Author Topic: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs  (Read 2737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
I've been working my way through the spells in the HARP core rulebook, trying to cost them with the rules in CoM.  I've done this before for individual spells, but this time I'm trying to do it systematically for all spells, so that I have a definitive set of examples for my own spell creation.  There are a lot of spells, but I'm in no hurry and I can probably get through somewhere between 5 and 20 per day without much effort.

I've gone through the Universal spells so far, and am partway into Cleric spells and have already found several spells that just aren't compatible with the CoM costing rules.  See below for examples.

Anyway, what I want to know is:

  • Is there a definitive official or semi-official list of spell aspect & attribute costs for the HARP core rules?
  • If not, has anyone else done this work for HARP core spells?  Perhaps made it available for download?
  • Are spell costs fixed in HARP 2013 / CoM 2013, or do they have the same/similar anomalies?

BTW, the fact that there IS a system for costing spells in HARP is one of the things I love about HARP magic.  I just wish it were applied consistently.  And that the published books included the costings for all spells to make it easier for people to design their own spells (or, at least, that they were readily available in errata or FAQ form for those who want them).


Here are those examples I mentioned:

Note: the object and aspect costs below are only my best guess.  They may have no resemblance to how the spells were actually created.  Unlike CoM, the HARP core spell costs have never AFAIK been published anywhere.  The CoM costs were published in The Guild Companion College of Magic: Spell Costs - I've used those as a guideline.  Also, I'm still using HARP & CoM from 2004, I don't have the 2013 revised editions yet - I'm waiting for Something Wicked and the new Bestiary (and Godot, it seems) so I can combine shipping costs (US international postage rates are outrageous).  I'm also using the College of Magic: Spell Casting on an Epic Scale costs from the August 2004 Guild Companion.  The costs are calculated using the CoM 2004 rule on page 34 that Action and Object aspects beyond the first of each cost double and that the first such aspects are always the cheapest (I think this rule has been dropped from the current revision of CoM, which should make some spells significantly cheaper).

1. The most obvious one is Counterspell.  There is no possible way that the base cost could be only 1 PP.  By my calculations, it has to cost a minimum of 6 PP.  Instantaneous spells with 50' range are expensive.

Action Aspects: Negate (15)
Object Aspects: Magic (10)
Attributes: Instantaneous (50), Range: 50' (30), Duration: None (5), AoE: 1 Target (10) = 95

15+10+95 = 120.  120/20 = 6 PP.


If it's important for Counterspell to be so cheap then perhaps it should be a Mystical Arts skill rather than a spell.

BTW, Dispel Magic costs 4 PP when it should cost 3.  Object and Aspect costs are the same as Counterspell, but it isn't instantaneous, and the range is reduced from 50 feet to 10 feet.

Attributes: Range: 10' (20), Duration: None (5), AoE: 1 Target (10) = 35

15+10+35 = 60.  60/20 = 3 PP.


2. Another obvious example is that the Boost spells should cost 4 PP rather than 3 PP:

Action Aspects: Enhance (15)
Object Aspects: Stat (5), Bonus (2x5=10) = 15
Attributes: Range: Touch (10), Duration: 2 r/r (20), AoE: 1 Target (10) = 40

15+15+40 = 70.  70/20 = 3.5, round up to 4.


BTW, Boost Quickness is one of the best spells in the game.  Even unscaled, increasing your Qu bonus by 5 adds +10 to DB and +5 to Initiative.  Scale it up to +20 for an additional 12 PP (-60 casting penalty) and you get +40 to DB and +20 to Initiative.  Then imagine what a Thaumaturge with Imbue Spell can do with it.  The other Boost spells are similarly beneficial....and Boost SD, In, and Re items are probably amongst the first things that a Thaumaturge should make to offset some of the scaling penalties for item creation (and add a bonus to Power Projection).

3. Animal Forms makes no sense.  At all.  It's explicitly described as being only a visual illusion, but scaling options later make it into an actual transformation.  It costs 5 PP, but the Attribute costs alone would make it at least 6 PP before any Action or Object Aspects.  My best guess is that it uses the Create and Illusion aspects, which would make it add up to 8 PP.

Action Aspects: Create (30)
Object Aspects: Illusion (10) = 10
Attributes: Range: Self (5), Duration: 10 r/r (100), AoE: Self (5) = 110

30+10+110 = 150.  150/20 = 7.5, round up to 8.


This gets even weirder when you compare this to the 8 PP Druid "Animal Shifting" spell in the Codex, which is an actual shape-shifting transformation spell.

