Topic: Problems with HARP

[Ecthelion]

Hi Islan,
I think you misread the elemental bolt scaling options. The +2 PP increase do not give you +10 OB. It allows you to increase the attack size of your bolt. That is, your OB is decreased by 10 (+2PP = -10 spell casting) as you said. However, your attack gains a potentially greater impact as each attack size is associated with a damage cap.
Tiny attacks are limited to a 80 crit, small attacks to 90, medium = 100, large = 110 and huge = 120.

Not entirely off, it seems to me.  When you upgrade it's damage size, sure you're increasing your damage cap by 10 but that'll only matter if you hit you damage cap, and otherwise the increase of damage size translates to just a base +10 to the roll.

Of course a spell caster should only increase the damage cap if he is confident that he will most likely do damage beyond the lesser damage cap. So he can decide whether to either shoot e.g. a precise Tiny bolt with his maximum OB or perhaps a Medium bolt with less OB but the potential to do more damage. But I don't think that is a flaw of the system but rather a flavour.

I think you're looking at it wrong.   Take two characters each with an OB of 100 and enough in their amor skill to wear any type of armor to full potential.

Character A, wearing Soft Leather armor, would get a +20 DB and a +100 OB.

Character B, wearing Plate armor, would get a +60 DB and a +80 OB.

Character A would need to devote 40 points of his OB to get the same DB as Character B which would bring him down to an OB of 60.  Character B has the same DB and a higher OB without even devoting any of his OB to DB.

Ah, but Character A would need to spend much fewer DP's in the Armor skill than Character B.  These extra DP's can instead be spent on other things to increase the DB (and OB), such as Talents.

For DPs beyond the first 10 ranks I would agree. But for a 1st level Fighter it is relatively easy to get to a bonus in his Armor skill of +50 which enables him to wear Chain Armor and get a decent +40 to his DB, +30 perhaps if he has good Qu bonus and if we take the maneuver penalty to DB into account. The advantage is that this bonus also counts against surprise attacks and attacks from the side or rear. For 10-12 DPs (many Cultures have a rank in their Armor skill) you will have a hard time finding a Talent that grants this advantage.

[Ecthelion]

I should just sum-up to say that, while armor may have benefits, they seem highly questionable.

Is this so different from RM? 

Indeed, I can't help but feeling the benefits from a lot of things (such as scaling) is questionable, so that you don't know if you're actually playing better or worse than you did before.

I'd suggest to give the system a chance. After the first session you'll know more whether your feelings are true. I also came from RM and was positively surprised after our first HARP session.

[bunny]

I think you may be looking at both issues (armor vs scaling benefits) from the point of view of a low level character. Early on, you may be right that the benefits are negligible. Try and advance your character to tenth level or something (or even only 5th) and see if you still think the same.

Considereing the spell scaling first - by the time you reach higher levels, with high skill abilities in spell casting, eloquence, good stats, etcetera you are not going to be interested in making +180 tiny attacks and hearing the 80 critical result for the millionth time. It's true that a 1st or 2nd level spellcaster isnt going to get a lot of benefit scaling (though the potential exists on a good roll) but that seems to create a good progression for the spellcasters (our 10th level mage now has an awesome earth ball attack, he regularly scales it to huge and can do an awful amount of damage to lightly armored opponents, bringing us to the second point...)

You are underestimating the value of armor by equating the db from armor with the db from parry. It's true the guy clanking around in platemail doesnt have the finesse of the unarmored guy, but the armor db is massively superior to the parry db:

It applies in surprise situations
It applies against multiple opponents - this is very important!
It applies against missile attacks, some spell attacks

Again, I'd advise looking at a tenth level character - the warrior in armor is going to be able to fight a few low level critters without too much trouble (provided they dont get lucky). The warrior without armor is going to be easily overcome.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

islan, I purposely decided to wait a while before answering your initial post. Figuring that other would chime in and they have.

If I may, it seems that part of trouble that you are having with HARP comes from the mindset with which you approached the game. It seems (and obviously I could be wrong here), that you came to HARP with the mindset that it would work much on the same principles that D&D did. That higher versions of something was ALWAYS going to be a benefit.

That better armor was always going to be better than lesser armors in all ways. That scaling up a spell would always mean more damage, etc...

Sorry, but that is not the case. HARP is more of a game of potentials than absolutes.

You have to keep in mind that characters will continue to better their skills. This means that lower level character will use the lesser armors and move up as they get more skilled in moving in armor. Of course, their OBs are going up as well, and this increases their potential DBs overall. The actual increases are small overall, but the potentials continue to rise.

