Topic: Top 5 worst things about HARP

[Maelstrom]

Carousing is one of those MUST HAVE skills.   

For Athletic & Physical there are definitely some opportunities to consolidate, but other aspects should either move into Combat (Armor) or move into a new one for Metagaming skills (Endurance) and bring over the others from General (Resistance Skills)

Weapon Skills are to Combat, what Spells are to Mystical Arts.   You need to keep them in there.   (IMO)

Good ideas!  I don't like putting Endurance in an non-favored category for any archetype as all characters need the ability to increase their hits.  I'm likely to add the toughness talent to fighter archetypes in the future to represent their buffness like athletes today generally have better endurance than the average bean counter in the office.

[jasonbrisbane]

Mando,

Yes, PAT created them for our house game.

I dont know where the xls is, but I'll see him on Saturday for the game and I'll let him know to upload it to the Vault for you...

(PS: It may already be there, I havent checked).

[Pat]

Hi Mando,


It's in the download section under Harp/Houserules and is called Advanced Skills. There is also a seperate one for Monk/concentration abilities.

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=cat38;tpstart=10

[Mando]

Thanks, downloading now, will read

[Thom @ ICE]

Good ideas!  I don't like putting Endurance in an non-favored category for any archetype as all characters need the ability to increase their hits.  I'm likely to add the toughness talent to fighter archetypes in the future to represent their buffness like athletes today generally have better endurance than the average bean counter in the office.

Toughness for Fighter would definitely be a good idea - but then it only applies to one profession, instead of putting it in something like Physical/Athletic with actual favored status for some and apply to many.  The only profession I see as not having Phys/Ath as favored would be the pure spellcasters, which then has Endurance balance with Power Points for the extreme pure archetypes.

[Witchking20k]

I'd rather have pure mages etc have the disadvantage evelop of not being able to develop Endurance as a favored category, and let that be the realm of fighters and semi spell users......players start play with a fair amount of hits...I think the growth in that number should favor arms users....

[RandalThor]

I'd rather have pure mages etc have the disadvantage evelop of not being able to develop Endurance as a favored category, and let that be the realm of fighters and semi spell users......players start play with a fair amount of hits...I think the growth in that number should favor arms users....

Sound familiar:

I do something like what Chosen said: I get rid of the Physical category altogether and move them into other categories (armor & endurance to combat, jumping & swimmin to athletic) and I move the resistances (stamina to athletic, will to concentration, and magic to mystic arts). Plus I create a new category: Technical. This category covers the more complicated craft skills, such as (various)smithing, gem cutting, calligraphy, etc.. Things like thatching, dung collecting (thank you Warhammer FRP!  ), and the like are back in the craft skill under the general category.

Just my own way...

Curious - How do you reassign the favored categories under this scenario?

I don't really. Everyone equally looses a category (physical). The points are distributed to the other cats in keeping with where the skills moved. Example: Fighter, would take the 8 Physical ranks and put 2 into Combat, 2 into General, and 4 into Athletic. If I am feeling generous, I could allow the player to make the choice but not allow a categories ranks to more than double and never exceed 10. A Rogue, for example, would be able to take the 3 Physical ranks and place them all in any category except Mystical arts which they can only place 2 in, or put 1 in any three different categories. This gives them a small ability to customize their profession. Maybe that rogue is more fighter, so he puts them all in Combat. Or he is more thief so he puts them in subterfuge. Whatever, doesn't break the game in anyway that I can see.

Or:

The Technical category could be one they could choose to use those (or just some of those) points for to reflect an early apprenticeship, prior to their adventuring career. The mage started out as a gem-cutter, so he takes his 2 ranks in the obsolete physical category and puts them in Technical and uses them for his gem-cutting skill. Another option here is to say that only those skills you bother to put ranks into at adolescent are "favored" the rest under Technical would be unfavored and cost double DPs*. Just an idea.  

* I would not do that for any of the non-adventuring professions that are considered craftsmen, though.

[Karizma]

I do wonder why Physical was separated from General, but it's not a huge issue.  HARP as a game comes so close to perfection for what I want to do with a game that I accept the flaws it has.

However, it also boosts my creativity, and challenges me to think of ways to "fix" what I perceive to need fixing (after all, it's best not to fix what's not broken).