Action Aspects: Transform major (30) = 30
Object Aspects: Body (5) = 5
Attributes: Range: Self (5), Duration: 10 r/r (100), AoE: Self (5) = 110

30+5+110 = 145.  145/20 = 7.25, round up to 8.


So Animal Forms seems to be a very badly designed spell.  An illusion rather than a transformation, and it isn't even costed accurately.   IMO it has no reason to exist...worse, it has no excuse for existing.  It couldn't be more useless even if it was designed to be so.

Even Animal Shifting is a sub-optimal design.  If the duration were 1 minute/rank (cost = 120), it would cost 9 PP.  It could still be cast by a 2nd level caster (so, still comparable to a D&D(*) Druid's wildshaping ability), but the duration would make it useful outside of combat.  The minimum 9 ranks would have a duration of 9 minutes rather than the minimum 8 rank duration giving 80 rounds (160 seconds, or 2 min 40 secs).  80 rounds is way too long for combat (2 rounds/rank at a cost of 20 would be more appropriate), but far too short to be of much use out of combat.

BTW, yes, I know Codex is discontinued/deprecated.  I still use it and Harpers' Bazaar material in my games, because of Druids and Paladins and Shadowblades and Hack & Slash and more. And part of the reason I'm looking at spell costs is so that I can ensure that all spells in my games conform to a single consistent set of rules.

(*) I'm not afraid to mention D&D.  That's because it's not illegal to mention a trademark belonging to someone else as long as I'm not fraudulently claiming ownership or some official/licensed relationship with the trademark's owner or their product.  Trademarks exist solely to protect consumers from fakes, not to enable corporate ownership/control of speech.  Pointless circumlocution like "some other game" just to avoid writing "D&D" annoys me.  Review, comparison and commentary are legitimate, completely legal reasons for mentioning trademarked names.

4. Cure Disease is completely inconsistent with roughly similar spells like Minor & Major Healing, as well as Cure Insanity from CoM.  It has a Permanent duration (cost=200), whereas all other healing spells have no duration (cost=5).  This seems like it was cherry-picked just to make it have a base cost of 12 PP.  Perhaps because Remove Disease was a 3rd level spell in d20/3.x D&D at the time.

It really shouldn't cost more than Major Healing.  Perhaps it should even be a scaling option for Major Healing (but not Minor Healing), rather than a separate spell.

Personally, I'd add a "Disease" object aspect with the same cost (15) as Life and Death aspects and rewrite Cure Disease as:

Action Aspects: Negate (15)
Object Aspects: Disease (15)
Attributes: Range: Touch (10), Duration: None (5), AoE: 1 Target (10) = 25

25+15+15=55.  55/20 = 2.75, round up to 3 PP.


Alternatively, it could be thought of as simultaneously negating a disease AND healing a body:

Action Aspects: Heal (5), Negate (2x15=30) = 35
Object Aspects: Body (5), Disease (2x15=30) = 35
Attributes: Range: Touch (10), Duration: None (5), AoE: 1 Target (10) plus a 2nd Target (20) = 45

35+35+45 = 115.  115/20 = 5.75, round up to 6 PP.


BTW, the Cure Insanity (3 PP) costs as published in the Guild Companion are:

Action Aspects: Heal (5)
Object Aspects: Mind (5)
Attributes: Range: 10' (20); AoE: 1 target (10); Duration: No Duration (5) =  35

5+5+35 = 45.  45/20 = 2.25, round up to 3.

Offline Zhaleskra

  • Wise Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2018, 08:24:25 AM »
I'm going to admit I skimmed, and in doing so I get the impression that you're mixing printings of HARP. Mentioning The Codex tipped me off as that book came out before the most recent College of Magics, and as such its spells are not costed to match the current CoM. Before I can give you a good answer, please look at the copyright dates of your HARP books. Thank you.
#LotorAllura2024

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2018, 08:41:50 AM »
I already mentioned which version of HARP & CoM I'm using, 2004.  Plus Codex and Harpers Bazaar Annual.  And Martial Law, Loot, and M:AFG from the same era.  All the old/obsolete stuff.

I'm well aware of the fact that Codex spells can be unbalanced and that some house-ruling is required.  OTOH the one spell I mentioned from it (Animal Shifting) seems to have the correct PP cost by CoM rules.

I don't have any of the revised 2013+ books.   AFAICT the changes are fairly minor, not enough to justify buying new books (and I'm, not enthused about paying the absurd shipping costs from US to AU...which are not ICE's or rpgnow's fault, just that the US postal service and American courier companies are gouging extortionists.  When the new Bestiary and Something Wicked come out I'll investigate my options for combined shipping and probably get all the new books.  Yes, I know I can get PDFs.  $20 per book seems excessive when there are only minimal differences from the printed books I already have).

