Topic: Slew of Questions, New to HARP (long)

[Gliber]

Hello everyone,

I am a veteran GM of some 25+ years with a similar amount of game systems. I'm going to be running my first game of HARP in the next two weeks and had some questions.


1) Arcane Bolt

When increasing the damage for Arcane Bolt, what does "each 1d10 hits? 5d6 max" mean? Is that a misprint and should read 5d10 max? Two separate rolls one for max damage and then another for actual damage?


2) Adventurer Profession

 I understand that the Rogue is a jack of all trades, but what is the Adventurer profession then? I can explain briefly what each profession's basic concept is, but the Adventurer seems so odd.


3) Magic Spell Ranks

So I need to have a different skill for each spell that i want. If I am a Mage, I can start with one spell or twenty if I have enough ranks to spend. But if I do not have enough ranks to equal the PP for the spell, including overcasting, then I cannot cast it. What is the reasoning behind this game design decision? Does it work well in your games? The reason I ask is that the system seems so flexible in letting players try whatever they like, but this arbitrary rule seems so limiting. If I don't have a lot of ranks and want to try a big spell, why not let the player decide if he can handle the negative modifiers? I understand as a GM, I can alter whatever I want, I'm simply wondering what your take on this restriction is.


4) Combat

I made a standard fighter character as a test. Not a munchin type, just a general fighter that I felt my players might put together. He ended up with a 41 OB and a 61 DB. I'm sure he could be made offensive and might earn stronger armor, and I know that other characters (like mages) might be weaker, but I felt he was a decent balance.

So, in combat, I roll d100 (open ended) add my OB and subtract my DB. If my fighter fights himself, that gives him a -20 to the d100 and roughly an effective roll of 30 on the critical chart with each throw of the dice. Is this normal? A "30" hit every time?

Parry is supposedly very important, so is this considered a default action by your players for each attack? How does the call out for this maneuver work during combat? If parry is so critical to keeping you alive, how do you handle announcing it and by how much for each action? Dodge says it takes a full action, but do any of the parries?

I've read that lots of GMs don't have their player's announce their actions each round as it takes up too much time. Doesn't this negate Sudden Dodge?

How does my turn sequence affect a normal Dodge? If my Enemy goes before me, and I want to Dodge, am I dodging? What about parry? How does the timing of this work?


5) Odd Skills

I've designed two original RPGs over the years and have a nice set of skills for fantasy and sci-fi (but we really want to try HARP as it looks like a lot of fun!). Looking at the skill list, I'm going to knock off Rope Mastery, as I don't feel we really need to be rolling dice for "knot recognition, knot-tying, braiding".    I've heard that RM had a big problem with tons of various skills that were really splitting hairs, so maybe this is a hold over from that, but I've never played RM.

Back on topic: Riding is a skill in my own original system that gets used only once every blue moon and encompasses mounted combat, maneuvers, and animal handling. HARP has Riding, Animal Handling as a separate skill and Beast Mastery as another. Do we really need all three of these? How have you used these in your games? Seems like there's a little bit of fluff in these skills.

Contortions as a skill? How often has that come up in your adventures? Seems like an Agility based roll more than a special skill. Might as well have a skill named "Breaking Down Doors".

The ones that really get me are the influence related skills: Dupe, Public Speaking, Oratory, Story Telling, Trickery. What really is the difference in your adventures between Dupe and Trickery? I swear I read about a skill called Oratory on a thread somewhere, but if someone is a master at Oratory skill, wouldn't it stand to reason that they know how to tell a story and speak in public, and for that matter, dupe the odd fool every now an then?

Don't mean to come off quite so negative at this point. I love the system so far. I'm very excited about it, but some of these skills are rubbing me the wrong way.


6) Magic Casters

In my campaigns, casting Magic (or Psionics in a sci-fi setting) sets you apart from the masses. You can do things others can only dream about. It's hard to "disarm" you, possible to restrict your movement and verbal casting, but to truly disarm you in a dungeon is a difficult task unlike the fighter next to you.

So, I'm surprised that ANYONE can learn Universal spells with just a few skill points. Per my math, a fighter can spend just 12 points to pick up Minor Healing, which is a critically handy spell to learn. Or 8 points will give him Arcane Bolt. I don't mind that a fighter can pick up spells, but it seems pretty easy for every class to be magic users. Dealing with that backup crossbow, reload times, and ammunition don't seem worth the effort if you can just fire magic at them.

