Response to Woas about HARP

[Rasyr]

On consideration, this seems a little odd to me. I mean, in the real world we know the difference between animals and creatures by the simple fact that one type exists and the other doesn't. But for a world in which both exist, how does the magic system "know" that a giant rat is a creature, as opposed to an animal? I mean, it is not like the rat breathes fire or something obviously magical -- it is just a major annoyance, like a wolf would be. I think a case can be made for merging Conjure Animal and Conjure Creature into one spell in a future edition of the College of Magic supplement.

Well, actually, I can see a case for the arguement that Giant versions of animals are treated like animals and not creatures. To me they are creatures and not animals.

In the end it does fall upon the GM and how he has his world set up, and how they are regarded in that world. As Kajamba_Lion puts forth, it could work as in his suggestion.

 

[Rasyr]

How hard is it to kill someone with a dagger?

Well, that depends upon the skill of the person making the attack. Normally, the maximum result that a Dagger can receive on the critical table is a 90. However, there are Combat Actions (namely Power Strike) which will allow for breaking that Damage Cap, plus a natural 99 or 100 (which is within the open-ended range, so you will be rolling again and adding the second result) removes all Damage Caps from that one attack.

Then there is the Ambush skill, which allows you to adjust the ciritical you give to a foe (i.e. 10 ranks in the skill allows a +/-10 to the critical result).

In HARP, you can have an untrained person get a lucky strike and kill a foe in a single blow with a Dagger, however, it is important to note that this is a very unlikely event.

Could you describe the overall lethality of the combat system (with some examples)?

Don't want much, do you?

The criticals from the first printing of HARP were much more deadly than the current criticals (note: these are available as a free pdf from the HARP website). The current system relies more heavily upon beating your foe down, than though "death in xx rounds" or "instant death" criticals. The current critical tables have only 1 instant death critical on them, and you have to max out on the table to get that.

The big danger comes from the maneuver penalties (which will lower your ability to attack and perhaps defend), and the Stuns, which also hamper your abilities (no attacks, and all other actions at -50). Getting stunned is very bad!

Also the system presumes that your character will be putting at least some of his OB into DB (through parrying). This is one thing that it often takes folks a little bit to get used to....

Not sure if this is what you wanted, or if you wanted an extended combat example (which I have somebody working on one so that we can post it as a free PDF - but am waiting on it to be completed).

Overall, how lethal and destructive is magic?

Well, elemental attacks are resolved in much the same manner as melee or missile attacks are resolved. The foe gets their defensive bonus against the attack, and you look up the result on the appropriate critical table. The elemental attacks start out as Tiny attacks (max of 80 on the critical table) and may be scaled up as the mage gets more proficient with the spell. The elemental critical tables themselves do a little bit more damage than the other critical tables, but not a lot more, so they are approximately the equivalent.

We took care to make sure that mages could be on par with other professions in combat, and not be super combat monsters with just a few spells. Spells are divided into three categories, Utility (which may only be cast upon a willing target), Elemental (which is resolved like a missile attack) and Attack (foe gets a RR against the effects).

How effective a character is in resisting Attack spells will vary, and is based on how many skill ranks the character has in the appropriate Resistance skill (yes, they can get skill ranks to increase resistance).

 

[Staffan]

Well, elemental attacks are resolved in much the same manner as melee or missile attacks are resolved. The foe gets their defensive bonus against the attack, and you look up the result on the appropriate critical table. The elemental attacks start out as Tiny attacks (max of 80 on the critical table) and may be scaled up as the mage gets more proficient with the spell. The elemental critical tables themselves do a little bit more damage than the other critical tables, but not a lot more, so they are approximately the equivalent.

A thing I noted about elemental attacks: scaling them up seems rather pointless until you're really good at them. Sure, you get -20 OB for a Tiny attack, and only -10 OB for a Small attack... but since the Small attack costs 2 PP more, you get an additional -10 penalty, so the only difference is the cap (the result of a Small attack can't be over 90 on the table, a Tiny maxes out at 80) - a benefit, sure, but not that big of one. In addition, a Small elemental attack costs 6 PP, which means it takes 2 rounds to cast instead of 1.

