Topic: Spells that need fixing??

[WoeRie]

There was already a revision for Sleep in the old forum. It was from Rasyr (but no clue if it was official or not). In this revision Sleep only affects Tiny targets with a scaling option of +4PP for each size increment and an additional +20 to the RR if the target is in combat.

However, I suspect this makes the spell too powerless, so I would prefer rule c (maybe together with b) from janpmueller.

[Kenstrel]

About sleep and calm. In a old topic, Rasyr said (something like that*) :

- target get a +20RR if in physical activities (like in a fight).
- spell affect only tiny-sized creature
- scaling option : Increase Size +4 PP

Some weeks ago, we talk about this on the French HARP Forum, and i like what Mando said about this sort of spell :

Give a spell casting difficulty to the spell user when the target is active or non active, exemple : cast a sleep spell on a guard who do nothing and is drunk is Very Easy, but the same spell on a War Troll who is charging you is Very Hard or Sheer Folly (GM's choice  ).



*sorry, hard for me to (re)translate french to english... and to write in english too 


EDIT : i have lost my Initiative roll versus WoeRie 

[Hawkwind]

There was already a revision for Sleep in the old forum. It was from Rasyr (but no clue if it was official or not). In this revision Sleep only affects Tiny targets with a scaling option of +4PP for each size increment and an additional +20 to the RR if the target is in combat.

However, I suspect this makes the spell too powerless, so I would prefer rule c (maybe together with b) from janpmueller.

My recollection is that this was an official revision. I use the revision in my campaign and find that it makes sleep a reasonable spell, but not the overpowering spell that it is without the revision.

Hawk

[kasalin]

How about adjusting the scaling option costs for the Core book spells to match the scaling costs in CoM?

Ex: Bladeturn scaling option of +50 to DB is +2 in Core, but by CoM standards should be +4.

This would bring the Core spells into line with the CoM guidelines.  The Core spells are inherently more powerful because they are cheaper than they should be.

[kazapp]

In fact, the problem is that there is no "protective" spells or effects that can effectively stop a Past Visions or Long Door. The protective spells are all tactical in nature; they have very little chance of actually stopping a determined opponent with plenty of time.

Well, while that may seem like a problem at face value, it's actually quite nice that the "arms race" stops already here.

What I mean is: Much better to tone down these mystery buster spells than to add/fix spells that protect against them.

Otherwise you just end up in a situation where you simply must apply those protective spells, and you end up in a D&D-like situation where magic is everywhere, everyone needs to be heavily laden down with magic, and that you end up solving nothing (as the protections take out the mystery busters anyway).

Much better then not to have mystery busters in the first place. That doesn't mean the spells need to go altogether, only that they should be sufficiently weak that 1) you can actually use them without totally ruining the adventure, which in turn 2) means the "defenders" aren't required to use the protections. And 3) that any clues they give must be overridable by the GM, introducing necessary uncertainty so to not make these spells overy powerful.

[jurasketu]

Well. Sure. I just could ban or errata the spells if I wanted (and I am definitely not shy about massaging the rules to work the way I want). The complaint was about the official rulings of the spells as written - which I think is what the thread is about.

One of the reasons I like HARP is the magic system - especially the excellent design-your-own rules. And make no mistake, I've run campaigns in RM, my own rules, MERP, Chaosium with varying levels of magic from none at all to some to a lot. Most of the time, I prefer less magic or none at all. With HARP I've enjoyed having my worlds be strongly based on the wide availability and use of magic.

And after some work within the COM rules (and hints from Codex) I found the way to make the spells, magic items, and enchantments provide the protections I wanted. So I've settled into GM bliss with some excellent scenarios based around planting "false" visions, avoiding scrying, etc.

And while I'm not a fan of D&D (I haven't played it since the early 80s), what's wrong with magic everywhere? I AM a big fan of the Jhereg series, the Amber Chronicles, etc where magic IS everywhere. Isn't that part of the fun?

Respectfully-

Robin

[Pecete]

Harper spells have also problems with its interpretation for example charm, target believes player is a very good friend, lets say very good friend what does means....
will a guard allow a very good friend to enter in a place he is guarding (I believe that if his job could be in perill for that action not) will a foe give his secret plans about a dangerous plot to his very good friend ( not sure about that), will an enemy atack at his previously companion if his very good friend was attaqued (may be he will trie to stop combat, instead if both are considered friends).
I sugest some kind of cascade resistant roll will be nice to determine how friendly a foe will be when this spell has been cast.