My preference is for a low-magic campaign in any event. I want any character to be able to cast magic if they want, but there needs to be more of a price to pay in my opinion. What are your thoughts on this? I mean, if it's a choice between my fighter having an extra rank or two in Perception and Tracking OR being able to cast Minor Healing, I'm going Minor Healing every time. How have your players managed this?


7) Ability tests

When rolling an Ability Test (for which there is no skill), we are to roll d100 and add 2x the Ability Bonus. On my big fighter character I created, he has an 13 Strength Bonus if memory serves me correctly. Doubling this to a 26 addition, gives him roughly a 26% of success (excluding criticals) of making a standard adventuring ability check. Nothing too easy, nothing too hard. This is a fellow with monstrous strength and he only has a 26% to succeed? Seems odd. I know I can alter difficulty levels as the GM, but this feels like it should be more in the 70-80% of success for players to have fun and still have a challenge for success.

And what about the fellow with average strength and a zero bonus. He has no chance to succeed an average ability check outside of a critical? Really? Am I missing something in the rules? This doesn't seem right.



Creatures

Looking at the creatures in the back of book, level 1 Kobold and Goblin for example, I was blown away by their OB and DB compared to my fighter. I'm sure I could go back and redo him to min/max his abilities to match, but the monsters seem so much stronger. Let alone the poor player who creates someone not completely dedicated to combat.

A level 1 Kobold with 60 DB and 50 OB seems nasty. Any tweeks or recommendations for handling monsters? Or do the players just need to realize that a single level 1 kobold is an intimidating force to anyone but the main tank. Let alone 10-20 per the book. I was expecting more of a 30OB/DB concept. How do you use monsters? Any adjustments?



More to come I'm sure.  


Thank you,

Tom

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

1) Arcane Bolt

When increasing the damage for Arcane Bolt, what does "each 1d10 hits? 5d6 max" mean? Is that a misprint and should read 5d10 max? Two separate rolls one for max damage and then another for actual damage?

That should says 5d10 max. The spell starts with a single die for damage. The caster can scale up and use more more dice, but not more than 5d10 for damage. It is essentially the upper limit.

2) Adventurer Profession

 I understand that the Rogue is a jack of all trades, but what is the Adventurer profession then? I can explain briefly what each profession's basic concept is, but the Adventurer seems so odd.

Jack-of-all-trades with its own Sphere of spells (something that the Rogue does NOT have).

3) Magic Spell Ranks

So I need to have a different skill for each spell that i want. If I am a Mage, I can start with one spell or twenty if I have enough ranks to spend. But if I do not have enough ranks to equal the PP for the spell, including overcasting, then I cannot cast it. What is the reasoning behind this game design decision? Does it work well in your games? The reason I ask is that the system seems so flexible in letting players try whatever they like, but this arbitrary rule seems so limiting. If I don't have a lot of ranks and want to try a big spell, why not let the player decide if he can handle the negative modifiers? I understand as a GM, I can alter whatever I want, I'm simply wondering what your take on this restriction is.

The basic premise behind that combination of rules is that as you learn more about the spell you have a greater versatility in deciding how to use it. This is reflected in the access to more scaling options or combinations of scaling options as you get more ranks.

A character with 30 ranks in a spell knows it a lot better than one with only 3 ranks, and thus can do more with it.

The rule is NOT arbitrary. It was very thought out.

4) Combat

I made a standard fighter character as a test. Not a munchin type, just a general fighter that I felt my players might put together. He ended up with a 41 OB and a 61 DB. I'm sure he could be made offensive and might earn stronger armor, and I know that other characters (like mages) might be weaker, but I felt he was a decent balance.

So, in combat, I roll d100 (open ended) add my OB and subtract my DB. If my fighter fights himself, that gives him a -20 to the d100 and roughly an effective roll of 30 on the critical chart with each throw of the dice. Is this normal? A "30" hit every time?

Parry is supposedly very important, so is this considered a default action by your players for each attack? How does the call out for this maneuver work during combat? If parry is so critical to keeping you alive, how do you handle announcing it and by how much for each action? Dodge says it takes a full action, but do any of the parries?