 

[Rasyr]

A thing I noted about elemental attacks: scaling them up seems rather pointless until you're really good at them. Sure, you get -20 OB for a Tiny attack, and only -10 OB for a Small attack... but since the Small attack costs 2 PP more, you get an additional -10 penalty, so the only difference is the cap (the result of a Small attack can't be over 90 on the table, a Tiny maxes out at 80) - a benefit, sure, but not that big of one. In addition, a Small elemental attack costs 6 PP, which means it takes 2 rounds to cast instead of 1.

It is part of the way that the system is designed. The scaling options cost more PP, which in turn makes casting take longer and provide a negative modifier to casting. The rational being that the more power you attempt to manipulate, the harder it is going to be to cast the spell formed with that power.

So, yes, at lower levels (or skill bonus with the spell), using scaling options may not be as effective (depending on the dice roll) or as cost effective as not using them. That is something that the mage has to decide for himself at the time of casting. However, he DOES have the options available to him, which is one of the main things about the design of the magic system.

The whole point of the magic system is to be flexible and to give the mage the options. Nobody has said that all the options available will automatically be beneficial, especially as the majority of the options require that the mage makes a choice (higher possible crit for a smaller attack bonus; wear armor in exchange for spells costing more and having a smaller casting bonus for each; etc..).

Whether or not a scaling option, or other option (wearing armor, fast casting, etc..) is worthwhile will be an individual decision on the part of the mage.

It is also worthwhile to note that a first level mage may also start with Power Point Adder (by spending DPs on the Special Starting Options list), and that the power points supplied by the Adder do not count when determining the casting modifier for scaling a spell up. Thus, a mage with a +1 PP Adder wants to cast a Firebolt that does a small attack. This costs a total of 6 PP. The Adder supplies 1 PP, leaving 5 for the mage to supply. Since 5 is only 1 higher than the base cost of 4, the mage receives only -5 for his casting roll in exchange doing a Small attack instead of a Tiny attack. That means a -5 casting modifier in exchange for a +10 increase to the Damage Cap. That makes scaling at lower levels much more worthwhile.

 

[Particle_Man]

If I want to conjure up an "Average" human, do I use Conjure Animal, Conjure Creature, or some other spell?

What if I want to conjure up an "Average" elf?

My instincts are that they both fit under "creature" but on the other hand, humans DO exist in the real world...

Oh, and I fell victim to my bad habit in GURPS and made a one-trick pony spellcaster with lousy physical stats (11 in each), but 105 in SD, IN and RE. Am I a bad person?

 

[Rasyr]

If I want to conjure up an "Average" human, do I use Conjure Animal, Conjure Creature, or some other spell?

What if I want to conjure up an "Average" elf?

My instincts are that they both fit under "creature" but on the other hand, humans DO exist in the real world...

My ruling would be that you need a different spell for something like that. And at the moment, one does not exist. I would not let sentient races be conjured via either spell.

Also, in rereading the two spells (and the Conjure Item) spell, I came up with something else as well. Conjure Animal and Conjure Creature both say "facsimile" while Conjure Item lets him create an object that is "identical" to one he as studied. To me, this would say that facsimile could be taken to mean that the Conjured Animal/Creature has the shape and size, but that it might not have the coloration. It might be something along the lines of a slightly transluscent form made from solified energy. I think that would make them look very neat.

Oh, and I fell victim to my bad habit in GURPS and made a one-trick pony spellcaster with lousy physical stats (11 in each), but 105 in SD, IN and RE. Am I a bad person?

Yes, you are a bad person. No cookie for you!

 

[Rasyr]

Well, back on page 2, Teflon Billy said that Colonel Hardisson was giving HARP a read through and was going to do a review. Maybe he will be nice and post a comment or two here before that, to give us an idea of what he thinks.

I also know that Henry is reading through HARP as well. Any thoughts Henry?

Anybody else have any questions/comments?

 

[Particle_Man]

Also, in rereading the two spells (and the Conjure Item) spell, I came up with something else as well. Conjure Animal and Conjure Creature both say "facsimile" while Conjure Item lets him create an object that is "identical" to one he as studied. To me, this would say that facsimile could be taken to mean that the Conjured Animal/Creature has the shape and size, but that it might not have the coloration. It might be something along the lines of a slightly transluscent form made from solified energy. I think that would make them look very neat.

