What power level do you use? 50/100/150?

[DarkGreen]

Title sort of says it all.

For your FH campaign is it 25+25, 50+50, 75+75?

In my group we started with 150pt characters, then moved down to 100pt and found it more fun. Unfortunately certain archetypes don't really work down at 100pts (like monks, due to lousy normal damage weapons in FH).

I'm just curious what the mix is out there.

-DG

[Shadowpup]

My campaign uses 75+50. It's my first so I'm gonna see how it goes.

I'm pretty sure that you can have monks do gross amounts of damage using just about any weapon. Even at the 50+50 level.

It doesn't take much to get a staff to do 8d6 damage - which I think is pretty decent.

[Nelijal]

I used 100+50 for my campaign, Maybe we just suck at roleplaying, but past experience had shown me a tendency for some Disadvantages to become cliche in their use--that is, every character had them. That was a decade ago, and I think we've improved in the roleplaying department, but the point mix still worked well for us.

[Fitz]

I also go for 100+50 as a starting level. I started with 75+75, but changed so that people could build competitive characters for the campaign without necessarily loading themselves down with Disads.

[mudpyr8]

My current campaign is 50+50 and it has been great. We have a monk and he actually kicks @$$. He's the "fighter" of the group.

I would do a 0+50 game if the characters were just completing apprenticeships (D&D level 1).

I would do 25+50 if they had some advanced training and experience (D&D level 3ish).

I think 50+50 is pretty competent. Most of the characters are guild initiates and fairly skilled. Against normal thugs (0 pt to 25 pt characters -- the bulk of humanity), they rock, but aren't invincible.

100+50 is pretty heroic. I think that is a fine level to play at, but I'd rather get there than start there. Past campaigns I've run just seem to start already out of control. When you take a 100 pt character and add 50 XP it is a little different than when you can start out at 150 pts.

In the end, it is about the "feel" of the game. I like the heroes to be somewhat grounded and touchable by normal joes.

[Old Man]

75 pts. total is about the sweet spot. 150 is too high to start--it's not very far from 200 points, which is where you'll start to see FH characters that could easily compete with Champions characters except for the speed chart. At the point where each member of the party can take a dragon by himself, it's extraordinarily hard for the GM to keep the part challenged without risking the total destruction fo the campaign setting.

Conversely, 50 points is too low. FH is just a bit too lethal for that low of a power level. It's still not as bad as 1st level 1st ed. AD&D, where the party mage is in mortal danger from a feral cat, but it's still too dangerous to be fun.

[Thirdbase]

I'm about to start a campaign and plan on the PCs starting at 50+50, but we'll see. The last campaign I played in the PCs were 500+ points, but we had to save the world. Combats in that campaign were rare, some of the most iintense roleplaying I have ever seen though.

[mattingly]

75 pts. total is about the sweet spot.

I'm with you, Old Man. 50+25 for me.

[lensman]

I am about to start a campaign set in the Broken Kingdoms.
I told the players the setting and seeded them the power to determine the campaign tone and organizing principle.
I did this to avoid the "you all are in this bar, when..." scene, and players come to the game with different wants and needs.
Players wanted an "Epic" level campaign.

I wrote that preface because PC's will start at 175 + 75.
Now I, and the players, have been useing HERO and playing Fantasy Hero since it first came into being.

My question to the rest of you is, how different must character creation be between your games and mine?

I expect that Players to buy Perks, Favors and Contacts.
They buy a ton of KS. They make great use of the Powers as skills, Fighters end up with suites of abilitie. Some build powers such as Astrological based on the day and time of their birth. And nothing to excess.

Nobody really ends up with excessive CSL's or CV or stats, I enforce the 20 Stat max as the absolute limit.

Why do you guys shun higher points ?

Does climbing the "experience" chart add that much more enjoyment?

As written in another post, I think on the temp board, I would rather do away with watching points just build to conception and let the role playing begin. Unfettered by the obsession over experience.

[Agent Escafarc]

Originally posted by lensman
I am about to start a campaign set in the Broken Kingdoms.
I told the players the setting and seeded them the power to determine the campaign tone and organizing principle.
I did this to avoid the "you all are in this bar, when..." scene, and players come to the game with different wants and needs.
Players wanted an "Epic" level campaign.

I wrote that preface because PC's will start at 175 + 75.
Now I, and the players, have been useing HERO and playing Fantasy Hero since it first came into being.

My question to the rest of you is, how different must character creation be between your games and mine?

I expect that Players to buy Perks, Favors and Contacts.
They buy a ton of KS. They make great use of the Powers as skills, Fighters end up with suites of abilitie. Some build powers such as Astrological based on the day and time of their birth. And nothing to excess.