I've read that lots of GMs don't have their player's announce their actions each round as it takes up too much time. Doesn't this negate Sudden Dodge?

How does my turn sequence affect a normal Dodge? If my Enemy goes before me, and I want to Dodge, am I dodging? What about parry? How does the timing of this work?

A round is only 2 seconds long. Initiative is essentially an semi-arbitrary method of deciding who resolves their actions first (since everybody IS going at the same time).

You declare your actions first, before rolling init, and this includes how much you want to use in parrying. Things like Dodge and Parry are in effect for the whole round (from the time that they are declared).

As for the rest, I'll leave that up to others to tell you about...

5) Odd Skills

I've designed two original RPGs over the years and have a nice set of skills for fantasy and sci-fi (but we really want to try HARP as it looks like a lot of fun!). Looking at the skill list, I'm going to knock off Rope Mastery, as I don't feel we really need to be rolling dice for "knot recognition, knot-tying, braiding".    I've heard that RM had a big problem with tons of various skills that were really splitting hairs, so maybe this is a hold over from that, but I've never played RM.

The skill system for HARP is setup to make it very easy to add or remove individual skills or even whole categories. That is one of its charms.

Back on topic: Riding is a skill in my own original system that gets used only once every blue moon and encompasses mounted combat, maneuvers, and animal handling. HARP has Riding, Animal Handling as a separate skill and Beast Mastery as another. Do we really need all three of these? How have you used these in your games? Seems like there's a little bit of fluff in these skills.

Contortions as a skill? How often has that come up in your adventures? Seems like an Agility based roll more than a special skill. Might as well have a skill named "Breaking Down Doors".

The ones that really get me are the influence related skills: Dupe, Public Speaking, Oratory, Story Telling, Trickery. What really is the difference in your adventures between Dupe and Trickery? I swear I read about a skill called Oratory on a thread somewhere, but if someone is a master at Oratory skill, wouldn't it stand to reason that they know how to tell a story and speak in public, and for that matter, dupe the odd fool every now an then?

Don't mean to come off quite so negative at this point. I love the system so far. I'm very excited about it, but some of these skills are rubbing me the wrong way.

Then remove them. It is that simple. As I mentioned above, I designed the skill system to be very flexible in this regard.

One thing to realize is that HARP is a cousin to Rolemaster, and as such, it comes from a family with a rich history in having many skills. And each skill DOES have its own purpose. Take Riding, Animal Handling, and Beastmastery. Have you looked at the skill descriptions?

Riding -- this if for actually riding an animal and performing maneuvers (such as combat) on the animal. It has nothing to do with taking care of the horse itself.

Animal Handling -- This is caring for the animal (and is separated by type of Animal (i.e. you wouldn't use Riding for taking care of a pet Falcon, now would you?)

Beastmastery -- Now granted, this could likely be combined with Animal Mastery. However, there is also a Beastmaster profession which utilizes this skill in an almost mystical manner.

6) Magic Casters

In my campaigns, casting Magic (or Psionics in a sci-fi setting) sets you apart from the masses. You can do things others can only dream about. It's hard to "disarm" you, possible to restrict your movement and verbal casting, but to truly disarm you in a dungeon is a difficult task unlike the fighter next to you.

So, I'm surprised that ANYONE can learn Universal spells with just a few skill points. Per my math, a fighter can spend just 12 points to pick up Minor Healing, which is a critically handy spell to learn. Or 8 points will give him Arcane Bolt. I don't mind that a fighter can pick up spells, but it seems pretty easy for every class to be magic users. Dealing with that backup crossbow, reload times, and ammunition don't seem worth the effort if you can just fire magic at them.

Yeah, but unless they put a ton of points into the spells -- they are limited to only the base forms of the spells -- this is also part of the reasoning behind the limits on the spells and on spell casting in general.

My preference is for a low-magic campaign in any event. I want any character to be able to cast magic if they want, but there needs to be more of a price to pay in my opinion. What are your thoughts on this? I mean, if it's a choice between my fighter having an extra rank or two in Perception and Tracking OR being able to cast Minor Healing, I'm going Minor Healing every time. How have your players managed this?

I'll leave this for others to answer.