That seems like a Plantonic take on the spells, where the Study Target was to get the "abstract" template of the relevant animal/creature, and the Conjure spells "reprint" from that abstract template. Items, being creations of people, would not have these timeless abstract forms, so a Study Target would simply give one a picture of the thing itself, which could be duplicated later. It is an interesting idea, metaphysically speaking.

(By the way, this would argue against "creatures" like gryhpons, giant rats, etc. being magical creations of earlier mages (which was given as one possible reason why "Creatures" are different from "Animals"), since if creatures are created by mages at some point in history, then they would not have timeless abstract templates to copy, but would be more like items. Thus adding another weight on the side of the scale that says that Conjure Animal and Conjure Creature should be merged).

As for you ruling that intelligent races not being conjurable by the spell Conjure Creature...I thought you said in this thread that, in one of your game worlds at least, gryphons *were* intelligent (and thus might object to being mounts). If they (or at least a "average mindless version" of them) can be created with Conjure Creature, why not an "average mindless version" of an elf, or human? I mean, it could be all translucent and stuff, so no one would mistake it for a *real* elf or human, but there might be times when it is handy to have a disposible biped (to try on potentially dangerous helmets, for example).

 

[Rasyr]

That seems like a Plantonic take on the spells, where the Study Target was to get the "abstract" template of the relevant animal/creature, and the Conjure spells "reprint" from that abstract template. Items, being creations of people, would not have these timeless abstract forms, so a Study Target would simply give one a picture of the thing itself, which could be duplicated later. It is an interesting idea, metaphysically speaking.

hehe... way too much thought into that for me....

(By the way, this would argue against "creatures" like gryhpons, giant rats, etc. being magical creations of earlier mages (which was given as one possible reason why "Creatures" are different from "Animals"), since if creatures are created by mages at some point in history, then they would not have timeless abstract templates to copy, but would be more like items. Thus adding another weight on the side of the scale that says that Conjure Animal and Conjure Creature should be merged).

Well, in Cyradon (the upcoming HARP setting), Gryphons were not created by wizards, they are natural (in the same sense that dragons are natural) and evolved on their own.

So actually, a LOT of it will depend upon the setting being used, and how the GM views things. This is not something that can really be helped unless we turn around and say that all forms of creature xx came into being this way for all settings and worlds, which is not something we want to do as it removes a lot of flexibility for the GM when you do that.

As for you ruling that intelligent races not being conjurable by the spell Conjure Creature...I thought you said in this thread that, in one of your game worlds at least, gryphons *were* intelligent (and thus might object to being mounts). If they (or at least a "average mindless version" of them) can be created with Conjure Creature, why not an "average mindless version" of an elf, or human? I mean, it could be all translucent and stuff, so no one would mistake it for a *real* elf or human, but there might be times when it is handy to have a disposible biped (to try on potentially dangerous helmets, for example).

In the basic HARP rules, Gryphons are not sentient. In the setting (Cyradon) that we are working on, we made them sentient. Again, I would like to point out that it would have to depend on the setting and how it defines creatures.

My "ruling" is nothing more than my interpretation of the spells. In my own setting I would have Gryphons an non-sentients, and thus able to be created via the Conjure Creature spell, where in Cyradon, having them be sentient, they could not be created using the spell. Same interpretation applied to two different sets of circumstances.

As for creating a bi-pedal energy construct, cool, that is a nifty idea for a new spell. (We ended up cutting about 1/3 of the spells from College of Magics during editing, many of which will find their way into other products, such as the Mystic and Sorceror who will show up in our book on the dark side of magic called, "Something Wicked", due out in mid-2005 and written by Jonathon Cassie.

We also have a PDF product coming out during the early part of 2005 to be called the HARP Grimoire, which will have lots of new spells, so the bi-pedal Conjuration would be a good place for it. I will have to suggest that to the author...

 

[TGryph]

Actually, it was me...

Rasyr;

Just to satisfy your curiosity, it was me that oringinated that line about HARP doing D&D better than D20, in an old RPG.Net Thread:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=124645&page=7&pp=10&highlight=TGryph

I still feel that way too! : )

TGryph