Offline Zhaleskra

  • Wise Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 929
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2018, 10:25:50 AM »
What about PDFs? I know it's nicer to have something to hold, but you wouldn't need to be concerned about shipping.

The changes in the more recent printing were to make things consistent along all HARP lines. While I do feel some changes feel minor, overall I think they're for the best.

I also think the printing you're using wasn't internally balanced, but I'll need an ICE employee to check that idea for me.
#LotorAllura2024

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2018, 12:15:46 PM »
You're asking questions that are already answered in what I posted.  I know that PDFs are available for purchase.  I even mentioned them in my last comment.

I also never claimed that the changes in recent versions weren't "for the best".  I'm sure they are.  It's just that, for me, the relatively minor changes aren't worth either $15-$20 per PDF or $20-$30 per softbound book plus about as much again for shipping to Australia.  Not worth it for me, anyway. Others may, and probably do, have different views on relative cost vs utility.


And none of your questions are actually relevant to the questions I asked:

  • Is there a definitive official or semi-official list of spell aspect & attribute costs for the HARP core rules?
  • If not, has anyone else done this work for HARP core spells?  Perhaps made it available?
  • Are spell costs fixed in HARP 2013 / CoM 2013, or do they have the same/similar anomalies?

These are all answerable regardless of what version of HARP + CoM I use.



(click to show/hide)

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2018, 05:12:50 AM »
I am also a publisher on OneBookShelf and it is my understanding that the email collection is illegal under GDPR laws
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/principles-gdpr/how-much-data-can-be-collected_en

The collection of email addresses fails the limited to what is necessary test. I have emailed OneBookShelf and asked for clarification but have yet to receive a reply. I suspect that this will carry on until someone challenges it in a court and that could take years, if ever.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline trechriron

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Bard, Dreamer, & RPG Enthusiast
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2018, 03:26:58 PM »
...
  • Is there a definitive official or semi-official list of spell aspect & attribute costs for the HARP core rules?
  • If not, has anyone else done this work for HARP core spells?  Perhaps made it available?
  • Are spell costs fixed in HARP 2013 / CoM 2013, or do they have the same/similar anomalies?


1) I didn't see one in the Vault, so I'm guessing no at this point.
2) Not yet, but I'm getting ready to update my skill lists and character sheet with Folkways stuff, so I might consider it. It would help me work out some of my own spell designs!
3) The notes for both books say as much. Of course, we could determine more for ourselves after we create and compare a list. :-D

Also, you shouldn't be so paranoid about PDFs or DTRPG email policies. I literally have spent hundreds of dollars there. I only get the emails I subscribe to. In fact, a few months ago I cleaned up my subscriptions and the ones I didn't want stopped. They are a good outfit. I find PDFs super useful vs. hard covers. I can search quickly and I need my computer to organize my setting, adventure and notes anyways, so might as well cut down on the clutter!
Trentin C Bergeron (TreChriron)
Bard, Dreamer, & RPG Enthusiast

Offline Felros

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2018, 04:54:37 PM »
Boost Agility + Agile Defense. Combo.

Offline trechriron

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Bard, Dreamer, & RPG Enthusiast
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2018, 05:30:46 PM »
Also, the costing is way better in the newer revised books. Much work went into using the one consistent system. I would really encourage you to upgrade.
Trentin C Bergeron (TreChriron)
Bard, Dreamer, & RPG Enthusiast

Offline Peter R

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,850
  • OIC Points +480/-480
    • Rolemaster Blog
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2018, 05:31:57 AM »
You're asking questions that are already answered in what I posted.  I know that PDFs are available for purchase.  I even mentioned them in my last comment.

I also never claimed that the changes in recent versions weren't "for the best".  I'm sure they are.  It's just that, for me, the relatively minor changes aren't worth either $15-$20 per PDF or $20-$30 per softbound book plus about as much again for shipping to Australia.  Not worth it for me, anyway. Others may, and probably do, have different views on relative cost vs utility.


And none of your questions are actually relevant to the questions I asked:

  • Is there a definitive official or semi-official list of spell aspect & attribute costs for the HARP core rules?
  • If not, has anyone else done this work for HARP core spells?  Perhaps made it available?
  • Are spell costs fixed in HARP 2013 / CoM 2013, or do they have the same/similar anomalies?

These are all answerable regardless of what version of HARP + CoM I use.



(click to show/hide)

I now have the actual answer to the registration question for you.

When you register your email address is NOT passed to ICE. OBS keep the email list of registered customers. ICE get the ability to send just 2 emails to people on this list. If you have already opted out of receiving emails then you will not get those emails. You email address cannot be sold on to or shared with 3rd parties as ICE never get to see the emails on the list.

