Flaming Swords

[xanatos]

What is the most elegant/correct way to model a "flaming sword"? (a sword that is a standard sword and that does a little more fire-damage on top of the standard damage)
I'm pretty sure you already responded to this question, but with the crash of the msg boards I wasn't able to find it.

Bye
Max

[Steve Long]

Since this is a "how to" and not a rules question, I've moved it to "HERO System Discussion."

What do you think, Herodom Assembled?

[SuperBlue]

1d6 HKA - Sword (15)
1d6 RKA - Flame, No Range, Linked to Sword (15)

OAF
Independant (Optional)

AP: 30
RC: 12 (or 7 if Independant)

EDIT: Suppose I better do the math

Non-Independant:
Sword: 15/(1+1) = 7 (OAF)
Flame: 15/(1+2) = 5 (OAF, No Range, Linked to Sword)
Total: 12 Points

Independant:
Sword: 15/(1+3) = 4 (OAF, IND)
Flame: 15/(1+4) = 3 (OAF, IND, No Range, Linked to Sword)
Total: 7

[xanatos]

My problem is that this method is not very cost effective (as it had been demostrated plain simple HKA and RKA are the most cost-effective damage powers). But then, the cost is comparable with Reduced Penetration.
At least the AP are not summed (they are not summed, right?) so if I use (as a DM) an AP-cap, your solution is better than the Reduced Penetration one.
As always beatiful ideas are not cost-effective! :-)

[JmOz]

FOR SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT

COnsider applying the following advantages to it: Continous, uncontrolled, (0 end as well, but that might be placed on the sword itself) then the sword will continue to burn the person after the attack (The first attak is at 1d6 HKA)

[Blue]

And sticky! Each time someone tries to put them out, they catch fire too! Pretty soon the whole town is running through the streets and crying out in pain.

Well, maybe not. I've just been playing with that advantage for a few days to see what else I could do with it.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Assuming the weapon in question is a Long Sword or a Broad Sword, here's how I write up the Flaming Sword:
Flaming Sword: 38pt Multipower.
OAF(-1) Indep(-2) Strmin(-1/2) 10pts

1) Sword(non-flame): 1 1/2D6HKA(25) Ultra slot: 1pt Str Min 10

2) Sword(Flaming): 2D6HKA(30) +1StunX(+1/4) 37.5act: Reduced Pen(-1/4) Not In Water(-1/4) Ultra slot: 1pt. Str Min 10.

Now apply a minor House Rule (its nothing system-busting) that says the 1/2 of the Reduced Pen is vs PD Armor and the other 1/2 of the attack is vs ED Armor and you are good to go. The +1StunX represents the pain of fire damage. I didn't figure in 0End into the mix, but thats not too difficult to add in if you require it.

This represents your basic magical Flame Brand sword as seen in D&D and other such fantasy RPG's. Since the SFX of the flaming sword is fire, it can light flamables and other such "effects" for free...it shouldn't light people and creatures afire unless they are specifically susceptible to flame These Weapons don't blaze much brighter/hotter than a lit torch and in most fantasy games, you get to carry those for free....

[mudpyr8]

Referring to SuperBlue's 1d6/1d6 sword. Are defenses applied once or twice? That is, am I essentially rolling 2d6 damage or am I rolling 2 1d6 damage effects, which is obviously much easier to defend against.

[Heroman]

One thing, more supporting the Linked solution than others, is that the sword is a Physical killing attack, while fire is usually considered Energy (at least in the desc of 'ED'), so different defenses will probably be applied for each component of the flaming sword. Depending on how napalm-like the fire is, you can probably handle the spread of fire as a SFX if it just catches stuff which is normally flammable...

[Killer Shrike]

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [SFX: Edged]
OAF (-1)
15 AP 7 RC
plus
Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [SFX: Fire]
0 END Continuous Uncontrolled Sticky (+2 1/2)
No Range, OAF, Linked to Sword (-1 3/4)
52 AP 17 RC

Total Cost: 67 AP, 24 RC

The Flamebrand can be activated or not at the wielders option. For a Sword that is always flaming:

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [SFX: Edged]
OAF, Linked to Flamebrand (-1 1/4)
15 AP 7 RC
plus
Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [SFX: Fire]
0 END Continuous Uncontrolled Sticky (+2 1/2)
No Range, OAF, Linked to Sword (-1 3/4)
52 AP 17 RC

Total Cost: 67 AP, 24 RC

Same price thanx to rounding, so its a matter of choice.

