Topic: Cretinous spells & spell adders

[Pat]

The downside to the Trance style is:
1) You need 1 rank in Mental Focus for each power point invested in the spell. So, again, the character would need to invest a significant amount of DP's and, if they're msges, then concentration skills such as Mental Focus are 4 DP's each.
2) If he fails the Mental Focus roll he's at -20 to the cast.

However, in regards to your previous posts, I generally agree with what you've said. Our group is having a similar discussion with the spell Shadow Step. It can be scaled to a level where the caster becomes undetectable from anything including spells, perception and everything else. This means that the caster (who has a high ambush skill and OB) can effectively cast the spell, move behind any target and ambush them killing almost any monster in 1 round.

We are currently debating an answer between the group. As you can imagine there are 2 main sides, the player who thinks it's awesome, and the GM who thinks it's unbalanced. We'll have to wait and see where the debate leads us.

[Ecthelion]

The downside to the Trance style is:
...

That part of the conversation is going around in circles IMHO and might lead to nothing. It might be that there are some flaws in how rules are applied in ZuS' group, but the general problem of abused scaled spells in his group remains. Whether these spells have a bit higher or lower OB or not or whether they do a few points less damage is probably not the point. The latter is probably also true for any kind of discussion about whether we like the power gaming style of this group.

However, in regards to your previous posts, I generally agree with what you've said. Our group is having a similar discussion with the spell Shadow Step. It can be scaled to a level where the caster becomes undetectable from anything including spells, perception and everything else. This means that the caster (who has a high ambush skill and OB) can effectively cast the spell, move behind any target and ambush them killing almost any monster in 1 round.

Yes, there are such spells, and probably there always will be, since a game designer cannot foresee all means a power gamer might later find to exploit the spells or combine them with other spells or spell-related rules. The only thing which IMO can be done is to change these problematic spells/rules, which can be done via official ruling or via house rule.

@ZuS: Since it does not look like you will get an official ruling (and, to be honest, we should not expect this for any kind of flaw we think we have found in the rules) on this matter, there might be no other way but to implement a house rule. But if really your group does not work with house rules - for the reasons you have explained above - you have a problem we can't solve. And this problem might happen with any RPG system your group plays: If there is a problematic rule that would need a change, you will have to wait until any kind of official ruling and until then have to live with the fact that players in your group will exploit that problematic rule. IMO you should better rethink whether you work with house rules or not...

Just my 2 cents

[providence13]

There is no way i would allow a caster to slip in and out of a trance during a round.  Either they are in a trance for the round or they are not.  If they are they get the bonus, and also the penalties, and if they are not, then they get neither.

In RMFRP, IIRC Trance is a 50%Activity. Now I realize that
1) these are not the same game
2) we may be talking about 2 different "Trances"
3) 2 sec rnds probably don't use %Act

Also, you may not like the "official" ruling that you receive.
This is not to slight people here or games designers anywhere. Some fixes are to be made in house.
 

[ZuS]

@ZuS: Since it does not look like you will get an official ruling (and, to be honest, we should not expect this for any kind of flaw we think we have found in the rules) on this matter, there might be no other way but to implement a house rule. But if really your group does not work with house rules - for the reasons you have explained above - you have a problem we can't solve. And this problem might happen with any RPG system your group plays: If there is a problematic rule that would need a change, you will have to wait until any kind of official ruling and until then have to live with the fact that players in your group will exploit that problematic rule. IMO you should better rethink whether you work with house rules or not...

Just my 2 cents

THAT'S ENOUGH! How dare you?! I didn't cme here to be faced with reality!

[Pat]

However, in regards to your previous posts, I generally agree with what you've said. Our group is having a similar discussion with the spell Shadow Step. It can be scaled to a level where the caster becomes undetectable from anything including spells, perception and everything else. This means that the caster (who has a high ambush skill and OB) can effectively cast the spell, move behind any target and ambush them killing almost any monster in 1 round.

Yes, there are such spells, and probably there always will be, since a game designer cannot foresee all means a power gamer might later find to exploit the spells or combine them with other spells or spell-related rules. The only thing which IMO can be done is to change these problematic spells/rules, which can be done via official ruling or via house rule.