So you do remain anonymous and you cannot be spammed. The wording that they use saying that your email will be passed to the publisher is slightly misleading. In the past the emails were sent to the publisher but this has changed since the introduction of GDPR.

If you want to read the actual email from OBS then PM me and I will copy the email for you.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2018, 09:04:30 AM »
Also, the costing is way better in the newer revised books. Much work went into using the one consistent system. I would really encourage you to upgrade.

I intend to get them eventually.  But without Something Wicked and an updated MAFG/Bestiary, I'm going to have to do a lot of house-ruling and recalculation of costs etc to make the new stuff work properly with the old stuff.  I'd rather wait and avoid all that extra work.

Cost is also an issue.  Almost $100 AUD for a full set of updated PDFs for stuff that's only very slightly different to what I already own in print.  Or $120 AUD including Folkways which IS new content.  And that doesn't include anything in M:AFG or HBA 2005 or The Codex or Cyradon, I'd still have to update them myself.

(click to show/hide)


BTW, I've discovered a few more anomalies, and had a few ideas & random thoughts:

1. It's impossible to create Lifegiving with the CoM rules.  My homebrew solution is to invent a Resurrection Action aspect for 100 pts and require the Body, Mind, Spirit, Life, and Death aspects to make the spell add up to its 12 PP cost.

Alternatively, I suppose a 200 pt Resurrection aspect and Body for 5 could work.

2. Several spells have a duration longer than 10 rounds per rank (e.g. Lifekeeping, at 1 hour/rank).  These also can't be created with the CoM 2004 rules.  The epic spell casting costs from GC can be used, but most people don't even know that exists.

More importantly, CoM should have provided a system capable of creating every single spell in HARP, without exception.  I really hope that's completely fixed in the revised CoM.  Can the updated rules make Lifegiving or Lifekeeping?

Also, CoM doesn't have anywhere near enough examples of spell creation.  I don't think there's even one complete example worked through from start to finish, only a few partial examples of a few small parts of the process.  There should be at least 3 fully-worked examples.  One simple (e.g. one of the Boost spells), one moderately complicated (like Minor Healing, or Magestaff), and one very complicated (like Curse).

If these examples can't fit in the book/PDF, they should be available as a free download errata PDF but with more than just 3 examples.  Followed by a complete list of all aspect & attribute costs for all spells.   Writing up the fully-worked examples would take an hour or so each, but the list could just be dumped from whatever database or spreadsheet ICE are using and printed in a 4 line format (Name, Actions, Objects, Attributes).

3. As well as Resurrect, there are a few other Action aspects that seem like they should exist but don't.   e.g. "Call" should have an opposing "Repel" (useful in, e.g. Turn Undead or Repel Animal), and "Merge" should perhaps have an opposing "Separate".  There's no "Summon" aspect (although Call + Teleport is the obvious substitute).  There's no "Banish", either (but "Return" mentions banishing).  Opposites like Call/Repel should be easy, just cost them the same...even a rule saying  something like "the exact opposite of an action aspect has the same cost" would be sufficient.

IMO, there should be a Conjure aspect for 5 (or maybe 10) pts.  A lightweight version of Create, for use when no Element and nothing tangible is actually created.  e.g. Light, Darkness, and simple Illusions (audible XOR visible) because 30 aspect points is too much for such a minor effect.

That would make it possible to have a 10' radius Light spell with a decent base duration, for a base cost of 8 PP (Touch=5 + 10'R = 20 + Conjure = 5 + Light = 5 + 1 min/rank=120 pts) or 9 PP (10 min/rank=140 pts).  Or a fixed duration of 1 hour (1 hour=80 pts) would be 6 PP if it's essential for 1st level characters to cast it (I'm not convinced that it is essential, but that's obviously what's intended).  Any of those versions would have scaling options to increase it to e.g. 1 day +6 PP, 1 week +7 PP, up to Permanent +20 PP.  And scaling options for Utterlight, Daylight and to increase radius of course.

4. Light has always been a problematic spell in HARP because it just doesn't last anywhere near long enough.  Is Light fixed in the revised HARP & CoM? or is it still effectively useless outside of combat time scale?  In HARP 2004, it's 6 PP base, has a duration of 10 rounds/rank, and has no scaling options to increase duration.  6 ranks * 10 rounds = 60 rounds = 2 minutes.  1 hour of Light would require 180 ranks. Congrats to all 59th level spell-casters.  (I expect most people did what  I did and added more duration options, or wrote their own Light spell. or just ruled that it had an actually useful duration. or provided their players with magic lanterns or torches).

