Topic: Tweaks for HARP Fantasy core rulebook

[Zhaleskra]

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

Given the "three is enough" guideline for racial abilities, it makes perfect sense.

As much as I hate getting rules word-I-won't-say-y, "Players may then use their DP to purchase one Greater Blood Talent or two Lesser Blood Talents to become either the hybrid of two races (such as the Half-Elf), or to have the heritage of several races!" p. 22, Racial Hybrids, Third Sentence, bolded section for emphasis.

I'd say it's written this way entirely to prevent min-maxing racial abilities. Especially given that you can only have one instance of the same thing.

Also, even if you do have a racially mixed up background, it's still impossible to be 1/4 of all races.

After seeing not only HARP's take on Hybrids, but even that other games Half-whatever templates, I was forced to wonder "why aren't all half-races Half-whatever templates?"

[jasonbrisbane]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but your reasons for not liking harp are Exactly the reasons I do.
Thats why I dont like RM. It has its good points but it has issues.

The fact that monsters can be generated the same way as PC's means that the "monster boost" that RM suffers doesnt occur. a Flat 75 across the board is good. It  is a fixed stat total of 600 points. The MAFG and Cyradon templates for monsters make it wonderful to create monsters!
Munchkinism will ALWAYS occur with EVERY RPG... by making the PC's and monsters the same way, then the same munchkinism that PC's use can also be used by the GM! THAT is how to even out the munchkins!


Sorry, I disagree with all of your suggested changes...

I think the core book is good as is, with the exception of the combat system but that has already been stated that it wont be looked at here...

Zhaleskra: if a GM houserules it then it is ok. If your players all agree that it should be allowed and the GM agrees then its allowed. It just means your character wont be "officially" allowed at a Con, but snce when has that ever occurred!

[Zhaleskra]

Zhaleskra: if a GM houserules it then it is ok. If your players all agree that it should be allowed and the GM agrees then its allowed. It just means your character wont be "officially" allowed at a Con, but snce when has that ever occurred!

I had originally included the possibility of house rules in the first version of my post. My other problem with either 1/4 four races or 3/4 one, 1/4 the other is its biological (and mathematical) impossibility. Even if you have a varied ancestry, the "leftover" is going to be a lot smaller than 1/4 (if you have elven blood way back, you're not 1/4 elf). I have no problem with a human/elf and human/dwarf mating to create a 1/2 human, 1/4 elf, 1/4 dwarf. At least that one makes mathematical sense.

Actually, I don't often see cons encouraging bringing your own character. So, it's rather a moot point. Suffice to say I like Blood Talents as written.

[WoeRie]

But if only one of my grandparents would be an elf. I would have one elven and three human grandparents. Wouldn't that result in a human character with a single Lesser Elven Blood Talent (=> 1/4 elf, 3/4 human)?


EDIT: I'm a bit confused about the coment that it is biological and mathematical impossible to have only one single Lesser BT.

[Zhaleskra]

A revision of my earlier take: you have to take 2 so that a 1/2, 1/4, 1/4 has to trade the same amount as a 1/2, 1/2. The point of the rule as written is to balance racial hybrids.

Also, I deliberately over simplified. Let's consider each character's DNA makeup to be like a deck of cards. The cards are shuffled, each deck is split in half, and what's left over goes into the child. Which raises the possibility of a human and a human/elf having a completely human child. I know the game deliberately ignores this.
 
I suppose it is technically possible, but it's not as easy. "Unlikely" is probably the better word than "impossible".

[RandalThor]

For me, the tweak would be more superficial, as I like the rules enough and can change the ones I don't like easily enough. So I would just like to see the book prettier; better art all around, color pages (at least some -  like some with a series of art). There are books that I continually go back to look at (and use for a variety of reasons) and will never sell, all of these are good-looking books. Also, I really don't think you realize how much appearance matters in sales, I know several people who pick up good-looking books, even if they aren't going to play the game.

[Zhaleskra]

Also, dominant genes. Dungeons & Dragons covered this decades ago with half-elves. If you have more ancestors of one race, you're that race. Basically your dominant race tells the rest of your DNA to shut up.

With two lesser Blood Talents, your base race is arguing with two other bits, and has less influence over the overall vote.

Personally, I might allow a 3/4, 1/4, but you would get no mechanical benefits, maybe a visual feature or two of the other race.

[munchy]

We allow the 3/4 and 1/4 option with mechanical benefits and fared very well with that so far. We always read it as up to two lesser blood talents. As for the munchkinism, we had no problems with that but then again we are a very experienced group who all have GMed at one time and another and are interested in good gaming and not so much in ego trips anymore.

