Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => HARP => Topic started by: Bruce on January 27, 2015, 12:42:02 PM
-
I started this topic in relation to the discussion on the poll "How many spells do the non spell using professions usually develop?", and per Thom's request.
I think this is a great idea and something that has been running around in my brain for a few years now. Though I was more centered on calling it skill perks or something similar. It is Thom's idea for "Skill Scaling Options", which makes perfect sense.
I have always thought something like the perks system in Skyrim or the Diablo series of games would be interesting to have in the HARP system.
I believe this would help alleviate the lack of any real benefit of developing skills at higher level, i.e. the diminishing returns from higher skill ranks. I also believe this idea has the potential to make some of the less developed skills more appealing which could help flush out a more interesting and well rounded character. But the problem is keeping it balanced and interesting at the same time. It is easy to come up with scaling options for basic combat skills (there are already some in place) and a few others but what about the other non-essential skills?
As I mentioned there are some combat scaling options already in place, the "Scaled Combat Actions" in Martial Law. I like these options but you only get new ones every 20 ranks in a weapon skill. I think they should be spread out a little with the possibility of earlier access to the more powerful ones. Maybe some scaling options could be accessible through the acquiring of specific low cost talents combined with minimum ranks requirements.
Some of these give me a few ideas for scaling options on skills outside of the combat skills.
While we're at it, what about scaling options for talents? It would be a way of developing the higher cost talents through the purchasing of some lower cost talents. Though one would be paying more for the same talent but it would be over time (much like paying interest on a loan payment).
What are your thoughts?
Bruce
PS I am getting ready to try and start a playtest group this friday with a demo of HARP. This is going to be one of the things we will discuss in this group.
-
I like the idea, you might want to give Alternity a look as they already have something like this in place.
-
I like the idea, you might want to give Alternity a look as they already have something like this in place.
I almost missed reading your post. Still amused that since Alternity came out right after WotC bought TSR the books call TSR a subsidiary of WotC. Just at random, I'm turned to the Melee Weapons Rank Benefits. These can be added when a character improves a skill, at certain points, making them a little bit like D&D Feats.
Here are just two:
* Resistance Modifier: At higher ranks, any Melee Weapons specialty skill provides an improvement to a hero's Strength resistance modifier. At rank 4, 8, and 12 it improves by +1. (First sentence is quote, second is paraphrase, Alternity Player's Handbook, p. 68)
* Reaction Parry: When a character reaches rank 4, he can attempt to parry whenever a Melee Weapons or Unarmed Attack is used against him. This uses up the parrying character's next action. (same distinction as first example)
-
Alternity was what I was hoping the D&D 3rd Edition rules were going to be, but no such luck. Even with their "problems" I think they are better than 3rd edition.
But what you quote there is what I was referring to, only for HARP I would suggest modifying the ranks requirement. For example, the 4, 8, 12 you have there, I would do as 5, 10, 15 in HARP. (Of course, HARP also doesn't have a "resistance" score, so what the melee weapon skill would grant in HARP would have to be something different - like access to, and/or bonuses to, special maneuvers (ala Martial Law).
-
Yeah something like what you guys have posted above. Though if any bonuses were provided they would be circumstantial, for example: At rank 12 in the Two Weapon Combo skill the character has the option of reducing the penalty of -20 when attacking with the off hand weapon or increasing the init modifier to a +6. Every so many ranks another option is available but they would be like skill trees where each has a pre-requisite.
A few things I have considered:
Each profession has a limit to a number of skills in specific categories that receive the ability to be scaled.
Only 1 scaling option per 3 ranks in a skill (maybe higher like every 6 ranks?), along with a max limit of 1 per character level or every so many levels.
Scaled options for below rank 10 would be nothing really special, whereas the options for above 10 ranks are more appealing and beneficial.
There will be scaling options that will not add or subtract any modifiers and are more for the role playing aspects but are requisites for higher level scaling options.
Using development points to acquire some scaling options.
Some pre-reqs might be specific talents, multiple skills and ranks in those skills, character level requirements, etc....
My Inspirations:
D&D 3rd, 4th, 5th, and Pathfinder with the feat system they have. Though out of all those D&D 5th ed is probably the only one I will play again...
Skyrim and the perks system.... it's pretty cool
Diablo 2 and 3, With the skill tree system
Adding skill scaling options adds complexity, but they would be cool options.
-
I am going to use a RMSS: Martial Arts Combat Companion House Rule idea I use.