My own Improved Light spell had scaling options for duration up to Permanent, the same increased radius, Utterlight, Daylight options, and a "Natural Light" option (perfect for indoor gardens) that uses the Teleport aspect to cause the light to match the outside conditions (and "Inverse Natural Light" that used Teleport + Time + Store aspects so you get daylight at night and moon/starlight during the day). It also had a "Controlling Device" option so mages could make light switches (e.g. with a pebble, or a small section of the wall near the door. Or a trigger word) for their bedroom or reading lamp :).  This used the Location, Control, Open, and Close aspects.  All this was written before I thought of the Conjure aspect for 5 points, so I'll probably rewrite it again one day.

5. semi-random idea: Maybe Attribute (range, duration, targets) costs should be lower overall, with an "Attack" attribute that costs 30 or 50 or more.

6. Thinking about Action and Object aspects some more, the list of Object aspects is about right - it's hard to think of anything that isn't covered by one of them.

The Action aspects, though, need major rework IMO.   There are either far too many of them, or nowhere near enough.   If you take the "too many" path, most of the action aspects could be covered with something similar to - but not the same as - D&D's different schools (abjuration, conjuration, enchantment, etc) plus a few more.  If you take the "not enough" path there are numerous aspects that could be added (and some even that should definitely be added, like Resurrect and Conjure mentioned above). 

Either that, or there needs to be lots of examples of combining aspects to create newer or more powerful aspects (like Call + Teleport = Summon).  And there's no real need for 3 different Animate aspects (or two different Transform aspects) when you could just add them multiple times for more powerful effects.

(click to show/hide)

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2018, 09:11:41 AM »

I now have the actual answer to the registration question for you.

When you register your email address is NOT passed to ICE.  OBS keep the email list of registered customers. ICE get the ability to send just 2 emails to people on this list.  If you have already opted out of receiving emails then you will not get those emails. You email address cannot be sold on to or shared with 3rd parties as ICE never get to see the emails on the list.


Great, thanks for looking into that.  Much appreciated.

and what you found is all good news.  It completely removes my concern about privacy and spam.

which makes getting some or all of the PDFs much more tempting, especially if there's a sale some day with a good discount.

Quote
If you want to read the actual email from OBS then PM me and I will copy the email for you.

yes please.


thanks,

craig

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2018, 10:42:38 AM »

1) I didn't see one in the Vault, so I'm guessing no at this point.

I didn't see one either.  There hasn't been much activity in the vaults for years, so I doubt if I've missed anything.

Quote
2) Not yet, but I'm getting ready to update my skill lists and character sheet with Folkways stuff, so I might consider it. It would help me work out some of my own spell designs!

I'm more than happy to collaborate (i intended to upload to the vault here when i finish), but I'm working from the old 2004 books and not the revised edition.

My guess is that most of the spells would have the same or very similar attributes and aspects, but as I understand it, some of the costs for these aspects & attributes have changed, and the method of totalling the aspects has changed (no more doubling of aspect costs after the first).  This would result in very different base PP costs.   

Of course, that doesn't matter too much because it's trivial to write a perl or python or whatever script to read in a list of spell names and their aspects and attributes, and calculate the correct PP cost using either the old or new costs & methods.  or both.  And that's what I'll do when I've finished my list.  and then I can play "what if?" games with the code, tweaking costs and formulae to see what effect they have.

Quote
3) The notes for both books say as much. Of course, we could determine more for ourselves after we create and compare a list. :-D

Feel like checking whether the revised CoM can make Lifegiving or Lifekeeping?  or if Boost spells are 4 PP base cost like they should be?  What about Cure Disease?  is that priced similarly to Cure Insanity or Neutralise Poison or other healing spells?  Is Animal Forms still "huh? wtf?" ?




BTW, a big reason for my post was that I wanted to start a discussion on spell aspects and attributes and HARP spell design in general.  That seems to be happening :)


PS: speaking of uploading stuff to the vaults, I have an updated version of the HARP_CS character sheet for Open Office.  I've updated it to work with Libre Office versions 5 & 6 (the one in the vaults doesn't work with them), and made several other changes (mostly to how it works in the background, doing more stuff with basic macros rather than cell formulae - e.g. skill rank bonuses are now calculated with a macro rather than hard-coding the same formula in thousands of cells, one for each skill & spell in the Skills sheet).