Elemental Bolts - yes, you get a minus to casting when you scale up, but your scaling up for the potential to do more damage. There is not, and never will be a guarantee that you will do more damage when you scale something up.

You don't scale? You max out at 80 on the crit table, no matter how well you roll. You scale up one level, you can now max out at 90. But you don't know what you will roll when you do that, so you take a chance. However, when you make any attack, regardless of scaling, you don't know IF you will hit or how well you will do when you declare the attack. Scaling up a spell does not change that.

In D&D, you knew that IF you hit, you would do x dice of damage. And you had 2 different rolls to determine that. In HARP, how much damage you do is determined by how well you hit. By scaling up a spell you create the potential to hit better overall.

If you are coming from D&D, you might want to check out the Damage Dice option (HARPer's Bazaar #4) as it is actually something of a middle ground between HARPs crit tables and D&D's damage rules. Using this option, when you scale up an attack, you actually increase the dice size rolled to determine damage. (i.e. tiny = d6; small = d8, etc..). This might be a good way for you to start out.

Clerics -- clerics ignoring armor for casting spells is a D&Dism (and to some extent a RMism as well). However,  (as one person pointed out) Clerics are pretty much expected to have a Holy Symbol, which includes a PP Adder that can offset penalties from scaling and armor (PP from an Adder are subtracted from the total needed for the spell, and then penalties for spending more than base cost in PP are determined). Another person pointed out that the Paladin (HARPer's Bazaar #2) has an ability that gives some benefit in this direction as well.

Healing spells -- ICE wanted healing kept simple. The name of the game is High Adventure Role Playing. Notice the bolded words.    Having a detailed healing system kinda goes against the style of play. hehe.  However, keep in mind that when you scale up a spell, you are going to end up taking longer to cast it...

Checks and balances.... That is another aspect of HARP. I tried to make sure that things were roughyl balanced across the board. This meant that heavy armor wasn't always your best option, but that it did have some benefits over lighter armors in some cases, and in other cases, lighter armors had more benefits. If that weren't the case, every fighter would be a tank.

Now it is quite possible that HARP isn't for you, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. You were at least open-minded enough to give it a try (there are some who won't try it cause it ain't d20 or it ain't the Indie game of the month, or whatever).

So, you definitely have my thanks for giving it a shot at least....

One more thing.... When you get behind that GM screen, it is YOUR game. It isn't my game, it isn't ICE's game, it is YOUR game. If you find something in the rules that you don't like, I fully expect you to change it!

If the rules do not mesh perfectly with your setting, change the rules, not your setting. That was one of my few issues with D&D. It came across as "do it our way or you are wrong". I saw way too many "RAW" discussions on EN World when I hung out there. For HARP, the "RAW" (Rules As Written) are your starting point. You are expected to adjust them to suit you and your setting. And if you get stumped on how to make something work for your setting, Post here and all of these wonderful people will chime in with loads of advice and ideas.

There is no real right or wrong way. If YOU and your group are having fun, then you are doing it right, end of story.

[GoblynByte]

Heh, is that suppose to be a good thing or a bad thing? X3

The only true advantage to aiming for a specific location is avoiding armor if you're doing armor by the piece.  But if you take a penalty to aim at a location any benefit of bypassing the armor is diminished.  It's an inherent "flaw" in the core RM/HARP mechanic.  One that is simply avoided if you don't muck up the works with such details as hit location.  There are some that disagree with this and enjoy the hit location rules.  I just personally don't find them worth the extra effort of detail.

I find that if you work with just the core combat system the rest of the game is extremely enjoyable.  To get more detail in combat I would prefer to move on to something more like RM.

[islan]

As Rasyr pointed out (though before I read his post), I did realize that I was looking at certain things in the wrong way.  I only have one more question, though, at this time:

Through experience of playing HARP, do you ever feel that people succeed at attacks a little too often?  I don't mean sound D&Dist or anything, it's just when I try to imagine combat while looking at the critical tables, along with the stats given for certain monsters (which don't seem to have an OB of less than +50), and how small the DB for an "average joe" would be (namely, 0), it seems like getting hit is practically guaranteed; though given the tables it would appear that DB is more about minimizing damage from an attack rather than avoiding an attack altogether.

What are your thoughts on this?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

If you feel that combat does hit too often, you can easily fix this by increasing all DBs by 20, 30, or even 50 points. Until you get to where you feel the ratios of hits to misses are correct.