Alternately, if the Sword is INDEPENDENT:

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [SFX: Edged]
OAF, IND (-3)
15 AP 4 RC
plus
Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [SFX: Fire]
0 END Continuous Uncontrolled Sticky (+2 1/2)
No Range, OAF, IND, Linked to Sword (-3 3/4)
52 AP 11 RC

Total Cost: 67 AP, 15 RC

or if the Sword is literally ON FIRE:

Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [SFX: Edged]
OAF (-1)
15 AP 7 RC
plus
Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [SFX: Fire]
0 END Continuous Offensive Damage Shield, Sticky (+2 3/4)
OAF, Linked to Sword (-1 1/4)
56 AP 25 RC

Total Cost: 71 AP, 32 RC

INDEPENDENT:
Sword: HKA 1d6 HKA (plus STR) [SFX: Edged]
OAF, IND (-3)
15 AP 4 RC
plus
Flamebrand: 1d6 RKA [SFX: Fire]
0 END Continuous Offensive Damage Shield, Sticky (+2 3/4)
OAF, IND, Linked to Sword (-3 1/4)
56 AP 13 RC

Total Cost: 71 AP, 17 RC

I dont have my book with me, so Im going on memory here; IIRC Dmg Shield is +1/2, must be Constant, you dont get No Range for ranged, you dont get No Strength for HKA/HA, and is +1/4 for Offensive use. If any of that is not true, recalc the Dmg Shield.

;)

This would shred unprotected commoners, leather armor types, etc. The termination for the 0 END Contin Uncon is to douse the flame, which can be established by Stop Drop and Roll, application of water or dirt, or any other reasonable means of extinguishing a fire.

As part of the SFX of Fire, use of Lamp Oil or other flammable liquid could result in an augmentation of the damage. I would probably adjudicate that as either an Aid to the Flame, or perhaps treat it like a boostable charge, with the uses of the flammable applied treated as +1 DC each. This would also make it harder to douse the flame for a short period of time. That sort of thing is all handled by SFX.


For a Flamebrand that would hurt heavily armored characters in Platemail, apply Penetrating to the Power Construct.

[pinecone]

Last time I did this I just went with "It's a special effect" so Sword:+1 OCV 1D6+1 HKA...Flaming:+2 OCV 2D6 HKA no price break as you can always do less than max dam if you want. It was actually a paracite demon in a swords form that "fed" on rage and pain....

[Koshka]

When I wrote up a similar sword (it didn't burn, it just heated up to 700 degrees Fahrenheit whenever drawn), I used Damage Shield. It's pricey, at 38 points for the complete sword, but it made sense for the sword to burn anyone who came in contact with it regardless of whether or not it was the sword holder's phase.

[pinecone]

And of course in an heroic campain characters don't pay for equip so cost is only an issue if you want to make one with the independant lim usually...

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by pinecone
And of course in an heroic campain characters don't pay for equip so cost is only an issue if you want to make one with the independant lim usually...
Flaming swords are not usually considered 'equipment' in any campaign Ive run, played in, or heard of.

[pinecone]

Dude you make players pay for found items? Man I have always let a player treat a item o' power as equipment...what else? "Dude ,sorry you cannot pick up the dark lords mace...you can't afford it" Although with the flamming sword "The wrath of Sullorn" the player acually did pay for it with a part of her soul (sold of a few points of characteristics) bartered to a big a**ed demon but that just meant it was a part of the character and even if stolen or sold would find it way back to the character eventually...sort of a "signature weapon" it also made her easy to find with mind scan because she in effect had "two" souls her own and the sword ,that held her rage and pain at those who had wronged her etc....

[Killer Shrike]

Thats not what I said; I said Flaming Swords (and by inference other Magic items) are not "EQUIPMENT". They are Power Constructs. If the item is constructed with Independent, then of course characters gain them for free when 'found' by the definition of Independent.

As a side note, even Equipment must be expressed as a Power, so either way such effects should be statted out.

[mudpyr8]

Just fishing for an answer.

Do you apply the flame effects separately against defenses or combined? If separately, I think buying a large power and making it reduced pen might be more appropriate, but that seems to cheapen the power significantly.

