Topic: Making Halfling and Gnome small sized creatures

[dagorhir]

What would be needed to re-balance the Halfling and Gnome races if I add the Shrink talent to make them small size?
Both of these races are considered small in my setting. It essentially affects which weapons they can use one-handed.

The same question would apply to the Kobold, which is also considered small in my setting.

[Thom @ ICE]

To make them small costs 10 DP so you need to reduce their starting DP by 10.

They gain a -1 to ST Bonus, +5 to QU Bonus, +5 to Stalking skill and their base racial Endurance is multiplied by a factor of 75%. 

For Halfling -
ST goes from -2 to -3
QU goes from +4 to +9
Stalking gets a +5
Endurance goes from 35 to 28

For Gnome -
ST goes from 0 to -1
QU goes from +2 to +7
Stalking gets a +5
Endurance goes from 25 to 19

[dagorhir]

Perhaps also replacing the talents to cover the DP cost of Shrink could be done also.

Shrink could replace Blazing Speed for Halflings.

What's the DP cost of Natural Camouflage?

Alternatively, Gnomes could drop Sense Magic (15) and Dark Vision (Lesser) (20) and replace them with Night Vision (25) and Shrink (10). That amounts to the same total DPs.

Both races would keep to 3 talents and wouldn't have any reduction in starting DPs.

[Thom @ ICE]

Natural Camouflage is 20.
Your proposal seems to work all around.

[Bruce]

This is actually a good idea. There were some things with the Haflings small size that kind of bothered me when it came to interaction and equipment usage.

Bruce

[dagorhir]

Natural Camouflage is 20.
Your proposal seems to work all around.

Excellent, that's how it's going to be for Halflings and Gnomes in my setting.

I will also replace Blazing Speed with Shrink for Kobolds to get them to small size.

 

[dagorhir]

What is the DP cost of Enlarge (Minor)?

[Thom @ ICE]

From memory I believe it i0 
Will confirm after my fight lands.

[dagorhir]

From memory I believe it i0 
Will confirm after my fight lands.

Is that 80 or 10?

10 isn't enough and 80 seems a bit steep for Enlarge (minor). I would have expected something more in the range of 40 or 50.

[Thom @ ICE]

Sorry about that - it is 10.
 Enlarge (Minor) gives +5 to ST, -1 to QU, -5 to Stalking and +50% on base Endurance

[Thom @ ICE]

There is a significant advantage to being larger in terms of combat, but also drawbacks in terms of being able to hide/stalk and quickness.
There is a significant advantage to being smaller in terms of hiding, evading and moving, but drawbacks in terms of strength and damage absorption.

[dagorhir]

Since I would like to replace the Giantism talent, which cost 25 DP and adds only +5 to ST, by Enlarge (Minor), it seems like a very cheap talent.

It the case of my house rules, large size also allows the creature/character to use large weapons one-handed and huge weapons two-handed. This does increase the damage potential of having large size.

Anyway, if it's 10DP officially that's what I'll go for.

[Thom @ ICE]

The costs were generated based upon the combination of +/- for the 4 categories.  We may have been a bit generous on this, but that's what went into the rules and was playtested in the creation of various creatures so it is official and very unlikely to change.


Weapon attacks are classified based upon the size of the weapon. Using it 2-handed increases the attack size by 1 level and the fumble by 1%.
A giant using a human-sized claymore as a 1-handed weapon is a medium attack.
A giant using a human-sized claymore as a 2-handed weapon is a large attack.
A giant using a giant-sized claymore as a 1-handed weapon is a large attack.
A giant using a giant-sized claymore as a 2-handed weapon is a huge attack.


If a giant is using a human-sized battle axe 1-handed it should be a medium attack (1 step lower than wielding it 2-h).
A giant should not be able to use a giant-sized battle axe 1-handed, but when wielding it 2-handed they wield it as a huge attack.


Does that make sense?

[dagorhir]

It does make sense but it does not represent my experience with medieval weapons. With hand weapons, the size of the wielder does make a difference because they get better leverage on the weapon.

At 5'9", I actually have considerable difficulty using a claymore one-handed. But my 6'6" fiends does not. It simply comes down to the ratio between the height of the wielder and the length of the weapon.

With a claymore, two-handed, I strike between 380 and 450 lbs of force. My 6'6" friend will strike between 220 and 350 lbs one handed. I don't even get to 200. This is simply because of his height and mass. It's easier for him to move the weapon. He struck at over 500 lbs two handed. And he's not that much stronger than I am oddly enough and only 20 pounds heavier last we checked.