In RMSS when using Combat Styles from the MAC, I have a house rule that states you gain abilities based on you skill total not as a lump when you just learn the combat style skill. So the skill learner is constantly evolving in what they learn and even at some points they can pick from a set of things to learn.
The main problem I have is I have not hard and set fast rules I can provide you besides I use skill total (before items (unless artifact or special in nature)) as a guide instead of skill ranks as I believe some get more out learning in a set time period then others and some learn less. So right now I generally use 60/80 and 100 or 120 as point where I give the option to learn a special combat ability instead of just getting them for free as are the rules as written.
MDC
-
Bit of a tangent here but I think that's a good approach for RM combat styles, you should expand on it over in the RMU:Arms Law board.
-
From my point of view....
A few things I have considered:
Each profession has a limit to a number of skills in specific categories that receive the ability to be scaled.
Only 1 scaling option per 3 ranks in a skill (maybe higher like every 6 ranks?), along with a max limit of 1 per character level or every so many levels.
Scaled options for below rank 10 would be nothing really special, whereas the options for above 10 ranks are more appealing and beneficial.
There will be scaling options that will not add or subtract any modifiers and are more for the role playing aspects but are requisites for higher level scaling options.
Using development points to acquire some scaling options.
Some pre-reqs might be specific talents, multiple skills and ranks in those skills, character level requirements, etc....
Limited # of skills that can be scaled? No. If you have invested the ranks, you can scale it. Same as with spells.
Limited scaling options? No. If you are at a certain skill level (# of ranks) then you have available any scaling options that can be covered by that many ranks, including the ability to combined scaling options (similar to spells)
Degree of "special" for higher ranks - definitely, but there is nothing special about 10 ranks or any other level. As the number of ranks go up, the scaling gets more powerful - and combining multiple scaling options (multi-attacks, multi-parries, multi-facings, etc) in one attack can give you an incredible action that round, but the scaling costs stack and they bring penalties with them.
DP can be used to add ranks.... once you have the appropriate # of ranks, you have the ability to do the scaling option. There is no additional cost required.
Pre-requisites? None.
Now, keeping in mind all of the above, the scaling costs are not going to be cheap, but when fully implemented it allows for that Conan-like character to wade into battle and wipe out multiple foes every round so that there is still value to adding ranks in a skill once the diminishing returns have dropped to minimal levels. This makes it more beneficial for characters to develop non-spellcasting skills instead of blending into that same multi-profession standard that many HARP characters do once they reach high levels and have all of the talents and effectively max'd out skill progression and have boosted their stats up to 95+ across the board.
-
I like the scaling with benefits idea. this can flesh out skills and combat in addition to styles. MAC is a great resource for this in styles anyway. for combat I look at the arms law martial art attacks with multiple foes, multiple strikes ect and put a rank to achieve the ability and use this for fighters at a higher rank requirement. This makes fighters especially beneficial in combat to take a step up from second fiddle to spell casters due to this potential.
-
Skills would be fun to see a scaling option on them to. Would make for better role playing IMO.
-
From my point of view....
Limited # of skills that can be scaled? No. If you have invested the ranks, you can scale it. Same as with spells.
Limited scaling options? No. If you are at a certain skill level (# of ranks) then you have available any scaling options that can be covered by that many ranks, including the ability to combined scaling options (similar to spells)
Degree of "special" for higher ranks - definitely, but there is nothing special about 10 ranks or any other level. As the number of ranks go up, the scaling gets more powerful - and combining multiple scaling options (multi-attacks, multi-parries, multi-facings, etc) in one attack can give you an incredible action that round, but the scaling costs stack and they bring penalties with them.
DP can be used to add ranks.... once you have the appropriate # of ranks, you have the ability to do the scaling option. There is no additional cost required.
Pre-requisites? None.
Now, keeping in mind all of the above, the scaling costs are not going to be cheap, but when fully implemented it allows for that Conan-like character to wade into battle and wipe out multiple foes every round so that there is still value to adding ranks in a skill once the diminishing returns have dropped to minimal levels. This makes it more beneficial for characters to develop non-spellcasting skills instead of blending into that same multi-profession standard that many HARP characters do once they reach high levels and have all of the talents and effectively max'd out skill progression and have boosted their stats up to 95+ across the board.
These were just ideas for balance issues. I suggested the level limits because I am not trying not to get to far away from the standard already set. That is unless the intention is to change that standard.