Stepping back and looking at it from a meta standpoint (not realism or anything else), the flaming sword should be more deadly than a regular sword, and simply do more damage because of it.

[Killer Shrike]

You apply the damage seperately, the Sword (Edged) vs PD, the Flamebrand (Fire) vs ED.

Fire does not make Swords cut better and Swords dont make Fire burn better.

Vs an unprotected foe, it does do more damage. A protected foes defenses must be surrmounted. If you want the fire to be deadlier, add Penetrating to represent the heat damage. It will destroy most armor fairly quickly, and ensure that massive damage is inflicted.

Read the rules on FOCI and Body damage. Even assuming Armor is by its nature Durable, a Penetrating attack that is Continuous Uncontrolled is going to melt or burn away almost all Armor fast.

[pinecone]

Oh...got ya...I guess in my mind Big flammin swords (tm) are a part and parcel of the genera so I think of them the same way I would an X-ray laser or a suit of power armor in Star hero. What I was expressing is there is no need to get too jumpy about the correct way or the cheapest way if no one is going to have to pay....Just get into the ball park and then fine tune and it's good....

[NuSoardGraphite]

Thats not what I said; I said Flaming Swords (and by inference other Magic items) are not "EQUIPMENT". They are Power Constructs. If the item is constructed with Independent, then of course characters gain them for free when 'found' by the definition of Independent.

As a side note, even Equipment must be expressed as a Power, so either way such effects should be statted out.

RESSURECTION!

I must answer this.

Equipment that the GM writes up DOES NOT have to be expressed as a Power and fully statted out. I do this all the time. In my fantasy games, I write up "Flame Brand" swords as +2 OCV, 1-1/2D6K, +1 StunX. They get +1DC because they are magic and they get +1 Stun multiplier because burns are freaking painful. The real advantage of the Flame Brand is that due to its SFX it can cast light as if it were a torch and it can light flammables (no need for flint and steel or rubbing some sticks together) and does extra damage to creatures vulnerable to fire attacks. I don't stat out any of that except the OCV bonus, damage and stun X. The rest is implied.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Equipment that the GM writes up DOES NOT have to be expressed as a Power and fully statted out. I do this all the time. In my fantasy games, I write up "Flame Brand" swords ... (Snip.) I don't stat out any of that except the OCV bonus, damage and stun X. The rest is implied.

Considering that you could spend hours 'statting up' stupid stuff ("Rope? You statted out rope?!?"), yes, some aspects aren't necessary to be deliberately statted -- the fire damage, the light, the extra damage to creatures vulnerable to fire attacks. (That's an SF/X call, taken care of by a) your statement that it's a fire brand, and b) the monster's disad of 'Vulnerable to Fire'.) The serious, game-affecting stuff should be, and clearly was -- but you shouldn't NEED to create stats for your 10' pole or your horse's shoes. Or your own shoes, for that matter...

[bigbywolfe]

I agree with both of you about the need, or lack there of, of statting everythin; but I don't think that is exactly what KS meant. The original post was generic and didn’t say if it was for a PC or not. If someone asks how to make something don’t you usually assume it’s something that should be statted out UNLESS they say it’s for an NPC or some such reason?

KS gave stats for doing it five different ways depending on how it would be used, without even looking in the book. I’m newer to the system and I like to stat out a fair amount of things I don’t really need to (things like plot-point gimmicks I could hand-wave, but don’t because I like the experience). It’s useful to see fully statted things, especially weapons, even “found weapons” that seem campaign specific. Comparing statting a rope or horseshoe to A FLAMING SWORD is like comparing statting a backpack to Superman’s Heat Vision. It’s ridiculous and does nothing to help either of you folk’s point.

Also, everything in KS’s build has a reason that fits with what was requested, a flaming sword. Why does your flaming sword have +1OCV? Because it’s magic? Are we assuming all objects on fire increase your chance to hit? Is your 1-1/2d6K damage against PD or ED? I’m assuming ED because it’s on fire. So what happens if you meet a fire resistant/impervious character? You can’t hurt him with the sword just because it’s on fire?


While your point about not needing to stat everything is true, I think your example actually hurts your argument. KS’s build could be used cross genre much more easily than yours, and could even be used by a PC as a power in pretty much any game while someone would have to go back, stat out your construct to figure out points, define the type of damage (as I mentioned above), etcetera.