7) Ability tests

When rolling an Ability Test (for which there is no skill), we are to roll d100 and add 2x the Ability Bonus. On my big fighter character I created, he has an 13 Strength Bonus if memory serves me correctly. Doubling this to a 26 addition, gives him roughly a 26% of success (excluding criticals) of making a standard adventuring ability check. Nothing too easy, nothing too hard. This is a fellow with monstrous strength and he only has a 26% to succeed? Seems odd. I know I can alter difficulty levels as the GM, but this feels like it should be more in the 70-80% of success for players to have fun and still have a challenge for success.

And what about the fellow with average strength and a zero bonus. He has no chance to succeed an average ability check outside of a critical? Really? Am I missing something in the rules? This doesn't seem right.

A maneuver (which uses a skill) of Medium Difficulty is NOT the same thing as "a standard adventuring ability check. Nothing too easy, nothing too hard". For that description that you gave, you should use Routine or Easy Difficulties.

Also keep in mind that the Medium Difficulty, and all of the difficulty ranges, are based on the premise that characters WILL have an appropriate skill to use in making rolls. If you are picturing it as something else, and it seems that you are, then you need to realize that determining the Difficulty of a non-skilled action needs to be done carefully, and not compared against difficulties for actions and maneuvers that can use skills.

Creatures

Looking at the creatures in the back of book, level 1 Kobold and Goblin for example, I was blown away by their OB and DB compared to my fighter. I'm sure I could go back and redo him to min/max his abilities to match, but the monsters seem so much stronger. Let alone the poor player who creates someone not completely dedicated to combat.

A level 1 Kobold with 60 DB and 50 OB seems nasty. Any tweeks or recommendations for handling monsters? Or do the players just need to realize that a single level 1 kobold is an intimidating force to anyone but the main tank. Let alone 10-20 per the book. I was expecting more of a 30OB/DB concept. How do you use monsters? Any adjustments?

The monsters given are those that survive. As such, they have all been given stats of 75 in all of their stats (that is +5 to each stat bonus, so subtracting 10 from each skill gives the bonus for the average member of that race). All of the mosters were also developed as Fighters (as in the profession), so if you have members of a given race that are of a different profession, then that will change things as well.

Monsters in HARP are very deadly. This is not D&D where a single character can handle a lot of them while they can barely, if ever, touch him. Players have to learn to play smart and that includes using tactics such as stealth and ambush and knowing when to retreat.

[jurasketu]

#3: IMHO the spell system is the coolest thing about HARP. Casting more powerful spells or scaled up spells does/should require more skill/knowledge (ie ranks). And I find it works perfectly fine actually. Loves it even.
#4: Parry (allocation of OB) RMC/RM style is long a staple of ICE games. And its always announced ahead of time (in some fashion). In fact, all actions (spells, attack, move, etc) must be announced before the resolutions are done. The 'announcing' is often done in secret, using cards, notepads, etc. Most characters (including monsters) must allocate significant OB to parry or get cut up quickly. I wrote and use SPAR in my games - which leaves actual allocation of OB to the moment of resolution - but that's an alternate and unusual method of allocating OB.
#5: Interesting 'social' and 'utility' skills are also a staple of ICE games. Many skills 'overlap' and so often are interchangeable for many gaming situations. A skilled Orator can dupe entire crowds with a speech - but might not be effective at executing a 'confidence' game (Duping). But both might be equally effective at bluffing past a palace aide. And so GM will factor that into deciding how to resolve a situation. Trickery is the 'sleight of hand' magic tricks without real 'magic'. Animal handling and riding are definitely different skills. Riding has to be taken for specific animal. Animal handling is a more general skill, blah, blah...

If you don't 'care' about social and utility skills because you are doing dungeon crawls or prefer to 'role play' all social situations, don't use them. Or if you don't like having ranked skills - convert the skill to a talent.

Often, the actual utility or social skill used is only important for 'color commentary'. The character needs to solve a problem and so uses a skill - the GM simply describes the outcome based on the skill choice (and roll if it requires one). It helps the GM and players be creative in their roleplaying.