But the idea of spending DP's to get more scaling was more in line with new talents unlocking unique or "hidden" scaling options. Whereas there would be the talent and anything it may impart but also the possibility of that talent opening up new scaling options. Which brings into play talents with scaling options, as I mentioned in the 1st post.
One of the things that has always annoyed new players (and was a rule I thought could be changed) was the limited weapon use at first level. That is the first thing new players remark on and I sort of agree with them. I do the like the low cost of the Multiple Weapon Proficiency talent which helps a little but this is something the skill scaling options could replace or add to.
As a side note the spell scaling is unique to HARP (especially the way it is done) and it's what helps set HARP apart from other games. I believe is is something that should be expanded into other areas like skills, talents and maybe even the professions themselves at least as an optional rule.
Bruce
-
I think Skills with complimentary skills at a base rank should be used as a new talent. Tracking 10 with Stalking 5 and Awareness 10 = Silent fast tracking +20 to overcome negatives for tracking at greater than half speed while trying to be quiet (hard or Very Hard Maneuver) or decrease the maneuver one level.
or Weapon skill 10 ranks with Sweeps and Throws 10 ranks to give unbalancing attack followed by weapon strike with prone bonuses.
-
jdael,
I provided the post and example because the HARP boards can be a little slow at times and I simply want to provide some info as to what I have done in the past.
I have at times in the past provided that info on the RMSS/FRP boards.
MDC
-
I am going to use a RMSS: Martial Arts Combat Companion House Rule idea I use.
In RMSS when using Combat Styles from the MAC, I have a house rule that states you gain abilities based on you skill total not as a lump when you just learn the combat style skill. So the skill learner is constantly evolving in what they learn and even at some points they can pick from a set of things to learn.
The main problem I have is I have not hard and set fast rules I can provide you besides I use skill total (before items (unless artifact or special in nature)) as a guide instead of skill ranks as I believe some get more out learning in a set time period then others and some learn less. So right now I generally use 60/80 and 100 or 120 as point where I give the option to learn a special combat ability instead of just getting them for free as are the rules as written.
MDC
I missed this post earlier. I agree there should be some kind of rule regarding when people can gain abilities either based on a base skill total or even a certain skill rank requirement. It's been over a decade since I looked at some of the RM companions, probably longer with the MAC. It has lots of skills and abilities I enjoyed back in the day though I thought it added to many new skills to RM at the time (it already had enough!). Some of those skills can be translated over to HARP and be used as scale options for already present skills much like the idea I have for the options in Martial Law. RM has so much great material that with some work can be used in HARP.
-
As a side note the spell scaling is unique to HARP (especially the way it is done) and it's what helps set HARP apart from other games. I believe is is something that should be expanded into other areas like skills, talents and maybe even the professions themselves at least as an optional rule.
HARN Master has about the same kind of scaling options (in some skill too). However there are only a few options per spell. IMO HARP did it much better. I even considered running game in Harn / western Lythia with HARP.
-
As a side note the spell scaling is unique to HARP (especially the way it is done) and it's what helps set HARP apart from other games. I believe is is something that should be expanded into other areas like skills, talents and maybe even the professions themselves at least as an optional rule.
HARN Master has about the same kind of scaling options (in some skill too). However there are only a few options per spell. IMO HARP did it much better. I even considered running game in Harn / western Lythia with HARP.
I have a friend of mine who absolutely loves the old HARN stuff. I played in his games for a while, but I don't remember that much about the system since it has been a few years since he ran a game. How hard would it be for him to convert his HARN stuff (i.e. modules and such) to use HARP?
-
I think that conversion would be easy as much of material is just description. If one plays low level game even skills are about the same: skill master level (ML) and skill bonus are numerically about the same. HARNMaster is D100 roll under and HARP D100 roll over: ML 80 or skill bonus requires same roll. However in HARN effective master level (EML) is normally lower and some NPC stats etc might be readily be presented in EML. Skills in HM open individually and starting ML might be anything between 20 and 70. If I was running the game I'd multiply NPC EML's and ML's by 1,1 or 1,2. Peasants, laymans and yeomans etc. could keep the ML presented e.g. in manor statistics.
Bigger difficulty would be psions and clerical miracles - however even psions could be converted to magics.