I intend to do a lot more of this re-factoring work (e.g. the way that background/culture ranks and professional ranks & favoured categories are allocated needs to be completely reworked).  Either that or write a replacement in python (which would involve a lot of fiddly user-interface stuff that I'm not very good at.  back-end stuff and command-line tools I'm good at.  UI stuff, I suck)
 
I changed the way skill ranks are done so I could experiment with different progressions (standard -25,5,2,1; -25,5,3,2; -25,5,3; etc) and see what difference they made.  The main difference is that 5,3,2 or even 5,3 don't give ridiculously high OBs or skill bonuses until you get to around level 20 or more, but they do give a good incentive to keep developing skills beyond 10 or 20 ranks.  Weapon skills give the incentive of better combat actions at 20, 40, 60 ranks from Martial Law but +1 per rank isn't much of an incentive for other skills and spells. 

Even a flat +3 per rank works out pretty nicely but low-level characters are significantly weaker and less competent.

At the moment, the progression can only be changed by editing one line in the macro, but I'll change that to have a drop-down menu selection somewhere.

Anyway, my updated version of the spreadsheet mostly works but has a couple of small but annoying bugs that I want to fix before uploading - the worst of which is that switching to the first sheet got very slow when I upgraded to LO 6.  Extremely slow - 5, 10, 20 seconds or more for something that used to be instant.  The second-worst is that when you click on the "Clear DP costs from level" button prior to clicking on Raise Level, it jumps the cursor around in the first sheet rather than staying at the bottom where the buttons are.  It's always done that and I have no idea why (but I haven't spent much time looking).  I want to find what's causing those and fix them.

Also, LO 6 seems to have changed the way check boxes and boolean values interact with "TRUE" or "FALSE" strings in macros, so the "Version Tracking" check box does nothing at the moment.  That looks like it should be fairly easy to fix, I probably just need to stop it from converting to a string before testing whether it's true or false.

Offline terefang

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2018, 09:47:12 AM »
2. Several spells have a duration longer than 10 rounds per rank (e.g. Lifekeeping, at 1 hour/rank).  These also can't be created with the CoM 2004 rules.  The epic spell casting costs from GC can be used, but most people don't even know that exists.

thats in CoM/2013
I'd swallow cthulhu whole, with sushi and soy-sauce.

Currently: [BME] [FitD]
Legacy: [d6] [Genesys] [ArsMagicka] [MERP] [HARP] [Ubiquity] [d20] [WoD] [SR] [WHFRP] [WOIN/O.L.D.] [RM2/C]

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #14 on: October 08, 2018, 04:36:57 AM »
2. Several spells have a duration longer than 10 rounds per rank [...]

thats in CoM/2013

That's good to know.


I found another spell with a weirdly useless duration, Tongues lasts for 5 rounds/rank, and it doesn't have any scaling options to increase duration.  With the minimum 4 ranks, that's 40 seconds.

In fact, spells like this are not hard to find - almost all non-combat spells have durations that are mostly-useless outside of combat.  Probably an artifact of a design goal to prevent combat-oriented spells lasting for minutes or hours (otherwise every mage would cast Mage Armor or Boost Whatever before entering the dungeon and have it last for hours).

(IMO, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a tip from GURPS and have some sort of fatigue rule for each on-going spell a caster has.  Maybe -5 per on-going spell.  So if you cast Bless or something on 4 people in the party, you'll be at -20 to all actions until you cancel one or more of them.  or -5 for every 5 or 10 PP worth of on-going spells.  or something like that.)

Anyway, Tongues in HARP 2004 is 4 PP.

My best guess for the costs are:

Action Aspects: Discuss (5)
Object Aspects: Body (5)
Attributes: Range: Self (5) ; Duration 5 rounds/rank (50); AoE: Self (5) + Extra Target (20) = 80

5+5+80=90.  90/20 = 4.5.  So this spell isn't even costed correctly.  And there probably should be another 40 pts for range 100' (for the extra target that you want to speak with).


A better version would be to make it either a Concentration only spell (cost=5), or make it last for 1 minute per rank (cost=120).  The Concentration version would be 2PP (or 3 PP including the 100' range attribute).  The 1 min/rank version would be 8 PP (or 9 PP including the 100').   Concentration-only is enough to make it useful, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a Harper to be 2nd level before they can cast Tongues.

As well as the scaling options in the current spell, there should also be options for speaking to magical creatures, demons, and other beings the caster might want to talk to.

Also, for the concentration version: concentrating on a spell normally gives -50 to all actions.  Since what you're concentrating on with this spell IS communication, that penalty probably shouldn't apply to any communication-related maneuver rolls.

A lot of the spells in HARP seem like they weren't designed from the POV of a character in a fantasy world who is actually using these spells and making their living from them.  A Harper, for example, is likely travelling the world and speaking to all sorts of people learning their songs and stories.  He can't do that in 40 seconds (or 400 seconds with 40 ranks), that's barely enough for a "Hello, how are you? My name is ...".   A Harper is also likely to be employed as a diplomat or a translator or a librarian, and other jobs that require talking to people for long periods of time.