#6 Armor severely limits the effectiveness of spell casting for fighers/rogues. Plus, the fighter has to put DPs into Power Points or will be limited. The 'base' system is for a highly magical campaign world. Its easy to adjust the magic level at will (require a PC to spend DPs for Arcane Power just to get access to Universal Spells, etc). In my current campaign, the six PCs consists of a Shadowblade, a Warrior Mage, a Druid, a Thaumaturge, a Vivamancer and a Thief/Ranger. All spellcasters... In MOST adventuring parties, specialization by various PCs leads to a more powerful group. If you have only 1-3 PCs, then you better play rogues and spend DPs on Minor Healing, Arcane Bolt - no doubt about it...

#7 I tend to 'role play' or use fudging rolls (fumble, bad, good, epic)

Creatures: Depends of the skill of the players... All creatures are dangerous - ie can kill you if you fail to parry or use good tactical skill. Large numbers of creatures are particularly dangerous (properly so).

[Karizma]

First off, welcome to the forums!

6. Magic Casters
HARP was set up to be in a High Fantasy setting.  To restrict fighters, they also need to take in armor into consideration.  Take Minor Healing for example.  A fighter in Full Chain armor would have to factor in the +6 PP for his casting penalty.  So a Fighter that wants to use Minor Healing will have to spend a minimum of 9 Power Points.  That goes from 12 DP to 36.  As far as my players go, they stick with a character concept despite min/max potential.  However a way I would limit magic casting to make it "Low Magic" is that if Mystical Arts is NOT a Favored Category of the profession, then the character must perform a ritual to cast Universal spells.

That's as much as I can say with my inexperience and headache, but I hope it helps.  Have fun with HARP, and if you come up with some good house rules, please share!

[Thom @ ICE]

1 - Typo - Should read 5d10

2 - Please identify the reference to the "Adventurer profession"? What page are you referring to?

3 - I can not speak to the game design logic - but I can state that your interpretation is correct. You must have at least the # of ranks in a spell equal to the base PP plus any scaling PP modifiers in order to attempt to cast it.

4 - Lots of questions here....
a) Generally speaking I have found most players have higher OB than DB, but it is possible to have the reverse.  With a higher OB you definitely want to consider using some of it towards parry to enhance your DB.  The mechanic is correct...
b) Calling out actions - Yes, I always have my characters state their actions aloud, but generally in reverse order of init.  I prefer that they don't take into account other actions, but this helps with it.  All actions are called out and then resolution for the entire round is processed.
c) Dodge - Dodge can be executed as a normal action and effectively means you are going fully on the defensive that round.  Parry is doing both offensive and defense.
d) Sudden Dodge - Even if you already attacked that round, you can still sudden dodge. If you did already act, then sudden dodge takes the place of your next round action.  If you did not already act, then sudden dodge becomes your action that round.

5 - Multiple Questions...
a) Rope Mastery - I use this for tying/untying complex knots.  If someone ties you up - then you can try your rope mastery skills to untie yourself.  If you want to tie someone up, then use your rope mastery skill to effect a solid knot.  You may not need it, but I occasionally use it.
b) Riding, Animal Handling, Beast Mastery - Well.... I use Riding when someone tries to do something special while mounted, or needs to remain mounted when animals are spooked or in special terrain.  Animal Handling is almost never used for mounts - instead I use that for pets, hunting animals (birds, dogs, etc.) or dealing with domestic animals.  Beast Mastery is more along the lines of dealing with wild animals or understanding domesticated ones.  Are all three needed - maybe not - but that's what I use them for.
c) Contortions - Only used it once... for getting out of knots that they character could not get out of with rope mastery....
d) There are subtle differences between the influence skills - and Trickery vs Duping does seem to be a duplicate, but I use Trickery for physical deception while Duping is more verbal deception.

6 - This is either a weakness or a strength of the system - depends upon GM style.  Some house rules have addressed this.  I personally agree with you that not every character should be able to cast spells and that there should be a base cost involved up front.

7 - Rarely do I use the ability checks... I do see your point though.

8 - There have been recent threads discussing the monsters included in HARP. The keys to remember are-
a) All monsters in the book are assumed to have 75 in all stats.  This means that they are in the top 0.00153% of all creatures within their race.   (Top 25% in all 8 stats = (1/4)^8)  The basics of the character creation system assume a total of 550, yet these monsters start at 600.
b) All monsters are created as Fighters and receive the Fighters bonuses and abilities - including Lightning reflexes (note the init's) and shield training

I hope some of that helped....