-
Here is something that has bothered me for awhile that I think could be "fixed" with skill scaling options. When it comes to weapons that have two attack types like a bastard sword it doesn't make sense that you have to develop two separate skills to utilize both attack types of such weapons. I believe that the current rule is that they are considered separate categories and therefore do not receive the consideration of "grouped" weapons modifier of only a -20. I don't believe they should not get any negative modifier but it should be about a -10 or no more than a -20. I am not sure if this is an option but I also allow the use of the Multiple Weapon Proficiency (Martial Law talent that is the same as the Multiple Sub skill proficiency but for weapons) with this skill so that one bonus applies to both attack types.
Any thoughts on this?
-
In my concept for scaling skills using a weapon in an alternate technique would have an associated penalty on the attack roll and an additional reduction to the damage delivered.
-
But that would defeat the purpose of using a weapon two handed to do more damage. If you are skilled with a weapon well enough the penalty should not be that difficult. IMHO (and some personal experience) it is easier to use a weapon two handed if you initially trained one handed vice the the other way around.
To be even more honest I don't believe it should be as difficult as it is to be skilled at multiple weapons as it is in HARP. On the flip side games like D&D take it to far by saying things like "they have proficiency in all martial weapons at first level". There should be some kind of middle ground that HARP should be able to fill quite well. Which brings to mind there have been a few perspective players that think the same way, they were tired of D&D's way but did not take to HARP because it was to restrictive.
Yet "Another" idea that has been floating around in my noggin is to add some more starting talents to the professions, like a couple of Multiple Weapon Proficiency's for the warriors and a some level bonuses for mages just as a couple of examples.
-
"To hold the long sword in both hands is not the true Way, for if you carry a bow or spear or other arms in your left hand you have only one hand free for the long sword. However, when it is difficult to cut an enemy down with one hand, you must use both hands."
I agree, it doesn't make sense to have two different skills for wielding the same weapon. I would allow the character to wield a bastard sword with both hands at no penalty, based on one-handed skill.
-
To balance it out they would still receive the init modifier for two handed weapons even when attacking with one hand.
Makes sense. I see a new house rule in development. But could something like this cause balancing issues with HARP?
-
My previous comment was obviously not clear.... that's what I get for writing while on my phone.
The ideas I am playing with hits into some of these topics in a few ways:
1 - Skill is learned by the weapon. If you learn the weapon, you know all of the standard ways to use it. This does NOT mean you can use your longbow as a quarterstaff... but it does mean that your bastard sword can be used as effectively 1-handed or 2-handed. It also means that your ability to use a hand axe covers both 1-handed edge style as well as using it as a thrown weapon. Within a weapon group would be at -20, within a class would be at -40.
2 - Alternate use was a reference to using swords as "clubs" for crush damage instead of slash damage. In that case there would be a -20 on the hit roll, and an additional -20 on the final damage result.
3 - As for the concept of scaling skills related to combat - it's more about replacing combat styles and talents based upon a combination of natural ability (stats) and skill development (skill ranks). Even a newbie picking up a sword with only minimal skill in it can try to do the impossible.... multiple strikes on multiple foes - but they better open end because they won't have much in the way of bonus to start with, and that kind of scaling is going to require a lot of penalties.
-
I understand about posting through a small device, it is annoying at times.
Your weapon skill scaling options makes more sense once you described it a little better. I am thinking about implementing something like that now except I am not sure how bad it will unbalance the game as is.
Does that idea apply to everyone who develops a skill or only Warriors and those who acquire a specific talent like Weapon Specialization at a cost of 5 DP's?
Do you think something like that should also be done for spell casters to help keep the balance?
Bruce
-
For me professions grant favored categories and some abilities but then they are meaningless. So these skill scaling options would apply to everyone.
-
For me professions grant favored categories and some abilities but then they are meaningless. So these skill scaling options would apply to everyone.
I agree. One time bonuses lose their meaning over time. If you don't mind I am going to add this idea to my play test group and see how it works out. It will currently give two of the players (a Fighter and a Warrior Mage) an extra weapon skill as they were developed with weapons that have two functions (a bastard Sword and a Claymore) where I gave them the MWP so they could use them both ways.
Another thing I started working on awhile back is adding some more options for racial talents. I had written down all the racial talents from a Pathfinder book I had and was using them for ideas to add some new select-able options for all the races. I might dig that out and see if any of it still makes sense.
-
Thom, in using a weapon like a claymore, you could use it one and two handed effectively the same. How would you handle it if someone choose Multiple Weapon Proficiency with that skill? Would they have to choose either one or two handed or actually have to choose another multi-use weapon?
-
A side question is not a claymore by definition a 2H weapon? Or are you saying that a giant or other such creature is using it 1H and then 2H? Or maybe a creature with 4 arms with each set using a claymore.
Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore
Also as you can see from the article that in later times a borad sword was called a claymore but it was in fact not the 2H variety but a broad sword that just that adopted or called by a new name.
MDC
-
A claymore in HARP is designated the same as a bastard sword and can be used one or two handed.
Though in truth longs words were exactly the same thing but people tended to use them two handed. But the way I see it is that what fantasy games call a bastard sword is in fact what the real world calls a long sword. The claymore is a somewhat of an anomaly the way I see it and from the videos they are pretty much the same as the bastard sword (fantasy) only with a more effective hilt and a slightly longer handle.
On thing I am thinking of doing is giving the two handed only weapons a slight advantage vrs the heavier armors when compared to the bastard type weapons (use either one or two handed).
Bruce
-
The Claymore is the scotish varient of the two handed sword. Though, historically it is also seen that claymore was often used to refer to all Scotish swords..
claidheamh-mòr typically in Gaelic translates to broadsword
claidheamh dà làimh translates to Two-handed Sword
claidheamh-beag translates to Bilbo (yes I find it funny that this is the name of a charcter in LOTR)
claidheamh-cùil translates to Backsword (A single edged one handed sword )
claidheamh-crom translates to Crooked sword seemed to refer to a Saber
claidheamh-caol translates to Narrow Sword which seems to refer to a rapier.
-
Interesting to know Warl.
The "bastard" version of the claymore that I have seen still has the same basic blade and hilt design only it is shorter, about the length of a real longsword.
-
Not trying to continue the derailing of this thread but,
Again, the Term Longsword was never used historically. It is a Modern Term. (Modern meaning within the last 100 years)
Also, the weapons that this term was applied to by historians was referring to typically two handed swords. The length and style of what was Considered a "Long Sword", or two handed sword, was some what different between scholars, but most seemed to agree that they were referring to swords that were designed to be used in 2 hands, not 1.
There were a very few scholars that used the Term "longsword" to refer to both 1 handed and 2 handed swords , Often the Blade lengths were similar between these weapons, but only the grip was different between the weapons. It was even noted by a few scholars that dating these weapons was often difficult due to the fact that some Blades were forged in one period and passed down for over a hundred years and had new Handles, some times longer handles other times shorter handles, put on the older blades.
Ewart Oakeshott was one of the foremost of these scholars and created a "Typing" system for swords, instead of using names of swords which he found inconsistent because the same name could be found historically referring to several different types of blades or swords.
So the term "Long Sword" By modern terminology referred generally to all blades of a certain length range which might have been used 1 handed but more specifically and more commonly referred to two handed Swords.
As I mentioned some where else on this forum, perhaps in this thread, RPGs have misused the term Longsword.
-
Ha, RPG's have misused a lot of things. From longswords to the effectiveness of armor and how hard it was to move around in. But it's all in the name of great game play.
In some ways I am trying to alleviate that with my combat system. Though to keep things familiar I will still probably use the same old names like long sword and so on.
-
true, but it would be nice to see a game system correct such things and try to get it more right.
I mean, at least RM got the image of a War Hammer correct, instead of calling it by it's other name, Military Pick, and then creating a new Sledge hammer style War hammer.
-
My bad I thought that RM and HARP had the same weapon descriptions throughout and it has been a while since I played HARP and even then we switched out the combat system to RMSS ArmsLaw fairly quickly after we started.
Yes I agree with all of the comments about Long Swords and the more commonly accepted name now of Arming Sword and how a lot of weapon typing and names have changed with the advent of P&P RPG's and computer RPG's.
MDC
-
Thom, in using a weapon like a claymore, you could use it one and two handed effectively the same. How would you handle it if someone choose Multiple Weapon Proficiency with that skill? Would they have to choose either one or two handed or actually have to choose another multi-use weapon?
Assuming you are referring to the stuff I am playing around with on the side....
If they have primary weapon claymore you can use it equally well as 1H or 2H.
You do have state which weapon group is "standard", but you get the claymore for both styles free.
Multiple Weapon Proficiency can add another primary weapon within the same standard weapon group.
Claymore (Long Blades) is your standard - you get claymore anyway you want at full strength.
Multiple Weapon Prof - you add another long blade weapon at full strength
Long Blades (other than the ones you selected) are at -20
As I said - still a work in progress
-
what I have done in my game is give the player 1 similar weapon added into a skill for every 5 ranks Developed.
