Greatwyrm said:
A few more thoughts...
Attack/Damage Mechanic: I like that a higher attack roll produces more damage. It seems odd that in many games, you can hit by a ridiculous margin, but still only nick your opponent.
Same thought here. For instance, in Rolemaster, you can open-end your attack roll many times and end up a total of several hundred for the attack, and then roll a 01 for the critical and do NO extra damage. Thus, in HARP, the amount of damage done is tied to how well you hit your opponent.
Greatwyrm said:
Needing to reference a chart each time seems like it would be a little less intuitive, though. Most of the other mechanics in the game seem like you'd hardly ever need to look them up, but you'll need the weapons chart each time (but there are far fewer than in Rolemaster).
Actually, the critical tables are only referenced if you actually hit your foe. The determination of whether or not you hit does not use the tables at all.
Also, it is important to note that HARP does contain an option for running combat without using critical tables at all (the Life Points option). There is a second variation of that in the book Martial Law as well (along with critical tables with columns keyed to body location as well).
Again, we are back to the flexibility of the HARP system, and how you can easily replace the critical tables with something else.
For example, one person has decided to use a variation of the Life Point system. In it, he uses a different die type for each critical size, and then for every 20 points of the final attack roll, the player gets to roll an additional die of the same type. Thus, a character doing a medium attack (broad sword), and having a final attack roll of 47 would do 2d10 damage. He then figures bleeding and maneuver penalties on the fly from the total amount of hit damage done on the dice.
Greatwyrm said:
Spell System: I like the scalability of the spell system, done similarly to the way the Expanded Psi Handbook for 3.5 allows you to spend more points for greater effects.
I actually designed that system several years ago. Back when ICE's Spacemaster first came out, before I could get a chance to purchase it, I used that basic design for a psionics system of my own devising (though unfortunately I never finished it). Then in 2002 when I started designing HARP, I used that same basic system, though in a much more codified manner, for the HARP spell system.
Greatwyrm said:
I was a little disappointed to see that rules for making your own new spells weren't included (didn't see any for new magic items either). The spells included are consistent enought that you could probably do a decent job of reverse engineering the guidelines. However, I'm guessing this is better addressed in the Magic supplement.
Correct, both the creation of new spells (and Cantrips), the creation of magic items (which requires either rituals or certain spells), and the creation of Rituals are all covered in College of Magics.
To create new spells, you select the proper aspects and atributes of the spell you are creating. Each has a point cost (and multiple aspects increases the cost by doubling the cost of aspects beyond the first), and the final point cost is what is used to determine how many Power Points the base spell will cost. Certain Scaling Options (such as range and duration increases) have set costs (in PP), and are added in at the end of the spell creation process.
Greatwyrm said:
A minor nitpick in the spell section for me is the reprinting of spells that appear on different caster lists. Just doesn't seem like an efficient use of space.
Well, that was done for ease of use by the player. Notice how each profession's spells begin and end on a specific page, and how you never have spells from two professions on the same page. It was done like this so that a player can just photocopy the pages with the spells for his profession (or a GM can do the same for a player who does not have the book) on them, and not have to worry about spells outside their profession being mixed in with the rest.
For example, if you are GMing, and a player (who does not have HARP), is playing a Warrior Mage, then you only need to photocopy pages 111-114 for the Universal spells that he might learn, and pages 135-137 for the Warrior Mage spells that he might learn. That is 7 pages in total versus a possible 12 or more page if we had listed the spells alphabetically, and not by sphere, and not repeated spells that were in more than one sphere. See? Easier for those playing the game.
Greatwyrm said:
Monsters: A good cross section of monsters for a basic fantasy game. There are also guidelines for improving or modifying them using the class system characters use. I like this in D&D and I like it here.
Thanks! I will admit that I did get the inspiration for that (i.e. monster can have levels in professions) from D&D.
However, I implemented the basic concept in a slightly different manner as HARP does not have "monster levels" like D&D does. Instead all creatures are created as straight HARP Fighters of the appropriate level. Thus Kobolds are all first level Fighters, and Orcs are all 6th level Fighters. I also used 75 across the board for all stats as well (for consistency). Also, with the rules for additional Professions, this makes it easy to add levels of Mage, Cleric, or whatever you like to the base monster, or to create him as that profession from the ground up as well.