Nobody really ends up with excessive CSL's or CV or stats, I enforce the 20 Stat max as the absolute limit.

Why do you guys shun higher points ?

Does climbing the "experience" chart add that much more enjoyment?

As written in another post, I think on the temp board, I would rather do away with watching points just build to conception and let the role playing begin. Unfettered by the obsession over experience.

My next campaign will be a 125+75 Epic game. I'm looking at getting as far away from a D&D feel as I can. As far a I'm concerned if I never play another "1st level" game again it will be to soon.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Agent Escafarc
My next campaign will be a 125+75 Epic game. I'm looking at getting as far away from a D&D feel as I can. As far a I'm concerned if I never play another "1st level" game again it will be to soon. Ditto that. That's why I went with 100+50 (not an epic game--just some good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm. . .); some points could have been better spent (a lot of this is still new to us), but the PCs are not starting the game with one foot in the grave.

[Chris Goodwin]

The 75+25 games from FH1 seemed too limiting to my group; it didn't take us long to move to 100 base points and 50-100 in disads. I also played once in a truly epic 250 point game (though I can't recall whether it was 150+100 or 100+150).

[Old Man]

Originally posted by lensman

Nobody really ends up with excessive CSL's or CV or stats, I enforce the 20 Stat max as the absolute limit.

Why do you guys shun higher points ?

Does climbing the "experience" chart add that much more enjoyment?

The 20 point normal char max is part of the problem. At the usual 150 point level everyone but the mage is bouncing off that ceiling, and you wind up with a whole party full of characters with extremely similar numbers. Granted, you can break the monotony with good roleplaying, but it's still a source of annoyance.

As written in another post, I think on the temp board, I would rather do away with watching points just build to conception and let the role playing begin. Unfettered by the obsession over experience.

I'd love to do that too, but there's always been one munchkin in every FH campaign I've played, and it always took point balance and house rules to keep them in line.

[Tyrant]

One of the funnest games I ever played in was what we called "Fantasy Zero". We were 0-25 starting Pc's.

Let me tell you, it's a great feeling when you defeat a single skeleton at that stage. We were five players and had a hell of a time with that thing. I had to resort to using a frying pan because I didn't have the points to buy "Weapon Fam:swords".

And since I was playing a stable boy, we agreed that I should be the one to buy Vehicle Fam: horses, caus' we sure as heck couldn't buy the Riding skill...

It was great : )

[DarkGreen]

Originally posted by Tyrant
One of the funnest games I ever played in was what we called "Fantasy Zero". We were 0-25 starting Pc's.

Let me tell you, it's a great feeling when you defeat a single skeleton at that stage. We were five players and had a hell of a time with that thing. I had to resort to using a frying pan because I didn't have the points to buy "Weapon Fam:swords".

And since I was playing a stable boy, we agreed that I should be the one to buy Vehicle Fam: horses, caus' we sure as heck couldn't buy the Riding skill...

It was great : )

That's hilarious! I'll have to see if my group wants to try that.

We once played 10pt characters in a horror campaign. That was kind of fun, by the end of the adventure I was getting pretty proficient with the broom.

-DG

[Tyrant]

10 point characters?
must of been a short horror game : )

Tyrant

[Vondy]

I decided to run a 10+25 game. So far its been a blast.

[Isaiah_26_4]

Chello!

I voted for 150, but after reading the thread, I want to try some of those "under 50" ideas. stable Boy, indeed! That rocks!

Tony

[Dr. Anomaly]

Hmmm...I guess I'm in the real minority here, but the FH campaign I'm running (off and on) started with a 212 point PC and now, due to experience, he's up somewhere around 240 or so.

There are a couple of 'notes' on this:

1) It's a solo campaign, with one companion NPC, so the PC had better be able to take care of himself/both of them

2) This was the player's first role-playing experience. He asked me to talk about each system on my bookcases (yes, multiple bookcases) and, when that was done (about 2 hours) he selected Fantasy Hero! I *did* try to talk him out of it...HERO can be daunting for someone seeing it for the first time, and since this was his first time EVER for ANY kind of RPG...! But he said "From what you said, this sounds most like it can do what I want...a character who is a bit of warrior, a bit of mage, and a half-giant." Well, couldn't really argue with him on that! :)

3) I decided to use the 250 point Superhero level (this was 4th Ed) because I thought that creating a believable half-giant warrior/spellcaster would be expensive, and I was right.