That is one of the good things about HARP, it is very easily customizable, and you can do tweaks like this to truly make it into your own game.   

[Fidoric]

As Rasyr pointed out (though before I read his post), I did realize that I was looking at certain things in the wrong way.  I only have one more question, though, at this time:

Through experience of playing HARP, do you ever feel that people succeed at attacks a little too often?  I don't mean sound D&Dist or anything, it's just when I try to imagine combat while looking at the critical tables, along with the stats given for certain monsters (which don't seem to have an OB of less than +50), and how small the DB for an "average joe" would be (namely, 0), it seems like getting hit is practically guaranteed; though given the tables it would appear that DB is more about minimizing damage from an attack rather than avoiding an attack altogether.

What are your thoughts on this?

In fact, if you take up a quarterstaff and try to hit a friend with it, you will certainly discover that you will get a hit very easily... So no, I don't think that in Harp you hit too easily. I even find the rate very realistic. If your opponent do not get a high (or at least some) DB, then almost anybody can hit him almost everytime...

[jurasketu]

In fact, if you take up a quarterstaff and try to hit a friend with it, you will certainly discover that you will get a hit very easily... So no, I don't think that in Harp you hit too easily. I even find the rate very realistic. If your opponent do not get a high (or at least some) DB, then almost anybody can hit him almost everytime...

I think that's EXACTLY right. The hard part is avoiding getting hit by easy-to-use weapons (swords, clubs, staffs). One of funniest fights I ever saw was between my boys some years back when they were 4 and 6. They just took turns clubbing each other over the head with their fists. Neither tried to block or lean out of the way. Fortunately, they weren't so strong so the damage was light...

Greater offensive skill is needed to overcome a skilled defender - but most of that offensive skill usually goes into defense. A common problem with a fight between highly skilled, defensively minded opponents in HARP or RM is that he or she who open-ends TWICE during an attack wins the fight - and sometimes that's not enough.

Robin

[Thom @ ICE]

My HARP experience is generally in PbP (Play by post) games. The frequent hits assist in speeding up the game in that style.  HARP has multiple combat resolution tables - HARP, Martial Law and Hack & Slash.  Martial Law tends to give the variety and grit. HARP is more standard. Hack & Slash is downright deadly...  I go for H&S as it works for my style, but I have used all 3 of them in the past and find them all to be excellent in their own way.

[Thos]

Of course, parrying helps your DB quite well, too!

[bunny]

Through experience of playing HARP, do you ever feel that people succeed at attacks a little too often?  I don't mean sound D&Dist or anything, it's just when I try to imagine combat while looking at the critical tables, along with the stats given for certain monsters (which don't seem to have an OB of less than +50), and how small the DB for an "average joe" would be (namely, 0), it seems like getting hit is practically guaranteed; though given the tables it would appear that DB is more about minimizing damage from an attack rather than avoiding an attack altogether.

What are your thoughts on this?

I tend to agree, although at the higher levels, not the lower. When you are fighting something doing large or even huge attacks with an OB greater than 100, you stand a very real chance of killing off the party very rapidly, imo.

I think it's realistic - but nonetheless, something to think about very carefully when designing climactic battles. It can ruin a mood pretty fast if the party begin their assault on the powerful overlord to die one per round through some lucky rolls or miscalculated parry options.

[jasonbrisbane]

I should just sum-up to say that, while armor may have benefits, they seem highly questionable.

Is this so different from RM? 

Indeed, I can't help but feeling the benefits from a lot of things (such as scaling) is questionable, so that you don't know if you're actually playing better or worse than you did before.

I'd suggest to give the system a chance. After the first session you'll know more whether your feelings are true. I also came from RM and was positively surprised after our first HARP session.

Further to this:
if you came form a DnD background, give it a few more sessions and think outside the square. Its a different system with different benefits and flaws (although I cant find any - the Flaws I think ARE benefits!).

,editted: I see Rasyr has once again summarised this perfectly!>

[Ramoran]

The thing about lighter armor and parrying is that more heavily armed  combatants aren't as likely to parry as more lightly armed ones.  Characters wearing, say, leather armor are going to have to give a little OB each round for parrying if they don't want to get skewered.  Characters wearing heavy armor, on the other hand, are more likely to put little or no OB points into parrying and let their armor do the job.  Basically, characters wearing heavier armor are "tanks."  They want to concentrate more on offense than defending themselves, so they have to arm themselves more heavily so they can concentrate on throwing blows rather than blocking them.  It's like soldiers vs. tanks.  Soldiers are small and fairly lightly armored, so they can afford to dodge and weave, run for cover, and duck bullets while trying to accomplish offensive goals.  Tanks, on the other hand, are made solely for charging forward and blasting holes in whatever they should happen to spy, which is why their armor is so much thicker.  Make sense?

