I have a couple of questions regarding HARP balance and whether others have had similar experiences as our group has. (I've made several of these over the last week - dont take that as criticism, merely trying to get the best out of the best system I've found too date..
)
There seem to be some talents which are almost required. I cant imagine playing a high level spell caster without eloquence, nor a high level warrior without instinctive defence or an archer without speed loader. I always get concerned when an RPG contains an element which becomes mandatory for all characters (or all within some subgroup) as it suggests to me that the option is unbalanced - I like those options to involve weighing pros and cons as imo it makes characters more diverse and interesting. I'm wondering whether the cost for either of these should be higher, or whether their efficacy should be reduced...
To focus on just one: Eloquence is the one I've really noticed - +25 to all spell casting is a pretty huge advantage, the only drawback being you're about one level behind other casters in development of other skills. As the casters advance in levels, this becomes less and less of a cost (as that extra level has only gained the diversified mages twenty extra ranks in spells or other skills) while the benefit becomes greater and greater (as the high level mages gain access to more and more spells). In addition, once mages begin scaling by say +15 or +20 Power Points it becomes almost impossible without eloquence due to the decline in return on investment from developing skills.
I've toyed with limiting eloquence to only a few spells (perhaps 1 spell per 5DPs or something). Alternatively allowing the eloquent mage to cast spells as if they had 5 extra ranks or something. I'd be curious if anyone else has found similar problems with the system or if you think I'm just making problems where there arent any...