4) Big surprise...he didn't use all 250 points! He got to 212 and said "Okay, that looks good." I said "You know, you CAN have up to 250." He responded, "Yes, but I like what I've got right here." You coulda knocked me over with a feather -- my regluar players are nowhere near to being munchkins, but most are scrabbling for those last 1 or 2 points. I've *NEVER* before had a player say, "No, I don't need all the points I *could* take."

He has since learned that what looked good or sufficient on paper does, from time to time, come up short of being effective when actually in play. Not once, though, has he said "Boy, I wish I *had* taken all the points I could have," or "Could I take those points now?" He's just quietly used his experience to gradually tweak the character in the weak spots. His next major goal is to acrue enough experience to make it viable to "cash in" his spells-as-Multipower into a Magic VPP.

[The Mad GM]

I voted 150 as well, though I haven't GMed FH in a while. The tales of low point games have been tempting, even as a player, for a change of pace. I know that at least one of the players in my group (you know who you are) would balk at anything less than 150.

His point is fairly valid, though. To play an effective mage (his fave) at low point levels, you either give up all the background skills, cripple them stat wise, or simply avoid all combat. No one wants to be the cowering mage, with one shot of magic missle, then a dagger with strength 8 (pardon the D&D reference).

If anyone has an example of a low power mage that's playable, I'd like to see it.

[Vondy]

The reason magic works in my (low point) game is that the power to cast spells is external to the caster. I'll post more on this later.

The characters in my first low point game (25+25) are sitting around 400 points now.

[The Mad GM]

I have a feeling my friend might be resistant to variant rules, but I look forward to your post.

[mudpyr8]

Mad GM: Here's a mage built on 100 pts (50+50). He is actually quite competent. My players wanted to play characters of some ability, so this is where we started. He could easily be 50-75 points with fewer/weaker spells and stats.
http://www.tekhed.com/hero/characters/Mos_Verik_(Human_Mage)-v1-1.pdf

My variant magic rules are posted here: http://www.tekhed.com/hero/magic.php

The reason I created those magic rules is 2-fold:

1. To allows low point cost mages
2. To change the feel of Hero magic to one I can really get into.

We have been playing with these rules for about 6 months now and so far the players love 'em.

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Isaiah_26_4
Chello!

I voted for 150, but after reading the thread, I want to try some of those "under 50" ideas. stable Boy, indeed! That rocks!

Tony I agree. Aside from being a good change of pace, low point levels like this would probably be a good way to learn HERO. If you understand how to build a good character with 25 to 50 CP, then building a 150 point character would be easier--you'll know how to transfer the character concept in your head to HERO terms on the character sheet.

[Hierax]

I agree, starting with the lower points at first and then building up from there is a good idea; even if you start playing a character at 150 points the character itself started at less and if you were to run through the development from say 25 points and build up to 150, it would tend to encourage better developed characters.

But, in the end, I think that, in terms of "Power Level", Total Points aren't always as important as they might seem; To me, "Power Level" is determined more by DC, OCV, DCV, DEF, and rDEF than total character points.

Points can just as easily represent a breadth of ability instead of a depth or intensity. e.g., one could have a character with a ton of a wide variety of skills which would increase the character's flexibility and point total but not necessarily the "Power Level".

I'm not saying that points aren't a good gage of a character's power level, just that other factors may show the true "power" more clearly when comparing characters.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by The Mad GM
I have a feeling my friend might be resistant to variant rules, but I look forward to your post.

Variant rules?

In hero?

I didn't know a home made magic system using hero as the toolkit was variant!

[Nelijal]

Originally posted by Hierax
I agree, starting with the lower points at first and then building up from there is a good idea; even if you start playing a character at 150 points the character itself started at less and if you were to run through the development from say 25 points and build up to 150, it would tend to encourage better developed characters.An excellent idea! I sorta did this in my campaign, running each character thru a couple of mini-sessions at different points of childhood. What I didn't do was to tie those sessions to levels of point development. For the mini-sessions, points were mostly ignored since the purpose was just character background. It worked (a lot of disadvantages came directly from those sessions) but the point levels could have helped.

Originally posted by Hierax
Points can just as easily represent a breadth of ability instead of a depth or intensity. e.g., one could have a character with a ton of a wide variety of skills which would increase the character's flexibility and point total but not necessarily the "Power Level".My players went in both directions, either focusing the 100+50 points in certain areas (can you say "Ahnold"?) or spreading the points across a variety of characteristics and skills. Due to inexperience (the players and me), though, some of the points could have been better spent. Partial development across the pregame mini-sessions would have helped in that area.

[The Mad GM]

Originally posted by D-Man
Variant rules?

In hero?

I didn't know a home made magic system using hero as the toolkit was variant!