[Thom @ ICE]

A heavier armed PC fighting one foe could invest heavily in parrying and use a small bonus towards their attack knowing that they are unlikely to receive any damage, while they eventually will hit that foe in front of them.

It's a matter of risk and style.  I've battled with 90% parry and then during a single round switched to 90% OB just to catch the foe off guard.  Early rounds using extra parry allows you to feel out your foe, but might not be enough if the foe gets a lucky shot in and once you are hurt, well then you need to decide if you can weather it out or if you need to throw caution to the wind.

[jasonbrisbane]

And to add to ChosenGM's comments, if you have multiple friends around the foe then the opponent cant split his parry against multiple opponents  (unless he has 10+ ranks in melee weapon and you are using Martial Law). So the more friends to fight the multiple foes, then the better your chances at taking down an enemy.

Example: Leather armour friend runs into combat. Goes full parry.
Enemy attacks his trying to get through his defenses.
Friend#2 in leather moves in behind and enemy splits DB (uses shield training) to defend with shield from behind. he is still ok but isnt likely to win this unless he gets a good attack. The PC's have the same chance.
Then the tank moves in (PC#3) with less parry (or none) and attacks the enemy. Much better chance at doing damage and presents a new challenge. Enemy faces him as best threat and PC's in leather then change 90% parry to 10% parry and thump that bad guy really good (since bad guy is foolish to let the Tank attack him with all that OB and let the lesser armoured guys through).

Alternatively, if the PC's 1 & 2 use spears and Hold at Bay they can force the bad guy to hold on the same spot whilst the Tank moves in and thumps him, then they can move in and attack with said spears.

One on one, I agree. He who is an island is likely to be left behind.
But stick with your friends (or the party ) and you will be able to use these tactics to survive and prosper.

Hope that helps!

[Uriel]

Not so much a problem, but also not worth a separate thread.

So, it seems that short swords and dagger have the same stats...What gives, anyone?

Small, Puncture, Fumble 01-02. Is this a typo? It seems that the dagger would be a Tiny weapon perhaps...

Any illumination would be wonderful

-Uriel

[GoblynByte]

Not so much a problem, but also not worth a separate thread.

So, it seems that short swords and dagger have the same stats...What gives, anyone?

Small, Puncture, Fumble 01-02. Is this a typo? It seems that the dagger would be a Tiny weapon perhaps...

Any illumination would be wonderful

-Uriel

Not really a typo.  There are varying opinions about the effectiveness of daggers compaired to short swords, but the real problem lies in HARP's somewhat limited granularity.  It's been covered in a couple other threads.  Some suggestions to fixing it have been to treat a short sword as halfway between small and medium (-5), or treating a dagger halfway between small and tiny (-15).  Simple fix, overall.

[jurasketu]

Every year lots of folks end up in the morgue as the result of "ineffective" knife attacks. Weaponary in HARP (and every other game system I have ever played) always tries to apply "weapon deficiencies/advantages" but weapons are generally all very effective in the hands of a trained user. Weapon length and hence REACH is the critical element that can be represented with initiative bonus/pluses rather than actual effectiveness in causing injury.

A long dagger (not a pocket or eating knife - which are NOT weapons but tools) is slimmer than a short sword but almost as long. A short sword was designed to Block attacks and so was a heavy, stout weapon. A dagger parries like a rapier (in the hands of a trained user) instead. If anything, a dagger should get a minus to parry not to attack.

[GoblynByte]

Every year lots of folks end up in the morgue as the result of "ineffective" knife attacks.

"Ineffective."  I like that.  I'm going to steal it. 

Heh, I can see this play out on an episode of CSI:

Medical Examiner: "We have a victim of a knifing.  Two stab wounds to the chest with a blade approximately 6 inches in length.  Time of death 0800 hours."
CSI: "But that's impossible!  That's the size of a dagger.  Daggers only do 1d4 damage!  Clearly ineffective!"
Medical Examiner: "Maybe against your standard body guard, but this guy was breaking and entering at the time of the assault."
CSI: "So..."
Medical Examiner: "So...Thieves generally have fewer hit points than Fighters."
CSI: "Ah!  Case closed."