a result no sensible player would ever multiclass to fighter. Whereas rogue is an ideal class since it comes with very little in the way of talents and is basically a great way of getting some cheap skills tacked on to a fighter or mage type.

I understand that getting all the talents makes for an overpowered character - I just think the existing rule is an inelegant hack.

Now in this case the complaint is not really that the multi-class is not valid, as much as the fact that Fighter class has weaker individual professional abilities (none valued more than 10 DP - Lightning Reflexes, Shield Training, and Skill Specialization). Thieves get the Skill Specialization and 1 talent - Subtle (20 DP).

With every Fighter skill category included in the Thief categories, why would anyone play a Fighter?
Play a Thief and instead of spending 20 DP (15 if Human) on Additional Profession, spend 20 on Lightning Reflexes and Shield Training.  With the Thief having a larger category list they actually have much greater flexibility in developing a power character.  You could even probably build that heavily armored dwarf warrior (aka Tank) as a thief for no additional DP at 1st level, and then as you go up levels you can add ranks in opening locks, ambush, etc. as favored category skills.

Now, if it does impact your game, and you wish to House Rule around it - I would suggest going with when you multi-profession you spend 20 DP (15 human) and you gain 20 DP worth of professional abilities - therefore taking a level in Fighter could give you 2 of the 3 professional abilities.

Another House Rule to "fix" the Fighter would be to remove Shield Training (since not every fighter uses a shield) and Lightning Reflexes, and replace those two with Instinctive Defense. Now you have a comparable talent to the thief's Subtle.  As for the Categories - probably you could say that the Thief is over-compensated and should lose favored access to Combat.

[Right Wing Wacko]

Now in this case the complaint is not really that the multi-class is not valid, as much as the fact that Fighter class has weaker individual professional...

But don't forget about the Professional Abilities. If the Thief sinks a lot of DP into Weapon and Armor skills, he/she will have less to spend in "Thiefly" skills. And there are better Talents to take as Thief...
And, if one chooses Thief as the type of character to play, it shouldn't be played as a Fighter.

I am not trying to tell you guys how to play, rather, I am telling you guys how we play
Do whatever makes you sleep better!

[masque1223]

I speak from a powergaming/character optimisation perspective.

Oy.

[Thom @ ICE]

But when defining a gaming system in terms like Thief or Fighter, the system needs to maintain a balance, and in this case Mormegil has identified a valid weakness in the system.

There is no such thing as "thief" or "fighter" to many people.  Many people play characters, and they pick the profession which best supports the skill set for that character.

A Fighter has no additional favorite categories compared to a thief, and the professional abilities are 3, each worth 10 DP as individual talents.  If you are a thief there is no reason to currently take on a multi-profession fighter.   You would spend 20 DP (or 15) for access to fewer categories at 2DP and gaining a 10DP talent.  Why bother?

If you are creating a new character there is no valid reason to take a Fighter based upon the mechanics.
Take the Thief profession and get access to additional categories to allow expanded flexibility in the future and if you really want the heightened skill specialization (weapon), Lightning Reflexes and Shield Talent - pick them up as talents for 30DP out of your starting 70-80.  The only reason not to do this, is if you have no intention of adding any subterfuge skills to your character, where the thief gets 6 of them.  Of course you could put those ranks in Ambush, Sniping, and/or Streetwise and still have a very "fighter-esque" character.

The lack of a powerful Professional Ability for Fighter makes them a weak choice as a second profession (especially as a compliment to a thief or rogue character where the favorite categories are complete overlaps).

The only type of character that a Fighter profession truly benefits would be a tank or fully focused combatant, and that benefit is minimal (only about a 15 DP differential if your calculate it out).

So - Mormegil, thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure it has probably been mentioned before since HARP has been "House Ruled" by many gamers on these boards, but if it has, it has been a while.

Still, I don't believe the multi-profession rules are broken - I believe the Fighter, Thief, Rogue professions need another look to address their overlap.

BTW - No one in their right mind would ever add a rogue profession as a second profession due to the lack of any kind of professional ability.

IMO
Thieves should not have Combat as Favored
Fighter should have a more powerful Professional Ability in place of 2 of the 3 abilities listed.
Rogues need a review in terms of professional abilities, and they have favored categories in almost all areas.

Of course this now opens pandora's box and you need to re-evaluate all of the balancing between professions.
Not every profession is going to be "numerically" balanced with the others, and some may only work better for role playing purposes, but the one issue you pointed out is significantly a concern to me.  Thanks!

[Pat]

BTW - No one in their right mind would ever add a rogue profession as a second profession due to the lack of any kind of professional ability.