-
Yes Thom, that is exactly what I was asking. Your solution above is how I thought to handle it but I wanted to see if you had a different idea.
In the combat system I am developing the different types of "long swords" (fantasy derived definition) and other weapons with similar stats will have a better difference between them. As it is right now there is no difference between a bastard type of weapon and using it either one or two handed and using a normal "long sword" or a two handed sword. That is except the bastard weapons can be used either way to the same effectiveness. My combat system offers a little more variety and there are advantages and disadvantages when using a bastard sword when compared to either a long sword or a two handed sword.
-
Bruce - Sounds interesting...
In response to Warl - I don't believe characters need additional weapon bonuses (effectively a +20 to a weapon for every 5 ranks for free). The Multiple Weapon Proficiency is not that expensive, make them pay for it.
5 DP used on the weapon = 2.5 or 1.25 Ranks = 12.5 or 6.25 Bonus (and then consider the declining ROI)
5 DP used on Multiple Weapon Proficiency = +20
Develop skill in a single weapon (Claymore)
* Use of another weapon in the same Weapon Group (Long Blades) is at -20
* Use of another weapon in the Blades Class (includes Long Blades, Short Blades, Great Blades) is at -40
Now comes the sacrilege that I have not said aloud as of yet....
Get rid of the declining ROI for skill development. Every Rank grants the same bonus.
(Simplicity and promotes continued development)
That gives people the motivation to keep developing the skill beyond 20 Ranks
With declining ROI you pretty much max out at 20 Ranks and then focus on other things where the benefit is better.
But you hit 20 Ranks at 6th level (which for RM may be decent level, but for High Adventure HARP it is still low level)
That incredible musketeer swordsman can now have 40 ranks and be twice as good as the 20 rank guy - instead of only +90 compared to +70 (only 29% better). This is HARP - where a high level warrior should be able to wade through an army of his foes, slashing heads off left and right...
-
I agree but also slightly disagree. I think there should be some kind of decline in bonus. The way I look at it is it gets harder to develop a skill the better you get at it. Not to mention that with HARP's current combat system it won't matter if you have armor or not at some point because the overall weapon bonuses will diminish the armor's effectiveness to nothing. Now I know this will also add to the need to parry but armor should still play a role of some kind and you can't parry area effect damage. Imagine a mage with 50 ranks in fireball, which in your idea would give him a base +250 for his attack roll. Can anyone say "toasty"! Now I do think the current progression of 5/2/1 is a little low. I played with the idea a little in the past but haven't thought about it in awhile. Something like 5/3/2 might be a better option or even changing when the progression diminishes from every 10 levels to maybe every 15 with the 5/3/2 progression or every 20 with the official progression. With either of those the resulting bonus at 40 ranks is the same at an OB of 140. But mine progresses a little better after that.
The combat system I am developing has an option for armor damage where armor doesn't provide a bonus to OB but it does have a base damage reduction and a crit level reduction. Remember in my combat system I use the crit charts from RM. Where something like full plate can reduce the crit level of an attack by 3 or 4 levels, e.g.an "E" crit would become an "A" or "B" crit. This part of my combat system is yet untested as I haven't worked out all the details.
Also with the idea I've been toying with and what this thread is about that when you have scaling options at higher levels it gives incentive to keep increasing ranks just to get the better stunts/feats/perks for the skill you are developing.
Another thing I have with HARP I believe can be improved upon is that it seems easier to develop or gain a much better OB over time including options from talents but it is much harder to gain options for DB unless you find magical armor.
Bruce
-
Armor is less effective against a highly skilled warrior, and eventually it doesn't matter how much armor you are wearing if the foe is skilled enough.
Note - I did not say +5 per rank.... I said equal. I like having higher level characters so the bonus per rank would likely be less. Why not simplify at +1 per rank... and while you are at it 1 rank costs 1DP, unless it is a favored skill in which case you get 2 ranks per DP, and limit it at 5 DP per skill each level gain. But wait... I just eliminated 3 charts that add complexity to HARP and make character creation more daunting.
As for magic, I personally don't believe that having more ranks in fireball should give you a greater "hit/damage" roll. Instead it should allow you to cast a bigger fireball (step progression by size/scaling). If Joe Apprentice casts a medium size fireball or Merliln casts a medium size fireball - the effect is the same, only the likelihood of successfully casting it changes. If you want to cast a medium size fireball, but make it dragon breath hot - it's more difficult to do and costs more power - but it doesn't matter who actually cast the spell, the result is the same.