Apparently you didn't read the link that mudpyr8 included:

My variant magic rules are posted here: http://www.tekhed.com/hero/magic.php


I haven't had an opportunity to do more than glance at it, but a number of things he alludes to aren't out of Fred. No judgement implied, but even he admits it's a variant.

Just to stick to my original question, does anyone have a low power mage using standard rules that isn't crippled or completely lacking in background skills? The closest I could come up with had about 10 1-pt. familiarities with Knowledge skills, a few basic words in languages, and three spells at something like 3xend (I dislike charges for spells). His stats are abysmal, and his combat skills non-existant. A fairly average aprentice wizard, perhaps, but his lack of fleshing out in terms of background nags at me.

[mudpyr8]

Yup, it's a total variant. But I also agree with D-Man. What I've really done is create a new power framework which isn't totally outside the realm of possibility. Sure it isn't Canon, but when I presented it to the venerable Mr. Long, he said that was the beauty of Hero, the ability to tweak the rules to acheive a certain feel.

I'm not being defensive, I'm just explaining why the variant exists and where I'm coming from.

Perhaps my framework doesn't work in high power games. That's okay 'cause that's not what it's for. However, I doubt that is the case. Think about this:

Build a system with -3 lims standard (fairly easy to do). Now, add a multipower. A 60-pt multipower would then cost 15 points, and each slot would cost 3, if at max points and standard slots, 1 pt if ultras.. When you factor in Magery, Power, and so on, this isn't all that different from the variant I created. However, multipower slots just don't capture that arcane feel of learning individual spells of various power levels, not to mention the low cost of movement and defensive powers which can throw a game out of whack. Couple that with excessive dice rolling (roll to cast, roll to attack, etc.), you come up with my variant.

Certainly it isn't for everyone, but I finally feel that in all my years of playing fantasy hero, that mages finally feel like mages.

Within our campaign world we also have psions, divine channels, druidic power, and gifts of the earthsblood. Each uses different mechanics and has a different feel.

Bringing this back to low powered play, I think at that level, more than any, the GM has to be careful about what powers he allows in the game and how they manifest.

Just because Force Field only costs 1 pt for 1 resistant defense doesn't mean that everyone should have a force field. Just because a power is cheap doesn't mean that it's common, and that's the challenge.

Whether or not you can build a low power mage very much depends on how the magic system works. Certainly using a multipower or an EC I could build a mage with the following magics:

MP (30), Lims -3, Cost 7, slot cost 1 (fixed or variable). 8 30 active point spells then costs him 15 points. If he is a 50 point character, he has 35 points left for stats & skills. Assuming 8s in everything except INT and a 11 DEX, this should be pretty trivial and on par with other characters who had 15 points to spend on stats or combat abilities.

[DMTingle]

I use 75+75 for beginning characters.

My campaign only has four classes available to begining characters; warrior, priest, mage, and thief. Each of those classes have a total CP cost of around 50-60, with a lot of multiple choice skill selections so that each character can be unique from the last by choice. A Monk can be made out of ANY of those classes, as can a Babarian, Paladin, Knight etc....
What the character is beyond base class is up to the player and his imagination, and the amount of points put into it.

As for the 20 point cap, a player has to have something happen to his character in game to be able to go above the limit, and STILL must pay the 20 points to buy it off.

The characters usually end up with a speed of two or three with an occasional four. I see CV's of about of six or seven, sometimes as high as ten if the character is geared to be the groups fighter. Most stats are around thirteen and fourteen with a couple eighteen or above.

Although the disads do tend to be repetitive and boring, mostly because I try my best to make those disads as annoying as possible. It's my goal that points are saved up to get rid of them quickly. (thus less points are spent on raising stats etc...)


I am trying out a very low level 0+25 campaign. It's turning out to be quite fun.

[Chuk]

I always had trouble coming up with enough Disadvantages, although I think my players might have been all right with it (they keep wanting to add more disads).

[Vondy]

Let them. For 0 points!

It'll be a good sign of how serious they were about those disads!

[Roland]

Since learning the Hero System with Champions (3E), I have played in two FH campaigns. Both supposedly started chars at 100 points, but since they were both converted from other systems (RoleMaster and D&D, respectively), existing characters started with some experience and new characters were given "catch-up" experience. If I actually had to start those chars at 100 points, they would have been hard to build. OTOH, I think 150 points are way too much for a starting FH character - it eases the constraint too much and relieves the player of making the tough choices that define the character's strengths and weaknesses.

I think the right point level for starting FH characters is 120 or 125 points.

[GradonSilverton]

My current game is 100 Base with 50 Disads...150 total. This has seemed to be a good balance, one thing to make sure of that your players understand the importance of skills.