I would like to someday, in the future, make a version of HARP that's more of a skeleton than HARP.  If I DO end up making it, and am particularly proud of it, I'd like to see it distributed for free, or a free-like price.  To do that, I'm thinking of basing it on HARP Lite, and tweaking it enough to NOT be HARP Lite, while not having any MORE than HARP Lite (so that HARP Lite is still the go-to for full-on HARPers, while Not-Quite-HARP-Lite would be a different, probably setting-neutral alternative.)

But I'm just glad HARP is as good as it is!

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'd rather have pure mages etc have the disadvantage evelop of not being able to develop Endurance as a favored category, and let that be the realm of fighters and semi spell users......players start play with a fair amount of hits...I think the growth in that number should favor arms users....

Well, in that case I'd add Combat to the Vivamancer's Favored Categories. It would make sense that they and Necromancers be tougher than other casters and normal folk.

[Witchking20k]

Hmmmm.  I guess its a tit-for-tat scenario.  One thing about spell users is they have a much higher DP commitment/level than a typical fighter developing 1 weapon, endurance, and armor.....maxing these 3 skills out would be 9x2=18 DPs/level.  A spell caster might have 6-7 spells to start and aquire more over time; so every level the spell caster might have 2-3 ranks per spell to buy...making it difficult to rapid develop Endurance.

[Karizma]

Hmmmm.  I guess its a tit-for-tat scenario.  One thing about spell users is they have a much higher DP commitment/level than a typical fighter developing 1 weapon, endurance, and armor.....maxing these 3 skills out would be 9x2=18 DPs/level.  A spell caster might have 6-7 spells to start and aquire more over time; so every level the spell caster might have 2-3 ranks per spell to buy...making it difficult to rapid develop Endurance.

This is VERY true, and the fighter in my group literally let DPs go since he had "nothing else to put them in."

Combat Styles are a great way to make up for this.  Additionally, I think putting an emphasis on weapon types against certain monsters would be a good reason for a fighter to spread his DPs across multiple weapons.

[Thom @ ICE]

IMO, a fighter should be spending DPs in weapon skills across at least 4-5 at every level -
* Melee weapon
* Missile weapon
* MA Strikes or MA Sweeps or Brawling
* Combat Style (1 or more)

I would actually recommend 2 melee meapons and 2 missile weapons be developed, but that's a personal preference.

The Strikes/Sweeps/Brawling allows them to fight unarmed if necessary.
Combat style gives them some specialty maneuvers.

To only develop 1 weapon, endurance and armor each level is like a mage only building ranks in Elemental Ball, Power Point Development and Deflections.  The mage develops 6-7 spells for diversity, while the fighter should develop 6-7 weapons for diversity.  There is an equivalence.

[Witchking20k]

No argument here.  I wasjust pointing out that to be effective the fighter has much less DP investment over time.  Some other skills like tactics, style lore etc would be a good addition to the Combat Category......

[Karizma]

No argument here.  I wasjust pointing out that to be effective the fighter has much less DP investment over time.  Some other skills like tactics, style lore etc would be a good addition to the Combat Category......

I'd like to find a solution that doesn't require re-making a skill sheet .

I think that monsters need to be re-done anyway, so I plan to re-make them with strengths and weaknesses to certain crit types.  So against a walking skeleton, the fighter will use his Mace or Warhammer instead of his sword.

[Marc R]

I tended to find that with a fighter, I at bare minimum wanted a melee and a ranged. . . .an unarmed skill was also very good, often 2 or 3 (strikes, sweeps, grapples). . . .from there often I picked up a mounted weapon like a spear or lance. . .

That's generally 6 weapons or more. . .but one aspect of HARP vs RM is that rather than dumping DP into 6-10 lists for 120-230 spells you have to develop spells individually so it can turn into a massive DP sink.

[Fidoric]

I think that monsters need to be re-done anyway, so I plan to re-make them with strengths and weaknesses to certain crit types.  So against a walking skeleton, the fighter will use his Mace or Warhammer instead of his sword.

If you use Monsters, a Field Guide, there is already such weaknesses. They are called frailties.
I think it is something along +50 to the crit with no cap when you meet the requirement (eg: crush against a skeleton, wooden stake in the chest for a vampire...).