Criticals and combat damage.... I'll save that for another time.
Improving defense or offense is just as easy, and except for special abilities gained from physical, mental or mystical traits... forget about talents. But then again... it's still a work in progress.
-
It actually sounds like you want to redesign the entire HARP system. It sounds interesting but does go beyond the scope of the things I am trying to do.
In relation, I once had to design my own system because I had no books but people still wanted to play what I told them about HARP. Since I could not remember all the stats for HARP I designed my own stat system which consequently worked very well, was easier for new comers to understand, and made more sense. I used a system of 9 stats based on sets of 3. The only part I had difficulty doing was balancing out what stats applied to what skills. We had a great time playing for about 3 months or so until duty called. This is where my combat system along with my AP system had been used exclusively. Everything ran great though once I got back home and was able go through my books and research more stuff on the internet I realized where most of my flaws were. Since then I have tweaked and adjust my system and have already play tested the combat system though not for long and it worked great. The AP system is another story and I will hopefully get to playtesting that as soon as the group I am running gets used to the HARP rules as is.
Bruce
-
Keep in mind that this is only stuff I am playing around with, so yes, there are some pretty major departures from HARP - and also keep in mind that I did not come up through Rolemaster, I cam over from D&D to HARP. I've played RM a few times, but much prefer HARP over it, and beyond that I believe in greater distance between the two rather than less.
-
Cool, it's great to see someone that never played RM but has played HARP have ideas like this. You can give a better perspective from a differing game point of view than someone like me. Though I was raised on D&D I started moving away from it in about 1984 when I discovered RM. I went to RM exclusively in 1990 and switched to HARP when it came out. So my D&D experience is limited to 2nd ed and lower though I have some Pathfinder in there and 5th ed more recently.
In relation to the discussion above I am developing one of the pre-gens (Warrior Mage) to second level. In this since I made the house rule that he can use the claymore both one and two handed with the same skill he had a free MWP slot from first level. So I added the twin bladed sword as his MWP. I also decided to give him the Double Weapon style for use with that weapon.
Would it be feasible for the warrior mage to develop the Double Weapon style and use the MWP with it so they could use it for the same weapons they have with the MWP for "Great Blades"?
It kind of makes sense based on how it MWP works as is. But would like other opinions.
Bruce
-
I think that conversion would be easy as much of material is just description. If one plays low level game even skills are about the same: skill master level (ML) and skill bonus are numerically about the same. HARNMaster is D100 roll under and HARP D100 roll over: ML 80 or skill bonus requires same roll. However in HARN effective master level (EML) is normally lower and some NPC stats etc might be readily be presented in EML. Skills in HM open individually and starting ML might be anything between 20 and 70. If I was running the game I'd multiply NPC EML's and ML's by 1,1 or 1,2. Peasants, laymans and yeomans etc. could keep the ML presented e.g. in manor statistics.
Bigger difficulty would be psions and clerical miracles - however even psions could be converted to magics.
Thanks for the info. I will pass this along. Hopefully he will be able to get a game going using HARN.
-
Thom, I strongly agree with you about changing bonus gain progression. Decreasing gain is ok, but it is far too rapid and dramatic. How many higher level, lets say 20th, level characters would put max points into a weapon. 60 potential levels for 120 DP, but a base bonus 110.... not great compared to 30 levels for +80 but half the DP. High level characters all become sort of generalists, and it is a bit boring.
-
Using the parameters I listed, the 20th level fighter focusing on his sword skills (or archer focusing on his bow) would have:
Old Method - 63 ranks = 126 DP spent = +113 bonus
Proposed - 200 ranks = 100 DP spent = +200 bonus
The proposed method is far simpler to calculate, continues to encourage development, and allows for high level bonus results for characters who really stick with their favorite skills.
Now when you say, yes you can fire 3 arrows at the same time, but each one after the first adds a -20 penalty to all (therefore 3 means -40 on all 3 shots) and firing at 3 different targets means again -20 penalty for each target after the first (another -40 for all 3 shots), and rapid draw/load (-20 for each arrow beyond the first) = -40, and load and fire in the same round = -20....
-40-40-40-20 = -140..... For that 20th level character, he now has a +60 bonus on his quick draw, three target, three arrow shots. Each shot still resolves independently.
Even the 1st level archer can try it, but at first level he's only got a +10 bonus, so unless he way open ends on all 3, he doesn't stand a chance.