Wow now that was a big statement. I think a rogue is an excellent second profession for magic users that wish to expand their skill set, gain combat abilities and be a little "sneakier." (A very useful skill for a mage that may not have an abundance of hits)

Also, while I agree that fighters got the short end of the stick in HARP original, anyone who uses Martial Law will see that the fighter makes a huge come back. (In fact that's probably why Martial Law was developed to bring the "pure" fighter back as a significant character. Unfortunately it probably went too far with excessive damage adjustments and cheap improved weapons and armour {my opinion again})

[Thom @ ICE]

OK, my comments may have been phrased a bit strongly.... I was talking specifically from the numerics of it.
If a fighter wants to be sneakier he'd do better to choose Thief - subtle talent and very similar category access.

If a character wants to develop across the board then go with rogue - but numbers wise it doesn't make too much sense.   Yes, you can state that roleplaying wise it is logical to say "Adding rogue", but when you consider that you are talking about the character sheet and not the play session - you are no longer role playing, you are performing mechanics with the system.

As for Martial Law - definitely strengthened the melee and missile combat, but I miss where the Fighter benefits more from that than any other profession.

[Pat]

As for Martial Law - definitely strengthened the melee and missile combat, but I miss where the Fighter benefits more from that than any other profession.

The way I see it most other character professions (other than fighter and thief) have easy access to spell casting. (All other professions have Mystical Arts as a favoured category other than Monks. I'm not counting Monks as they were severely wounded by Martial Law - see previous rants on the subject)

This means that any spell casting character (even Universal spell casters) need to determine a balance between spell casting penalties through armour verses additional damage, bleed, stun etc of reduced or no armour. (So, in other words, the fighter's value has increased while other classes have decreased in ML.)

Also, the cheap bonuses from new materials in ML allow characters who use higher levels of armour to receive greater bonuses. (A player with plate can get up to +30 bonus for master work and alloy compared to a +20 bonus for master work and superior leather.)

So while any character (theoretically) can use higher armour why would they? If a character has spent DP's on magic they want to be able to cast spells which is difficult in metal armour. (I believe the benefits of ML translate directly into the fighter characters areas of expertise. Items such as damage adjustment, battle runes, new materials, advanced skills are all slanted towards the fighter class.)

[Thom @ ICE]

Definitely the ML product supports combat category skills and since those are significant focus areas for Fighters it does greatly juice that profession - but none of the skills, talents or new optional rules are specific to Fighters alone, and since every profession (except Mage) has Combat as a favored category, they assist almost every profession.  The armor/spellcasting issue is simply a matter of preference for the character, and not a profession rule.

The one rule that I will point to...
Fighters are prohibited from learning Fireball (without taking a talent to get access)
Mages are not prohibited from any of the Combat skills (higher cost, but not prohibited)

I'm not saying that this is the end of HARP, or that I don't like HARP - it is my favorite gaming system!!!
I simply do not like this aspect, and if it works for you great - for me, I'm going to look into coming up with an alternative....

[Pat]

Definitely the ML product supports combat category skills and since those are significant focus areas for Fighters it does greatly juice that profession

Totally agree.

but none of the skills, talents or new optional rules are specific to Fighters alone,

Very true but by design they were targeted towards the fighter class. The fighter is more likely to have heavier armour (no spellcasting so no penalties) is more likely to use battle runes (since as said in other posts they were developed to give non-spellcasters an edge) and are more likely to achieve advanced and expert skills with weapons since weapons are the fighters prime focus. They are more likely to max out ranks every level than any other class.

The armor/spellcasting issue is simply a matter of preference for the character, and not a profession rule.

Well it's not a profession rule as such but it's also not really a matter of preference for the character either.

A spellcaster can use plate mail but would they want the 10pps penalty and -50 to spells? I'd say not. Therefore it becomess a professional necessity to restrict armour and armour penalties to many professions.

Can a Monk perform chi defence in plate?
Are mages and clerics effective spell users in plate?
How well can a Harper play the lute in plate gauntlets?
How stealthy are rogoues and thieves in full plate?
Do rangers and warrior mages forsake spell casting for the extra plate armour? (And if they do, why didn't they just become straight fighters?)

The one rule that I will point to...
Fighters are prohibited from learning Fireball (without taking a talent to get access)
Mages are not prohibited from any of the Combat skills (higher cost, but not prohibited)

And Mages are prohibited from learning how to fully utilise a shield (without taking a talent to get access).

Fighters are able to cast universal spells (higher cost, but not prohibited).


Lastly, I also believe that HARP is an enjoyable playing system. I believe that balance is important to keep a gaming system alive and think the multi-classsing system accomplishes that. Some of the newer expansions (such as ML) did lose some of the balance required to be successfully worked into the HARP system without modification (but that's what house rules are for right?). I'm also always willing to see what others think work or doesn't work within the system and await any alternatives put forth. (Whether I agree with them or not