Offline NicholasHMCaldwell

  • Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,023
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Director of Iron Crown Enterprises Ltd.
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2018, 03:27:01 PM »
So much in this thread (or actually two threads).

On the spell front, we held HARP Fantasy, College of Magics and Martial Law back so that we updated all three together. So HARP Fantasy is consistent with the enhanced version of College of Magics. That is *not* the case with the original 2004 books.

Obviously I have spreadsheets with all the aspects for all the spells, including unpublished products.

On the pdf front, RPGNow no longer sends email addresses to publishers. I only ever used and still only use the blind email facility to send out notes to customers when a pdf has been updated.

Our pricing for printed books is the pdf price plus the printing cost. The pdf price has been set based on the page count, and the need to ensure that the company can pay its bills to all freelancers and make a profit. It is also predicated on the assumption that most of our sales come through pdf (not print copies because shipping can be a killer for anyone not in US or UK - copies to Australia come from the UK.)

Best wishes,
Nicholas
Dr Nicholas HM Caldwell
Director, Iron Crown Enterprises Ltd
Publisher of Rolemaster, Spacemaster, Shadow World, Cyradon, HARP & HARP SF, and Cyberspace, with products available from www.drivethrurpg.com
Author: Mentalism Companion, GURPS Age of Napoleon, Construct Companion, College of Magics, HARP SF/HARP SF Xtreme

Offline craig

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: Some questions (and some anomalies) regarding HARP core spell costs
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2018, 08:44:17 AM »
So much in this thread (or actually two threads).

Thanks for replying.   (and yeah, there are a few digressions. i tried to keep them separated with spoiler tags, so they didn't disrupt the main topic too much).

My main interest with this thread is the spell costs.  Firstly, the actual costs used for spells in the books....but also the design of various spells.

There are, IMO, design "bugs" in most spells which come mostly from the duration costs being written for combat rounds. Which, also IMO, is solving a non-existent problem - the duration scaling options are fairly useless in combat anyway, because not many combats last for more than 10 or 20 rounds so even 2 rounds/rank is enough.

Outside of combat, 2 or 5 or 10 rounds (i.e. 4 or 10 or 20 seconds) per rank is almost completely useless for most spells, like Tongues or Animal Forms.  Or Invisibility - 5 rounds/rank is more than enough for sneaking past a guard in a dungeon or bandit camp or whatever, but useless for getting from one side of a village to another, or for scouting out a castle or waiting in ambush.

Same issue with the Fly spell.  5 rounds per rank is more than enough for combat duration, but almost useless for even short distance travel - 4 ranks gives you 20 rounds (40 seconds), in which you can fly a total of 300 feet.  At 6th level you could have 21 ranks, allowing you to scale it up to 45 mph (135 feet/round) for 105 rounds (210 seconds). 14,175 feet total (about 2.6 miles), for 20 PP with a casting penalty of -80.  That's not entirely bad, but it's only "going to the shops for milk and bread" scale, not "there and back again" or even day-trip travelling.  10 or 20 mph (or more) for 4 or 8 hours per day is what's need for that type of travel -  even if the spell lasts longer, you need to rest and sleep.

Water Breathing is yet another spell that's mostly useless because of low base duration.  It exists partly to make underwater adventures possible, but to scale it up for 1 hour/rank to cover a party of 4 requires +22 PP (+10 for 1hr/rank, +12 for 3 extra targets).  Minimum 8th Level caster with 27 ranks (54 DP cost), and a casting penalty of -110.   (-80 if you take 6 extra rounds to cast it).

Like I said in a previous post, it's not hard to find spells with duration-related problems.

Duration costs are the only thing that's really broken with HARP spells, the Action & Object Aspect costs and the other Attribute costs are fine, and the system as a whole works extremely well.   It's a good, well-thought out system.

IMO, durations below 1 minute or 1 minute/rank should be just scrapped and replaced with minutes, tens of minutes, and hours for the same attribute cost. There's little point in keeping the 2/5/10 round durations because in a combat situation it's rarely worthwhile to scale beyond 2 rounds/rank - if you've got enough ranks to scale up to 5 or 10/rank, you're going to get 10 or 20 rounds anyway.   10-20 rounds is almost always enough, while 50+ rounds is almost always wasted.

And it makes almost no difference to game balance if a character can cast Mage Armor or Steel Skin for 4 minutes (or 40 minutes. or all day), no more than it harms "game balance" for a Fighter to wear Chain mail or better all day.