After 7 years of practicing martial arts with medieval weapons I've come to the conclusion that a larger person could potentially use a two handed weapon (for average size individual) one handed with the same amount of force because of the greater leverage that person has on the weapon.

The reverse goes for smaller individuals. Anyone under 5'2" would never be able to use a claymore one handed. The weapon is simply too large. And with their reduced leverage on the weapon, the amount of force they can put in the weapon is also effectively reduced.

The claymore we use is 47.25" in length from tip to pummel. It weighs about 2 pounds. The pummel reaches the bottom portion of my sternum. Technically, that is a two-handed weapon for me. And considering how unwieldy it is one handed re-enforces this with me.

This is the basis of my house rule:

A creature/character can use a weapon of equal size or small one handed and one size larger two handed. The size of the attack depends on the size of the weapon. Some weapon fit within two size categories, they can be used one handed as the lower size category and two handed at the higher size category.

As example of Medium-Large weapons:
Bastard Sword, Long Sword, Claymore, Katana and Spear.

Small creatures would use these weapons two handed as medium weapons. Although I wonder how a 32" tall Halfling would manage with a 47.25" long sword, but I don't want to go down to that level of detail. But an Ogre would pickup the same weapon and would make a large attack.

Better leverage goes a long way.

So I will leave Giantism at 25 DP but it will essentially be the same as Enlarge (Minor). In the case where a character with a race that has Shrink (i.e. Halfling and Gnome), it will cancel out Shrink and become Medium size creature.

As a little historical note: the claymore and the long sword are essentially the same weapon. The bastard sword (or hand and half sword) is the precursor to the long sword, a broad sword with a longer grip of sorts.

[Bruce]

But my 6'6" fiends

You have 6'6" fiends?....wow.
Joking aside, dagorhir I agree with your views above. Once long ago my friends and I decided to make our own RPG with more realism. After some considerable time and thought, we decided that our RPG would be volumes thick and to rules heavy to be a playable game. Rolemaster was the next best thing and even better it is playable....lol.
Unfortunately HARP is by no means (nor is it meant to be) as complex as Rolemaster . HARP is meant to be a much more simple game than RM. Therefore the rules have to be simple even at the slight loss of realism.  I think your house rules below would work great as an optional rule for RM, and they probably work great for your game at home. Heck (different expletive), they might work for some other HARP games out there. But for HARP in general, it might add a little bit of unneeded complexity.
Just my 2 cents....which really isn't worth much.

Bruce

P.S. I'm talking about simplicity and my AP system is turning out to be a little more complex than I'd like for HARP. Then again it is "simply" the changes to the rules to make an AP system work smoothly.

[RandalThor]

The costs were generated based upon the combination of +/- for the 4 categories.  We may have been a bit generous on this, but that's what went into the rules and was playtested in the creation of various creatures so it is official and very unlikely to change.


Weapon attacks are classified based upon the size of the weapon. Using it 2-handed increases the attack size by 1 level and the fumble by 1%.
A giant using a human-sized claymore as a 1-handed weapon is a medium attack.
A giant using a human-sized claymore as a 2-handed weapon is a large attack.
A giant using a giant-sized claymore as a 1-handed weapon is a large attack.
A giant using a giant-sized claymore as a 2-handed weapon is a huge attack.


If a giant is using a human-sized battle axe 1-handed it should be a medium attack (1 step lower than wielding it 2-h).
A giant should not be able to use a giant-sized battle axe 1-handed, but when wielding it 2-handed they wield it as a huge attack.


Does that make sense?

Nope.

The way I have always seen it is, a 2-Handed Weapon (meaning it is built so that a normal human needs 2 hands to use it properly) is considered 1 size category larger is because it is just that, larger. Now, in your example, a giant can use it in one hand because a giant is much bigger than a (regular) human, but if a (regular) human tried to use it one-handed, then they would suffer a negative OB modifier. Though, I guess it would still be considered large, because the weapon doesn't change size when there is only one hand holding it.

Using the number of hands holding a weapon to determine its size is really out of this world. Does that mean a Marilith holding a weapon with 3 hands make the weapon 2 sizes larger? How about 4 hands? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The weapon itself dictates its size; the holder dictates the skill and strength (i.e., OB). 

[Thom @ ICE]

In HARP a medium sized creature (which includes a 4'-6' shoulder height biped) wields any of the 1H/2H weapons, they treat them the same - a 1H attack is Medium, a 2H attack is large.  Those are the published rules. I simply showed how to expand that to weapons and creatures sized other than medium.