[Fidoric]

To answer one of your question, in the low magic campaign I am currently running, you need to have the "sense magic" talent if you want to cast spells. You can push it a little further and require a talent for every sphere of magic for example.

[Thos]

5. I find that rope mastery comes into play quite often with a thief/assassin character I run. The skill is called for whenever he uses a grappling hook to scale walls and find his way onto someone's roof. It also really helps when tying up a foe you're not keen on killing. Keep in mind, that in the case of restraining someone a failed roll could mean that the foe can escape as soon as a character's back is turned, and the character may not even know it. That's a fun one to do to your players!

[Witchking20k]

There is a definate separation in the game (as there was in Rolemaster) betwen Primary & Secondary skills.  I have a bit of a house rule that a lot of these skills are only used to compliment Primary skills, or to reduce penalties to performing actions with a primary skill.

For example: 3 PC are climbing a rugged stone wall.  The difficulty of the climb in deemed Medium. The first one up is a thief, who climbs it using a straight Climbing roll.  He then makes two successful Ropemastery rolls to secure a line (medium) & tie several hand holds (Light) in the rope.  The secured line reduces the difficulty of the climb to Light, and the hand holds add a +10.  Both the other PCs make a Light Climb roll at +10

[Maelstrom]

6) Magic Casters

In my campaigns, casting Magic (or Psionics in a sci-fi setting) sets you apart from the masses. You can do things others can only dream about. It's hard to "disarm" you, possible to restrict your movement and verbal casting, but to truly disarm you in a dungeon is a difficult task unlike the fighter next to you.

So, I'm surprised that ANYONE can learn Universal spells with just a few skill points. Per my math, a fighter can spend just 12 points to pick up Minor Healing, which is a critically handy spell to learn. Or 8 points will give him Arcane Bolt. I don't mind that a fighter can pick up spells, but it seems pretty easy for every class to be magic users. Dealing with that backup crossbow, reload times, and ammunition don't seem worth the effort if you can just fire magic at them.

My preference is for a low-magic campaign in any event. I want any character to be able to cast magic if they want, but there needs to be more of a price to pay in my opinion. What are your thoughts on this? I mean, if it's a choice between my fighter having an extra rank or two in Perception and Tracking OR being able to cast Minor Healing, I'm going Minor Healing every time. How have your players managed this?

Thank you,

Tom

Additionally, ranks in PP Dev need to be purchased at 4 DPs per rank to provide any PPs over the base amount - for any profession without access to mystical category.  Probably not an issue for elves and gnomes but dwarves and gryx aren't so lucky.

[Witchking20k]

If you don't like the balance of magic simply make it more expensive to aquire.  Some professions that are "pure arms" in nature could develop magic catagory at 6 or 8 DPs making it very expensive to learn even a single spell.

Alternatively, I have tossed up a house rul that Favored Catagories have a rank maximum of 3+Levelx3, and the other catagories are 2+Levelx2.  This would autmaticly create a seperation between magic and arms because a Level 2 Fighter could have 9 ranks in Sword, but only 6 in Arcane Bolt; and a Level 2 Mage could Have 9 ranks in Arcane Bolt, but only 6 in Sword.

[bottg]

Alternatively, I have tossed up a house rul that Favored Catagories have a rank maximum of 3+Levelx3, and the other catagories are 2+Levelx2.  This would autmaticly create a seperation between magic and arms because a Level 2 Fighter could have 9 ranks in Sword, but only 6 in Arcane Bolt; and a Level 2 Mage could Have 9 ranks in Arcane Bolt, but only 6 in Sword.

Oohh.  I like this! 

[Gliber]

Thank you all for your responses. You've given some excellent ideas and helped me grasp how some of the design elements are presented.

We are using the idea of requiring a character to have Sense Magic before being allowed to cast spells as suggest by Fidoric above. Great idea for our low magic campaign.

We will definitely use the action call out method for combat. I've seen it used in other systems but found it not to be worth the trouble and time, however after running some sample combats with HARP, we found it critical. Thanks for pointing us back towards this.