I agree on the assessment that we are talking about minor, maybe even unnecessary changes, for this edition. Publish it and then start a team working on a second edition.
Even the combat system is all right if you look at HARP as a one book catches it all system. However, the more MERP-like one might be more exciting and catching for new players and old ones alike.

[cblackthorne]

Greetings,

It has been years since I have posted to the ICE forums or opened my HARP rulebooks, but with the recent changes, my gaming group has started dicussing returning to the use of HARP as our main ruleset.

With that return, we have had in-house talks about changes we would like to see to the rules to improve the system.

1.  Overhaul of the combat system.  Something we have discussed is a reimagining of HARP combat system.  Medieval and fantasy melee fighting has two important but distinctly different elements to it which all role-playing games try to emulate.  The first is hitting your opponent.  The second is causing damage to that opponent.  Hitting a nimble fighter with little or no armor is often difficult, but if you do hit them, they are more susceptable to damage, while hitting someone in full-plate isnt as hard, but penetrating the armor or hitting a "soft spot" is extremely difficult.  Im working on a system that uses two rolls, one to hit and one to penetrate.  The second roll also includes the critical effects.  If I were to modify the original HARP rules or were to write a Martial Law 2, I would include this into the book.

2.  Expand the Armor by the Piece rules as presented in Martial Law.  These rules were a stepping stone to something greater and more realistic than is currently used.  I think that Armor by the Piece should be the norm and the only armor rules used.

Thats all for now...

Regards,
Chris Adams

[GrumpyOldFart]

I don't know if I'd necessarily suggest this as a tweak, but it's an idea to throw out there.

Given the variability in spells for Cleric-type spellcasters, I think I would break "spheres" down further into "schools" or something, consisting of half a dozen to a dozen spells each along very similar lines. "Elemental Attacks", "Hallucinations", "Healing", etc. Instead of paying 30 DPs for a sphere to access it, you pay 1 DP per spell in the school. This allows more customization of spellcasters as instead of having one sphere of 12-(usually) 20 or so spells, you have 3 or 4 schools defining your power. I think it might serve as something of a power balance on the mage class, allow for easier customization of clerics according to sphere of influence, and (bonus) make it much harder for PCs to predict the behavior and powers of encountered NPCs (in other words, "He's a warrior mage" doesn't tell you much about his spell repertoire.)

[Marc R]

The above might also allow for more spells to be added as entire groups, rather than add ons to existing groups, which created the fact that the spheres have grown at very different rates. That might be a pain to retcon in though, and no need to create arbitrary groups of spells.

A simple rule akin to the Cleric selection process might define a sphere. . .ala "Select X spells as your starting sphere". . .then if you want more, either pay an given out of sphere cost, or pay to get a whole new sphere. . .if all spheres are all X number of spells, they won't be equal, but they'll be more equal than they are now.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Well that's why I suggested 1DP per spell in the group, so it doesn't matter what the size of the group is, the end cost in DPs is the same regardless. You only spend DPs in proportion to the number of options you get. A guy who learns one 20 spell group and a guy who learns four 5 spell groups both spend the same number of DPs for the same amount of spell access. A guy who has 15 spells in his groups only has half as many options as a guy who has 30 in his groups, but he only paid half the DP cost for access to skill ranks in them, too.

[John Duffield]

The one thing I will vote for is to unify the spell costs across the books.  The creation rules in CoM provide a nice toolkit to use and using this as a basis would mean that spells created in the future conform to the same costing approach.

As a thought, maybe even move those rules into the core book.

As a another thought, would it be possible to produce an examples pdf which steps new players through the various 'rules sections' - character creation, combat, spell casting, etc.

[Zhaleskra]

Print the spell descriptions only once per book and list all spheres it belongs to in that single description per spell. This will save you money on printing costs. Also it won't annoy people who are annoyed by (in their opinion) needless repetition.

cblackthorne, I'm not really a fan of the two rolls for attack method. There's probably an easier way to do the same thing without rolling more dice. And I say this as someone who likes combat a little dice heavier, well, mostly I hate "static" defense. One thing I said to faire attendees asking about weapons when I was in a theatrical combat troupe was "I don't need to get through his armor. I need his armor to get through him."

[cblackthorne]

Hello,

Yes, I would prefer a one roll resolution, but I havent been very happy with the methods I have seen thus far.  Most RPGs use two rolls to resolve an attack, DnD rolls to hit and then rolls for damage, Rolemaster rolls to hit and then rolls for criticals, so I dont think its a foreign concept for most gamers.

HARP only uses one roll, but I think 1 roll over simplifies the process to much.