I think the biggest problem is that the "add ons" "compendiums" etc do not have the same level of play testing as the original. Also, I believe that the additions generally all have some flaws due to the requirements of quick production and quick release. This can also be caused by writers who are unsure how to balance spells, abilities etc against the original products or do not think of the limitations (or lack there of) of spell, skills etc.

[ZuS]

But to be serious, I think we can conclude this thread by taking some positive lessons from our discussion:
1) There are in-game considerations one can make to offset the problems, without changing rules (one-trick pony discrimination by reduction of playtime, reaction from the world, going into detail with rules to make sure everything has appropriate consequences in the tactical situation)
2) If it doesn't destroy the game, it might be OK - it really will not happen often and when it does there is the possibility of offsetting as mentioned in 1)
3) Spell Adders do NOT eliminate penalty for shortening casting time - big difference.
4) One can only have 1 Adder at a time active and this is controlable. If the player goes for the Magestaff, it's an issue, but at least he pays good DP for it.

Finally, discussions of this sort really do have effect - people learn about rules and go through a group effort of thinking in detail and coming up with suggestions. If we are to bring any conclusions to the officials, they should be formulated in a concise way that can be used for whatever correction/new edition in the future.

I myself think some conclusions can be drawn from the thread:
1) Spell Adders are necessary in order for high level spell casters to have a chance of casting spectacular spells, but they might need a reality check in respect to how many PP they grant. They should probably be limited to some number of PP per adder and maybe be cumulative; for example to offset 50 PP, you might use 2x+25 Spell Adders.
2) The quadratic damage from Magic Darts should be looked at - was it really the intent of the designers to allow a spell no one can resist, deflect or defend from to kill instantaneously?
3) The low 2-second-limit for sell casting should be reviewed and compared to archery or just the actions of warriors. It is a huge change from allowing 10 seconds of action in RM to 2 seconds of action in HARP between every nuke/crowd-control/defense from a caster. Many principles from RM have been destroyed - for example invisibility used to be exclusive to pre-combat spell, while now it is cast within 2 seconds and almost a habit for a caster every second round.

[Witchking20k]

I'm glad you enjot the game enough to demonstrate such a passion to get it right (in your mind )

[ZuS]

I'm glad you enjot the game enough to demonstrate such a passion to get it right (in your mind )

I don't want to "get it right". I want a system that is easy to relate to in-game, is enjoyable for both players and GM and with zero discussion.  Some times designers under- or overestimate some features and this destroys one of the first two conditions for a good system, which in turn potentially introduces a lot of discussion and waste of game time. Pointing these issues out might not fix the problem promptly, but will stick to the moderator's brain for the next errata and/or provide alternative non-discutable solutions through online discussion (which is good, as opposed to in-session discussion).

[providence13]

ZuS,
I wholeheartedly hope you are able to find the game/get the answers that your group needs to have fun.
Having precise, clear-cut unambiguous rules would definitely save time by avoiding rules discussions/arguments.

One of my 1/month games has 7 PC's (a lot for me to handle) and 2 staunch rules lawyers who can waste a good part of the evening... and that sucks. Playing 12 games/year, there isn't time to waste.
With all of the "but we've always played..." and "I've always read that rule as..."  I have to remind them on occasion "Look. This is what happens. How do you react to it".
It sounds like you guys are very experienced and can keep player/character knowledge separate, but they don't always have to know exactly what is going on.

Even if the rules to a system are extremely detailed and every possible scenario is included, I'd hate that to stand in the way of my group having fun.
Every RPG that I've enjoyed over the years has had a section on "yes, these are the rules, but you decide what works best for your game." I really like that.

[masque1223]

One of my 1/month games has 7 PC's (a lot for me to handle) and 2 staunch rules lawyers who can waste a good part of the evening... and that sucks. Playing 12 games/year, there isn't time to waste.

Why do you not tell them to get out if they don't like it?  I average 2 games a month, if I'm lucky and no one has a scheduling conflict, and if someone was that much of a problem, there's no way I'd let them keep ruining everyone else's fun.

[Right Wing Wacko]

I don't want to "get it right". I want a system that is easy to relate to in-game, is enjoyable for both players and GM and with zero discussion.

Good luck.
It seems you have a lot of complaints, some may be valid, some may not, but yet refuse any suggestions as to house ruling or discussing rules changes with the other players in your group.
So, what exactly do you want?
A perfect RPG with no nuances or areas that may need house ruling, determined by the group?