Dagorhir - If you want to add complexity to your game, go ahead, but realize that HARP rules will not include that degree of complexity.  Not every bastard sword is the same length, and


RandalThor - If you insist a 2H wielded bastard sword should not be one size category larger, than I'm surprised you haven't been complaining about that all along. It's been clearly documented in the rules all along. There is no OB penalty for using it in 1H despite your comments.   Your Marilith example is just argumentative and irrelevant to these comments as no one (neither the rules themselves, or my clarification of the rules) comments beyond 2H use of the weapon.  If you want to say that in your house rules you won't do that, go ahead - but please don't tell me "Nope" when I am citing specific rules that are clearly documented in the book.

[dagorhir]

But my 6'6" fiends

You have 6'6" fiends?....wow.
Joking aside, dagorhir I agree with your views above. Once long ago my friends and I decided to make our own RPG with more realism. After some considerable time and thought, we decided that our RPG would be volumes thick and to rules heavy to be a playable game. Rolemaster was the next best thing and even better it is playable....lol.
Unfortunately HARP is by no means (nor is it meant to be) as complex as Rolemaster . HARP is meant to be a much more simple game than RM. Therefore the rules have to be simple even at the slight loss of realism.  I think your house rules below would work great as an optional rule for RM, and they probably work great for your game at home. Heck (different expletive), they might work for some other HARP games out there. But for HARP in general, it might add a little bit of unneeded complexity.
Just my 2 cents....which really isn't worth much.

Bruce

P.S. I'm talking about simplicity and my AP system is turning out to be a little more complex than I'd like for HARP. Then again it is "simply" the changes to the rules to make an AP system work smoothly.

My weapon size rule is actually as simplified as it can get. It also works a lot better in Harp then it does in RM.

In HARP a medium sized creature (which includes a 4'-6' shoulder height biped) wields any of the 1H/2H weapons, they treat them the same - a 1H attack is Medium, a 2H attack is large.  Those are the published rules. I simply showed how to expand that to weapons and creatures sized other than medium.


Dagorhir - If you want to add complexity to your game, go ahead, but realize that HARP rules will not include that degree of complexity.  Not every bastard sword is the same length, and

I understand the published rules and it intent. I'm just trying to adapt them to get a extra degree of realism without unbalancing the system. So far it appears to work great with Harp. But those are my house rules for my game.

The way I have always seen it is, a 2-Handed Weapon (meaning it is built so that a normal human needs 2 hands to use it properly) is considered 1 size category larger is because it is just that, larger. Now, in your example, a giant can use it in one hand because a giant is much bigger than a (regular) human, but if a (regular) human tried to use it one-handed, then they would suffer a negative OB modifier. Though, I guess it would still be considered large, because the weapon doesn't change size when there is only one hand holding it.

Using the number of hands holding a weapon to determine its size is really out of this world. Does that mean a Marilith holding a weapon with 3 hands make the weapon 2 sizes larger? How about 4 hands? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The weapon itself dictates its size; the holder dictates the skill and strength (i.e., OB). 

It's not just the size of the weapon but the leverage you have with the weapon. The extra leverage you get when using a weapon two handed depends on the size of the grip. The more distance you get between the hands the more leverage you get on the weapon. A bastard sword has about the same length as a broad sword, but it has a must larger grip. This allows a two handed user to have better leverage and put more energy in the blows. Using a broad sword two handed amounts to a power strike.

Also, my rapier (yes, I actually own real swords) is about the same length as my long sword (which I almost always use two handed). I can't use the rapier two handed, it just doesn't work.

There's nothing worst then sparing with my 6'6" friend using sword and shield. I use a broad sword and he's using a 47" long sword. He has a distinctive advantage of using a two handed weapon one handed which he can do because he that tall.

As for my game, if I throw an Ogre wielding a two handed sword one handed they won't be surprise. They expect large creatures would be using larger weapons. After all, a two handed sword is simply a large broad sword.

[Thom @ ICE]

I understand the published rules and it intent. I'm just trying to adapt them to get a extra degree of realism without unbalancing the system. So far it appears to work great with Harp. But those are my house rules for my game.

Well, that's good then. Best of luck with that house rule. I hope my clarification of the weapon damages for the rules helped, but if not then that's OK also.  Make your game the best that you can.  Enjoy!

[dagorhir]

I understand the published rules and it intent. I'm just trying to adapt them to get a extra degree of realism without unbalancing the system. So far it appears to work great with Harp. But those are my house rules for my game.

Well, that's good then. Best of luck with that house rule. I hope my clarification of the weapon damages for the rules helped, but if not then that's OK also.  Make your game the best that you can.  Enjoy!

So far so good with my house rules governing weapon size. The only issue was the size of the Gnomes and Halflings and that is settled.