Its still a work in progress......

Regards,
Chris A.

Print the spell descriptions only once per book and list all spheres it belongs to in that single description per spell. This will save you money on printing costs. Also it won't annoy people who are annoyed by (in their opinion) needless repetition.

cblackthorne, I'm not really a fan of the two rolls for attack method. There's probably an easier way to do the same thing without rolling more dice. And I say this as someone who likes combat a little dice heavier, well, mostly I hate "static" defense. One thing I said to faire attendees asking about weapons when I was in a theatrical combat troupe was "I don't need to get through his armor. I need his armor to get through him."

[cblackthorne]

Hello,

The Forgotten Realms setting I used for both Rolemaster and HARP used a similiar system.

Every spell belonged to a school of magic.  Spell casters developed skill in each school.  Whenever they cast a spell from that school, that was the skill they used for the roll.

For example, the Fireball spell belonged to the school of Evocation.  Whenever the character cast a Fireball at a target, he used his Evocation skill to modify the attack roll.

We used this system for years and it worded very well.  It balanced the spell casters out with the melee classes.

Regards,

Chris A.

Well that's why I suggested 1DP per spell in the group, so it doesn't matter what the size of the group is, the end cost in DPs is the same regardless. You only spend DPs in proportion to the number of options you get. A guy who learns one 20 spell group and a guy who learns four 5 spell groups both spend the same number of DPs for the same amount of spell access. A guy who has 15 spells in his groups only has half as many options as a guy who has 30 in his groups, but he only paid half the DP cost for access to skill ranks in them, too.

[Ecthelion]

I'm not really a fan of the two rolls for attack method. There's probably an easier way to do the same thing without rolling more dice.

HARP does combat "easier" using only one dice roll, but I think this makes combat a bit boring compared to the (two roll) method used for Rolemaster. IMO people overestimate the effect a second dice roll for criticals does have on the duration of combat resolution. Unless none of the characters parry, the majority of the attacks will yield no damage or only concussion damage, which does not require a second roll and a second table-lookup anyway. Only those (few) attacks yielding a critical will require the second roll and lookup. And for this you get the reward of more thrilling combats. Did people complain about the complexity of combat in ICE's good old entry system ME RP or about the second roll necessary for criticals? I don't think so. Yes, the easy one-roll combat resolution probably sounds nice as marketing slogan, but that combat can be more thrilling with a nice critical table and a second roll on this table gets brushed under the carpet.

YMMV

[GrumpyOldFart]

For example, the Fireball spell belonged to the school of Evocation.  Whenever the character cast a Fireball at a target, he used his Evocation skill to modify the attack roll.

You can also "group the groups", so to speak, if that helps define the spell casting classes. For example summoning elementals, summoning demons, summoning undead and summoning animals might all be in different schools, but may all require the summoning group as a prerequisite. You might have the overall group containing only one or two spells ("Familiar" comes to mind), and have it be cheap to get, and yet it still acts as a brake on munchkinism, because you simply cannot learn ______ summoning specialties without learning the basics first.

Which also allows the option of the really nasty spels requiring more than one prerequisite group.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Unless none of the characters parry, the majority of the attacks will yield no damage or only concussion damage, which does not require a second roll and a second table-lookup anyway. Only those (few) attacks yielding a critical will require the second roll and lookup. And for this you get the reward of more thrilling combats. Did people complain about the complexity of combat in ICE's good old entry system ME RP or about the second roll necessary for criticals? I don't think so. Yes, the easy one-roll combat resolution probably sounds nice as marketing slogan, but that combat can be more thrilling with a nice critical table and a second roll on this table gets brushed under the carpet.

It's possible I missed something, so I'll consult the book again. Off the top of my head, I thought that "Concussion Hits" did require the critical tables, regardless of how effective it was.

The reason I didn't complain about attack and damage rolls in say, D&D, is because I hadn't seen it done differently yet. My favorite "furry" RPG justifies the (usual) lack of both damage rolls and botch rolls--when there is a damage roll--with "causing damage is not a physically separate action from making the attack." In short, the attack can fail or even botch, the damage can't. It also abstracts defense differently from other games too.

As you can probably tell, I'm also not a fan of "that's the way everyone else does it"  either.

[Marc R]

(rolemaster rule clarification interjection)
if you roll a broadsword attack result of 5, which is 5 hits, no critical, you don't roll a critical, most of the attacks start off with hits, then hits+crits. . .as a for instance, broadsword vs AT16 (full chain) starts hits at 45 and keeps doing just hits to 109, then does hits+crit from 110 to 150.
(/end interruption)