IMO it wouldn't change "game balance" much at all if the CoM 2004 duration cost table were re-written as:


| Duration            | Cost | Cost/rank | Cost/rank (C) |
|---------------------|------|-----------|---------------|
| Instant/No Duration |    5 |      N/A  |           N/A |
| Concentration only  |   10 |      N/A  |           N/A |
| <= 1 minute         |   10 |       20  |            10 |
| 10 minutes          |   20 |       50  |            15 |
| 1 hour              |   40 |      100  |            30 |


(Similar changes would work for CoM 2013 too, I guess)

Some of the Boost spells might be problematic if scaled up to +20, but you need 15 ranks to do that (so, minimum 4th level) and my modifed table above says "<= 1 minute" so individual spells could still be written as rounds per rank. Or just write "can not be scaled beyond 1 minute/rank" in the description - that would allow casting Boost Strength for long enough to lift a portcullis or fight an ogre, or Boost Presence while haggling for a bargain or meeting the local Baron, but not to spend all day with +20 to Quickness (although couriers and messengers would love that).

For Mage Armor etc, longer durations aren't that big a deal.   Any player who spends a little time looking over the armor-by-the-piece lists can get a combination of Improved Superior Leather pieces that add up to +22 DB on top of 2 x Qu bonus, with no casting or minimum maneuver penalty: Rigid Leather Helm, Gorget, Gauntlets, Bracers, and Boots.  Even at x10 cost (x5 for Superior Leather plus x5 for Improved quality from Martial Law), that costs only 15gp - average starting money for 1st level players.  A Quarterstaff is 5 copper pieces, a short bow is 6 silver, and basic adventuring gear costs a few coppers or silvers per item, so they can still equip themselves with essentials.

That's much better than a full suit of Soft Leather (+20 DB, +2 PP casting penalty) and is affordable at 1st level with 1d10+10 gold.  Later they can upgrade to armor pieces made from monster hides and/or replace with looted pieces.  And optionally add an Improved Superior Soft Leather Shirt (+13 to DB) for 4gp if they don't mind a 1 PP casting penalty.  They'll also need up to 5 ranks of Armor skill to wear all this, depending on St+Ag stat bonuses...same as they would for a Soft Leather suit.

tl;dr: The armor pieces that a spell-caster should avoid are Shirts, Cuirasses, Pauldrons, and Greaves.


Even Fire Wall and Stun Cloud and similar spells aren't excessively over-powered if they last for 1 minute/rank (or a flat 1 minute, there's no real need for the base duration of tthese spells to be 1 minute/rank).   Stun Cloud might need a little tweaking in the description because of the way that the Crit size reduces over the duration, but it's an anomalous spell anyway.  It would probably be better to scrap it and write a generic Elemental Cloud spell to replace it that scaled crit size in the same way as Fire Wall and other elemental spells.

That would result in consistent Bolt, Ball, Wall, and Cloud spells for all element types.

(Stun Cloud is a great attack spell for even 1st level mages.  6 rounds worth of Electricity crits over a 5' radius for 5 PP, and if a foe is stunned or knocked out in the first round they'll likely end up as toast.  Combine with Breezes from CoM for more fun.)

And the Light spell should last for at least 10 minutes per rank as the base duration, even for 1st level characters (or 2nd level at most).

Quote
On the spell front, we held HARP Fantasy, College of Magics and Martial Law back so that we updated all three together. So HARP Fantasy is consistent with the enhanced version of College of Magics. That is *not* the case with the original 2004 books.

Can you make Lifegiving with the rules as published in CoM 2013?   Or are there still exceptions to the rules and special-case tweaks to force a higher/lower PP cost, as seems to have been done for Cure Disease?

IMO if a system can't be used to achieve a particular desired result then it's better to adjust the system so that it can at least approximate what you want than it is to break the system with exceptions and special-case rules.

One of the things I've always liked about RM since the 80s and later HARP is that they both strive - and mostly successfully - to be coherent systems, rather than a collection of arbitrary and inconsistent (and often conflicting) rules and special-cases that need to be rote-memorised.  Consistency means simple and easy to understand and learn.


Quote
Obviously I have spreadsheets with all the aspects for all the spells, including unpublished products.

Any chance that you could find the time to extract the Spell Name, Action, Object, and Attributes fields for HARP core only (not from any unpublished stuff) from the spreadsheet and upload it to the Vault?

Doesn't have to be formatted as a PDF, even just the raw data exported to a plain-text .CSV file would be wonderful - I'd be more than happy to do the work of converting the .CSV to a nicely formatted PDF and re-uploading it.

(click to show/hide)