Do I really need the 2 area knowledge, 3 languages, ect? YES! Spend those points.

[Nolgroth]

I've found that I like to have a 50+50 spread. It allows for a pretty competent character that still has room to grow. I never noticed an abuse at the 75 + 75 level, but I don't like a lot of Disadvantages. In fact, a lot of the personality trait (In love with X, Hates X, etc) disadvantages I discourage. Rather, I tend to award more role-playing experience for actually role-playing those traits in-game.

I would like to try a relatively low powered game (say 25 + 25), but my players and I so rarely get to play that it would likely be more frustrating than it's worth.

On the other hand, I would someday like to try an epic power level game. I imagine such a game would end up being rather unrealistic in terms of sheer personal power, but it would almost be fun to deviate from my norm every once in awhile.

(I've been lurking around the new boards too much. It's way past time I posted and this seemed as good a start as any.)

-Nolgroth

[Victor]

Originally posted by Tyrant
One of the funnest games I ever played in was what we called "Fantasy Zero". We were 0-25 starting Pc's.

Let me tell you, it's a great feeling when you defeat a single skeleton at that stage.

This perplexes me a bit. The basic Skeleton as written up in the 5th Ed. Bestiary (with no options) is barely an even match for an unarmed 0 point normal, and only a threat to seasoned adventurers with armor/weapons and en masse. Kind of a shame, for 179 points...


The skeleton's HtH attack is 3d6N, so he does 11 STUN (generously giving him the round off) and 3 BODY on an average roll. Our 0-pt friend takes 1 BODY and 9 STUN, which does not CON-stun him, albheit barely. Even if it goes first, the normal won't lose a phase unless it rolls well. Since it has 0 END, and cannot burn STUN, it can't ever push.

The Normal counterattacks. He only has 2d6N, and can push if the GM allows him to try the ego roll. STUN is irrelevant in this case, but since his fist is a blunt attack, the average BODY of 2 doubles to 4 BEFORE the skeleton's defense of 2, due to it's vulnerability.

It's going to take ~5 hits for the normal to render the skeleton non-functional (i.e., 0 BODY), unless the normal lands a Haymaker or pushes. If the normal can land ONE Haymaker, he's in good shape... that will be over half the skeleton's BODY total in one shot since he can double his basic Strike to 4d6N. If he can land two Haymakers, the show's over -- pack up and go home.

Otherwise, It will take only 4 hits for the skeleton to knock out the normal (presuming a post-segment 12 recovery after the first and third hits. The normal is effectively the only one getting recoveries, so if the skelly misses, it's all the better for him). Granted, the skeleton has the advantage of 1 CV on the normal, but the skeleton STILL may not last that long.

Here's why; the skeleton has the 45 point version of Takes No STUN, not the 60 point version, so every time it takes BODY from an attack (pretty much, every time the normal hits it), it loses a normal sense, a power, a SPD pip, or 10 points of STR. The clock is counting down fast, because there are only a couple "powers" that it makes sense to take away... IR and the detect illusions. Sure, it can be arbitrated that the normal senses of hearing, taste, smell, and touch are the first to go, just to stretch things out... maybe even enough for the normal to get knocked unconscious.

If the skeleton loses a SPD pip, or any STR, it's toast. It will either allow the Normal opportunities to withdraw and recover (thus Kiting it), or it won't be able to inflict damage anymore.


Mummies, and to a lesser extent Zombies, are considerably more dangerous, but both will also tend to be fodder for any competant PC (or group thereof) for the same reason. Now, if you use the optional bleeding rule, it's a bit different... but I've yet to meet/game with anyone who does.

That 15 point savings on Takes No Stun is murder on undead.

[Super Squirrel]

75 + 75 with no limit on Psychological Limitations.

The game has been going for about six months now and they have yet to get to the end of Chapter 1 in which they earn their experience. They are looking at somewhere between 8 and maybe 16 XP.

[DarkGreen]

We'd been playing 50+50 for a while but just now went to 75+75 with people paying points for their armor/weapon/shield. It's quite cool. Finally the spell casters aren't slammed by people being able to pay 2 points for a WF and pick up free weapons that duplicate their big expensive spells. Also the spell casters, wanting to save points for magic, don't typically wield weapons or wear armor. We've played one session and the balance seems good.

-DG

[Derek Hiemforth]

I usually run at 200 (125+75), but that's mostly because I prefer to run big, epic quest, heroes of great renown must save the world kind of Fantasy. When I do run more swords-n-sorcery style or D&D dungeon-crawl style fantasy, I go with 125 (75+50).