-
In relation to the discussion above I am developing one of the pre-gens (Warrior Mage) to second level. In this since I made the house rule that he can use the claymore both one and two handed with the same skill he had a free MWP slot from first level. So I added the twin bladed sword as his MWP. I also decided to give him the Double Weapon style for use with that weapon.
Would it be feasible for the warrior mage to develop the Double Weapon style and use the MWP with it so they could use it for the same weapons they have with the MWP for "Great Blades"?
It kind of makes sense based on how it MWP works as is. But would like other opinions.
-
I don't see any reason why that wouldn't work. I'm not a big fan of using two great blades at once, but would not object.
-
I think exotic weapons add some flavor to a game system and the twin bladed sword is definitely an exotic weapon. The only thing with that weapon is the stats listed are the same as any other great blade. I am thinking of increasing the fumble range up one but it is already 01-04. I know that in the combat system I am developing this weapon will be slower than just about any other great blade because it is such a big weapon and somewhat not as safe as the others.
-
I think exotic weapons add some flavor to a game system and the twin bladed sword is definitely an exotic weapon. The only thing with that weapon is the stats listed are the same as any other great blade. I am thinking of increasing the fumble range up one but it is already 01-04. I know that in the combat system I am developing this weapon will be slower than just about any other great blade because it is such a big weapon and somewhat not as safe as the others.
If your talking about a twin balded sword with blades on both ends al-la Darth Maul?
Then what is the point of it being slower? Isn't the point of having multiple striking ends to attack more often as well as to make it more like a staff for defense?
I agree that the fumble range would need to be increased, as, unlike the staff, it is a bit more dangerous to handle and hitting yourself with the ends is more like to cause injury than bruising. But it should attack a bit more often.
The other balancing factor I would ass, if the game system allowed it, would be to make developing the weapon more costly, as the style is a bit more "advanced".
-
In general for multiple attacks I would prefer to see 2 attacks every 3 rounds or so vs 2 attacks every round, with penalties in every round and if you do not do the round of 1 attack you do not get a round of 2 attacks.
I could also see a maneuver roll of some sort at the beginning of the round to see if you can take 2 attacks that round and even if you fail the MM roll you get the penalty to attack as you tried to do something besides the simplest solution.
MDC
-
If your talking about a twin balded sword with blades on both ends al-la Darth Maul?
Then what is the point of it being slower? Isn't the point of having multiple striking ends to attack more often as well as to make it more like a staff for defense?
I agree that the fumble range would need to be increased, as, unlike the staff, it is a bit more dangerous to handle and hitting yourself with the ends is more like to cause injury than bruising. But it should attack a bit more often.
The other balancing factor I would ass, if the game system allowed it, would be to make developing the weapon more costly, as the style is a bit more "advanced".
Well this is HARP, though it is the combat system I am developing it is still the same skill system.
I believe the weapon would be slower without the use of the combat style Double Weapon, which allows you to use the multiple attack points of a weapon. The cost for the weapon is effectively doubled if you want to use it to its fullest potential which would be with the combat style otherwise you can only make one attack per round. In the combat system I am developing there are Action Points (AP) where each weapon has a modifier to the base AP cost for a melee attack. In the Two bladed sword example (yes, think Darth Maul) the weapon would be unwieldy and probably about 20% (or so) slower than the average attack speed of melee weapons, but if you develop the Double Weapon style the one attack would happen at the half the AP cost (about 60%) and the final attack would happen at the end (full AP cost), giving the illusion that it is a faster weapon.
Though I am thinking of making it so the first attack happens at the 120% mark then every attack after that is at 50% attack speed of the weapon (as long as you use the double weapon style).
Bruce
-
In general for multiple attacks I would prefer to see 2 attacks every 3 rounds or so vs 2 attacks every round, with penalties in every round and if you do not do the round of 1 attack you do not get a round of 2 attacks.
I could also see a maneuver roll of some sort at the beginning of the round to see if you can take 2 attacks that round and even if you fail the MM roll you get the penalty to attack as you tried to do something besides the simplest solution.
MDC
In the combat system I am developing it allows for anyone to get slightly faster at attacking in the higher developed weapons, without the penalty. Now you can still use the standard rules from HARP with my system where any other extra attacks receive all the normal penalties. Like the monk's multiple attacks guidelines, which in this case would not apply to the faster attacks based on better skill levels. But the monk would still get the mods based on if they wanted to make extra attacks or extra opponents except these attacks would happen slightly faster the higher the skills are developed.
Bruce