As for my comments about spells above, I like the scaling up options. My concern (perhaps the word "artificial" might have been better) is about not being able to cast a spell until you have all the ranks to cover the casting cost. I much rather prefer the idea of a caster deciding to take a risk and try to overcast a spell he might not normally be able to. This has a more heroic feel. Or even have a young caster try a spell he has a few points in but not enough to cast at default cost. Does he risk it? What will happen if this young wizard pulls of this amazing bit of magic? What happens if he fumbles? These are choices that would stand out in the story and make memorable moments in gaming. Plus, choosing to attempt something you haven't truly got the hang of fits better with the rest of the skills. I may have only 1 rank in Sword, but if the chips are down and I'm desperate, the choice is mine to tackle the nasty foe.

On the other hand, there must still be a limiting factor to prevent the young caster from putting 1 rank in Destroy Planet and then just hoping for a critical. Some other game element needed perhaps, or maybe he just can't cast until he has half the ranks. Not sure yet, but game time is approaching in a week. As it stands now, the basic chance to cast a PP6 spell by adding 1 rank at a time looks like 0%  0%  0%  0%  0%  30%    That On/Off until you get the base cost just doesn't sit right with how I want the magic to work in our campaign. I think we'll try it as written, and just let my players know that it may be subject to change (to their possible advantage) at a later date.

The players loved making their characters. A fun blend of skill based point buy with levels to look forward to. They enjoyed being able to blend all the classic archetypes however they wanted, yet have a core concept to go off of to start (i.e. Cleric). Well done, Mr. Rasyr.

Oh, and they really liked being able to choose from so many different weapons. I now have a tomahawk wielder and a hero with a rapier. Haven't seen that in my classic fantasy games before. Nice.

And as a GM, I really like having each spell as its own skill. It limits the total spells, which lets me have a better idea of what the players are capable of, while still allowing them to alter that spell. This is a welcome change in a magic system.

As for using Stat rolls, I only have the rules and everyone here to give me guidance. There are several references in the game that mention using a skill or a statX2 as though these are interchangeable. If this was not the intention, it certainly reads as such. Rolling Dodge or Sudden Dodge for example. Getting out of Quick sand is a "Medium Strength based Maneuver". A sturdy fellow with 70-90 Strength has a -10 to -15 for his roll if I did my math right. Correct me if I'm wrong, and hope the GM used a Percentage method and not the All or Nothing option to get out of that quick sand. Page 74, Brolys is prying open a door and the final check is StrengthX2 - Hard(20). If Brolys has a 100 Strength then he can only open up this door with a critical (10x2 minus 20). Again, I am a neophyte with this system, so I could have it all wrong, but this just doesn't feel right.

Add to that, Stats are great for giving DPs but do not affect skills as much as I would prefer. If Average Joe has the same brawling training and say agility as Strongest-Man-Alive, the strongest man only has a 15% edge. The strongest human-being possible against a normal fellow should be a mountain of an obstacle, not a 15% statistical favorite.

Another example: I am a horrifically weak rogue let's say with an Agility 50 but a Strength of 01. I put 6 ranks into a combat skill and suffer badly due to my strength, giving me around 12 in my skill. This system works great. I suffer a harsh penalty for a crippling disability at this stage in my adventuring career. Years of adventuring pass. Somehow I stay alive (most likely without smacking giants with my sword) and now I have 20 or 30 ranks in my skill. I now have a skill somewhere in the 60+ range. This appears to makes sense as I am very, very skilled, but mind you, I have a strength of 01. I can barely keep my newborn baby head upright let alone be an able combatant.

Now I know this example is a silly one, but I only use it to exaggerate my two points. I think that Stats should affect skills more than they currently do, and I think a Stat check should work with the current rule system in a cleaner fashion. Something like doubling the Stat Bonus (not the DP) seems like a step in the right direction, or recreating the Bonus chart blowing out the scale more than the -2 and +1 variation it currently has, but I'll need to think about it and get more feedback from all of you as you've played the system. This may affect character development later on with players only wanting to increase stats too.

My apologies, Mr. Rasyr, if my previous post or this one come across as attacking you or HARP. That is not my intention. I think you have made a great system here. When my group switches back to our sci-fi campaign in a few months, if we find a sci-fi version of HARP, my homebrew system may well get pushed to way side. I have three players excited not only about new characters, stories or the world, but about the HARP system. My comment about something like Stat checks, is that it's not as elegant a mechanic as the rest of the system. You have many more games published than I do: somewhere in the range of INFINITELY more.   Based on some of the subtle choices in the rules, you come across as an old school gamer which is right up my alley. My concerns about rules or choices I suggest are either setting based or something that just doesn't shine mechanically compared to the rest of the system.