You do realize that at the beginning of the HARP book it does state that the GM may use, not use, or change rules to fit his/her groups playstyle?

Yet you refuse to accept any house rules or to even discuss changing a rule with your group.

I don't understand what you want...

[Thom @ ICE]

ZuS' position has been pretty clear. He is looking for an official errata to be produced for these specific concerns he has raised.  His gaming group does not use house rules, so therefore the only acceptable responses to fully address his concerns would be an official errata from ICE or official evidence that their interpretation is incorrect.

[providence13]

Why do you not tell them to get out if they don't like it?

I'm sorry masque1223, that may have read more strongly than it was meant. Every one of my players shows up looking for something different.
This guy will not pay attention (I understand being inattentive, but meet me half-way.. ) unless he is in combat. As soon as talking begins... "what's going on?".
Another puts up with combat but politely asks for more role playing after each game.
Other people just want the camaraderie of "hanging out" because this is their social time away from work and family.
Some guys drive 30 minutes or more just to play.
Another says "don't call the house, my wife thinks I'm...."
And if we play late, all the kids start calling so their dads can say "good night".
I've got quirks, but they still show up. So, I can put up with most of theirs. The hardest thing is trying to meet the different needs of my players. That's also the fun part for me. (Minus a little venting to you guys..)

[masque1223]

OK.  When i posted that, I admit I was in a very anti rules lawyer mood, having gotten back from my game and had just heard horror stories about a player's other game ruined by some serious rules lawyering.

Not that my policy is lenient, I don't suffer fools at all, but that's why I run rpgs with friends I've known for years, none of whom exhibit such behavior, and not random people I meet at cons or game stores.

When I'm demoing card or board games in an official capacity, I'm much more lenient, but then, I don't have to deal with the demo-ees all the time.

[Right Wing Wacko]

ZuS' position has been pretty clear. He is looking for an official errata to be produced for these specific concerns he has raised.  His gaming group does not use house rules, so therefore the only acceptable responses to fully address his concerns would be an official errata from ICE or official evidence that their interpretation is incorrect.

And my position is pretty clear.
I doubt the errata he demands is going to be produced, and he refuses to houserule... or let the GM make any rational, fair decision regarding the rules.

Having the only "acceptable response" to be "official errata from ICE" is being selfish... as well as restrictive to the GM.
Like I said before, it even says in the book the GM is allowed to change/modify/restrict/allow things, and be the final arbiter when something arises in game that is not detailed in the book.

IMO, of course.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Some of the original intentions and possible clarifications......

1) Spell Adders should not be allowed to be used in creating magical items, especially if used to enhance the item that is already the spell adder. (i.e. the intent is that you cannot use a Magestaff's spell adder to enhance the Magestaff). At least that was always the official intention!

Also, Spell Adders only supply the PP for the spell, not the expertise or the skill ranks required to cast it. The skill ranks requirements must ALWAYS be met

2) Magestaff as a dual adder -- This option must be selected when the staff is first created (i.e. +6 PP to the base 13). The dual adder option only allows it to be a +1 PP Adder and a +1 Spell Adder. This results in two possibilities.

• If either adder capability is increased, the dual adder ability is lost
• If either adder capability is increased, the dual adder ability must be included in the casting (+6 PP more, and thus 6 more skill ranks) to keep the dual adder ability.

I would leave it up to the GM as to which method he uses.

3) Magic Darts --  This is a spell versus DB! It is not an automatic hit.  It is not much different from the Elemental Bolt spells. It can be defended against and dodged just as the elemental bolts can be (i.e. it is a directed attack). If the attack hits, it does damage (just as any other weapon or spell).

After careful consideration, the scaling option, Increase Dart Size, does seem to be extremely more powerful than what was intended and/or we choose our wording poorly (i.e. at this remove, I no longer remember exactly). IIRC, the intention was that it would cost +3 PP to double the points of damage from each 1d10 of darts, not on ALL darts

[errata=
Magic Dart Errata]
Magic Dart, from page 56 of The Codex -
The scaling option, Increase Dart Size, the line should read:
     Increase Dart Size (per +1 hit per dart on 10 darts)                     +3 PP

[/errata]

Thus, the base spell costs 3 PP and does 1d10 hits of damage (+1 bleeding per every 5 hits of damage rolled). The caster can then spend 2 extra PP to get an additional 1d10 of potential hits (it is NOT +10 hits automatically) and then he can spend +3 PP to do double damage on a set of 10 darts.