Same for Past Vision a there should be a secret roll that will allow the DM to determine how much of the information to give, giving from uconexed small details of information, to giving more determined information.

Confusion: I find that once the mob is beeing affected by this spell it is really out of combat, as he cannot do nothing, and when in combat mob cant even run away. I feel that once the mob is beeing ataqued the mob should be able to defend as spell says but also run away from combat, and have the feel that it is much similar to calm and a bit cheaper.

[kazapp]

One of the reasons I like HARP is the magic system - especially the excellent design-your-own rules.

I also like these!  (If you mean CoM at least)

And while I'm not a fan of D&D (I haven't played it since the early 80s), what's wrong with magic everywhere? I AM a big fan of the Jhereg series, the Amber Chronicles, etc where magic IS everywhere. Isn't that part of the fun?

It's not that "magic everywhere" is wrong or bad, it's that the rulebook (specifically the spells themselves) is/are written with only such a world in mind. And I find that to be a shame, considering what world HARP's predecessor was set in...

Had the core spells been created using the CoM system (with all aspects of each spell clearly listed) then this would have been so much less of a problem and much easier to live with:

If you had all the core spells entered into a spreadsheet with their final costs a calculation of those aspects (rather than just a simple number) - then you could "simply" tweak the costs of some aspects (the more high fantasy ones, such as teleportation and ressurrection), allow the computer to crunch the numbers, and give you the new costs. 

That would have made HARP infinitely easier to adapt to different settings. As it is now, it seems geared towards exactly the kind of generic high fantasy that makes it compete head-on with D&D (which can't be good business sense)...

Regards,
kazapp

PS. Sorry for the offtopicness. But instead of fiddling around with individual spells, I feel it would be infinitely more worthwhile to discuss pricings of aspects instead, and then just calculate the spell costs from there...

[jasonbrisbane]

Hum...

ACTION 1 : Mage cast Long Door on his Fighter friend and teleport him in the Bad Guy's back
ACTION 2 : the Fighter slain the Bad Guy...

But I'm ok with you when you say Mage prefere to go away fropm combat.


Just my two centimes d'euro 

Not when the mage tried to teleport the rogue twice and caused the rogue to take the same 120' fall twice in three rounds.... (My mage forgot to read the fine print in the spell description. Strangely enough, the rogue wont allow me to teleport him anymore...)

ROFL

[Tywyll]

I don't know if this has been fixed either in CoM or Harp Revised (I only have the original Harp book) but the Elemental Bolts need to be fixed.  -20 to your attack roll to Scale the damage up by +10...?  Its never advantageous to do this, you would have been better off with the higher attack roll.

[bunny]

I don't know if this has been fixed either in CoM or Harp Revised (I only have the original Harp book) but the Elemental Bolts need to be fixed.  -20 to your attack roll to Scale the damage up by +10...?  Its never advantageous to do this, you would have been better off with the higher attack roll.

It is advantageous if you were confident of hitting the damage cap. Then you're trading in -10 "useless" ob in exchange for the ability to do extra damage.

[Tywyll]

It is advantageous if you were confident of hitting the damage cap. Then you're trading in -10 "useless" ob in exchange for the ability to do extra damage.

But at the highest level you are trading 40 OB away on the possibility of upping the damage cap.  I think Huge Elemental bolts should be dangerous to everyone, not just to slow or wounded targets (which is essentially how they function now).

[bunny]

It is advantageous if you were confident of hitting the damage cap. Then you're trading in -10 "useless" ob in exchange for the ability to do extra damage.

But at the highest level you are trading 40 OB away on the possibility of upping the damage cap.  I think Huge Elemental bolts should be dangerous to everyone, not just to slow or wounded targets (which is essentially how they function now).

I dont understand. If you have a massive skill with the spell and are expecting to achieve an unmodified attack roll of 180 or something with your tiny attack, you have nothing to lose (except power points and time) by upping it to huge and achieving a 140 attack with the capability of doing more damage.

It's true at low levels there is little incentive to scale up the spell (except against slow or injured opponents) the way the spell is worded now, more powerful spellcasters can do extreme levels of damage (especially once they get a PP adder). At those levels, it is not true that your -20 OB for a +10 damage payoff is valueless, which I thought was your initial point.