So, thank you all again for the feedback. Hope you don't mind my long posts. Aside from merging a few skills, we will most likely play the game exactly as written for a session or two before talking to my players about what we want to address and how.

Thank you,

Tom

[Thom @ ICE]

HARP Sci-Fi is available - but it's not yet the final version.

As for the casting with less ranks than required PP...
At one time I did have a proposal which effectively allowed that - skill resolution is done as normal but with a -5 penalty for each PP they are short, however this can be countered by a +5 for every round spent casting.
Ex:
Stat Bonus +10
4 ranks in spell
Base PP = 6
Scaled up by 2 PP
Total PP Cost = 8

Spell is cast at +30 for Stat and Ranks, -10 for Scaling, -20 for PP Shortage... total = +0
Requires 2 rounds to cast.

If cast in 1 round the spell is cast at -10.
If cast in 2 rounds = +0
If cast in 3 rounds = +5....

Regardless, the spell is not very likely to be successful, but it does use up the full PP required and has a chance (very slim) of success... I think that is what you were looking for. 

[Witchking20k]

I used an alterative spell casting system in Rolemaster which would work easily in HARP as well:

-10/rank difference
+1/rank fumble range
+1 PP/rank difference

So a basic Arcane bolt costs 2 PP(I think) to cast & has a fumble of 05(I think).
To scale it up by 2 ranks would cost 6 PP (2+2x2), -20 (instead of -10) on the skill roll, and fumble on 07 (instead of 05)

[munchy]

That sounds interesting yet quite hard if I imagine someone casting higher level spells resp. spells that require more PPs, e.g. Cure Disease with 12 PPs. Or is it just th PP excessing the base cost that count here?

[anvil]

I consider myself a novice at HARP, as I have only played 10 times or so (My dwarf cleric is level 5) but have been playing rpg's for nearly 30 years. I would caution against expecting HARP to behave like other, more common, RPG's. Everything from armor to magic to weapons work differently than you'd expect. My advice would be to try the rules as written and then adjust for your group. Encourage your PC's to spend DPs on resistance rolls, and remember don't ask for a roll unless it advances the story.

[Witchking20k]

Just the difference in the skill ranks.  Basically its 2x the penalty.  Normal spell scaling (even if you have the ranks) is -5/pp difference.  So if you have 2 ranks & want to scale a spell from 2 to 6 PPs its -40.  If you had 4 ranks and you wanted to scale the same spell it would be -30 (-5x2 + -10x2).  The fumble range is the difference between the ranks you have and the PPs you want to scale to, and the PPs are normal.  Note that you can still use the base rules and add +5/extra PP if you want.

[uberyoung]

For stat based rolls, I ended up treating the 'stat bonus' as the 'number of ranks', then making a roll against standard difficulty numbers.

E.g. To break down a door with my STR bonus of +8:
     Old system: Roll 1d100 + 16 vs ??
     New system: +8 = 8 ranks = a rank bonus of +40, so Roll 1d100 + 40 vs Medium
          (or Hard for a reinforced door, etc.)

Has worked OK for us...

[Fidoric]

That's very clever and earn you an idea point from me

[Uriel]

2) Adventurer Profession

 I understand that the Rogue is a jack of all trades, but what is the Adventurer profession then? I can explain briefly what each profession's basic concept is, but the Adventurer seems so odd.

The Adventurer is like a Rogue who can fine tune which areas he wishes to focus on, a Fighter with awesome spells (Hammerfist just kicks ass...period), a Mage who can fight really well.
The Adventurer just Owns the Rogue, the Thief, Burglar, whoever..He owns the Fighter as well. Honestly, my group is a Warrior Mage, a Beast Master (WoW guy, he just had to have 'Pets'),and 3 Adventurers.
I love the concept,but the Adventurer is just plain better than any other non-spell user. I really don't see a reason to ever play a Rogue etc...
Storywise, it is also a cool concept. Great Profession, as several of my players, myself included, love the idea of someone identifying as 'An Adventurer!' instead of calling themselves something silly... "Me, I'm the Shadow Blade of the Guild..."
Er...just silly/

Anyways, welcome to the game and to the Forum!


Uriel