In other words the base is 1d10 hits
+2 PP to make it 2d10 hits
+3 PP to make it (1d10)x2 hits

So 8 PP would make it ((1d10)x2) + 1d10 hits
It would be 11 PP to do (2d10)x2 hits
It would be 9 PP to do 4d10 hits

In regards to errata on HARP and HARP in general - HARP was specifically and deliberately designed to make it easy for the GM to adjust the rules to his setting or style of play. It was INTENDED that the GM do so.

Additionally, I prefer to issue as little errata as possible. If something really needs it (like the Magic Darts spell), I will issue it, but I prefer not to if I can. And I won't issue errata just because somebody doesn't like how something works (that is WHY GMs are encouraged to adjust the rules to their games).

[jurasketu]

Bravo Rasyr...

One of the primary reasons I LOVE HARP is that I can write completely new rules and spells that integrate seamlessly with very little effort. I wrote my own combat result rules (charts and injuries). Rewrote the healing system plus affected spells. House Ruled all spells to allow increased duration scaling. Blah. Blah. Blah. I literally have 100 pages of fully crafted, playtested and written rules. Modified numerous spells. Use "Power Items" instead of adders. But otherwise, I use just the rules as written. And honestly my changes aren't to fix "broken rules" - they are to achieve the "flavor" I want for my game.

Broken rules and spells are easy to fix - ban spell or modify spell. Rewrite rule to not be broken. How hard is it?

Robin

[ZuS]

3) Magic Darts --  This is a spell versus DB! It is not an automatic hit.  It is not much different from the Elemental Bolt spells. It can be defended against and dodged just as the elemental bolts can be (i.e. it is a directed attack). If the attack hits, it does damage (just as any other weapon or spell).

Can you parry elemental bolts and Magic Darts? Like with the parry rules (1/5 of OB transferred to DB, 1/2 with Parrying talent)?
Also, can you reflect Magic Darts with the Spell Deflections spell, like you can elemental spells?

After careful consideration, the scaling option, Increase Dart Size, does seem to be extremely more powerful than what was intended and/or we choose our wording poorly (i.e. at this remove, I no longer remember exactly). IIRC, the intention was that it would cost +3 PP to double the points of damage from each 1d10 of darts, not on ALL darts

[errata=
Magic Dart Errata]
Magic Dart, from page 56 of The Codex -
The scaling option, Increase Dart Size, the line should read:
     Increase Dart Size (per +1 hit per dart on 10 darts)                     +3 PP

[/errata]

I believe I just excited my pants.

In regards to errata on HARP and HARP in general - HARP was specifically and deliberately designed to make it easy for the GM to adjust the rules to his setting or style of play. It was INTENDED that the GM do so.

Additionally, I prefer to issue as little errata as possible. If something really needs it (like the Magic Darts spell), I will issue it, but I prefer not to if I can. And I won't issue errata just because somebody doesn't like how something works (that is WHY GMs are encouraged to adjust the rules to their games).

Believe me, this is far beyond any of my expectations. I expected some of you guys to read the thread and remember the pointers in like 2 year's time and just take it up for discussion - that would have been just fine by me. An actual in-thread errata within a couple of days is just awesome.
We will certainly take your advice under advisement.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

directed spells cannot normally be parried - but there are gifts and/or spells (IIRC without actually looking, I could be misremembering) that do allow for it, thus if a character has that capability, they could conceivably parry it.

[ZuS]

Why do you not tell them to get out if they don't like it?

I'm sorry masque1223, that may have read more strongly than it was meant. Every one of my players shows up looking for something different.
This guy will not pay attention (I understand being inattentive, but meet me half-way.. ) unless he is in combat. As soon as talking begins... "what's going on?".
Another puts up with combat but politely asks for more role playing after each game.
Other people just want the camaraderie of "hanging out" because this is their social time away from work and family.
Some guys drive 30 minutes or more just to play.
Another says "don't call the house, my wife thinks I'm...."
And if we play late, all the kids start calling so their dads can say "good night".
I've got quirks, but they still show up. So, I can put up with most of theirs. The hardest thing is trying to meet the different needs of my players. That's also the fun part for me. (Minus a little venting to you guys..)

Holy doodoo, I thought we had issues.