P.S. Reviving a 5 year old thread to go "YOUR WRONG" to someone, seems a little snarky at best. Especially if you're point is a) commonly known and accepted and b) not supported well by explanation or example.

[Hyper-Man]

...
In my fantasy games, I write up "Flame Brand" swords as ....

Note that this is the HERO System Discussion forum (non-genre specific).
That plus the fact that you're responding to a post that is 5 years old is just a little odd. :nonp:

[NuSoardGraphite]

Note that this is the HERO System Discussion forum (non-genre specific).
That plus the fact that you're responding to a post that is 5 years old is just a little odd. :nonp:


I've been exercising my Necromantic powers lately. You'll likely see more undead threads shambling about in the near future.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I agree with both of you about the need, or lack there of, of statting everythin; but I don't think that is exactly what KS meant. The original post was generic and didn’t say if it was for a PC or not. If someone asks how to make something don’t you usually assume it’s something that should be statted out UNLESS they say it’s for an NPC or some such reason?

Please keep in mind that there is this mentality amongst Hero gamers (especialy the old guard) that absolutely everything must be fully statted out. And by that I mean every aspect fleshed out, using powers and advantages and limitations keeping full track of both active and real point costs.
Of corse, when it comes to important weapons and equipment, you need the stats, but do you really need to write out everything? We know its an OAF. We know its Independant. Do we need to know the active points on a .45 in a Pulp game, or the real cost of a Phased Plasma Rifle with a 40 watt range in our post apocalyptic game? No, I don't think we do. As long as we have the game stats and the weapon/equipment is playable, the rest is just filler.


KS gave stats for doing it five different ways depending on how it would be used, without even looking in the book. I’m newer to the system and I like to stat out a fair amount of things I don’t really need to (things like plot-point gimmicks I could hand-wave, but don’t because I like the experience). It’s useful to see fully statted things, especially weapons, even “found weapons” that seem campaign specific. Comparing statting a rope or horseshoe to A FLAMING SWORD is like comparing statting a backpack to Superman’s Heat Vision. It’s ridiculous and does nothing to help either of you folk’s point.

I occasionally run a Space Opera style game in HERO. I spent probably 4 or 5 years working on this campaign setting before I ran it. I had statted out about 300 weapons and about 100 different types of armor and armor options. I didn't have the active or real costs on a single one. I just had a big-ass chart of the equipments combat effects. (OCV, Rmod, Damage, StunX, Ammo, Rate of fire, Range, SFX and relevant Advantages/Limitations. In the case of armor, its Defense, which hit locations it covers, weight and the number of options slots it had) You know what? It worked beautifully.



Also, everything in KS’s build has a reason that fits with what was requested, a flaming sword. Why does your flaming sword have +1OCV? Because it’s magic? Are we assuming all objects on fire increase your chance to hit? Is your 1-1/2d6K damage against PD or ED? I’m assuming ED because it’s on fire. So what happens if you meet a fire resistant/impervious character? You can’t hurt him with the sword just because it’s on fire?

It has +1OCV because I like to give "magic" weapons additional OCV bonuses. Makes them better than non-magic weapons of the same kind. I also usually add +1 or +2 Damage Classes to the equation, sometimes.
In general, the weapon would go against PD. However, against a creature significantly vulnerable to fire, I might allow it to go against ED, if the ED is lower than the PD. For a creature resistant to fire, yes, the damage would be reduced, so it would be to the characters interest to extinguish the flames and fight with the sword without them. (notice I said "reduced" not nullified. Some damage would still get through)
As a GM, I'm flexible like that.



While your point about not needing to stat everything is true, I think your example actually hurts your argument. KS’s build could be used cross genre much more easily than yours, and could even be used by a PC as a power in pretty much any game while someone would have to go back, stat out your construct to figure out points, define the type of damage (as I mentioned above), etcetera.

Yeah, I have no problem with this.



P.S. Reviving a 5 year old thread to go "YOUR WRONG" to someone, seems a little snarky at best. Especially if you're point is a) commonly known and accepted and b) not supported well by explanation or example.

I've just been on a resurrection rampage lately, thats all. And I'm not about "You're Wrong!" posts, I just feel the need to oppose "Everything must be fully statted out!" posts. Big difference.

[Vondy]

Flaming swords are not usually considered 'equipment' in any campaign Ive run, played in, or heard of.

I've played in numerous games where magical items didn't cost any points. If they were obtained through the narrative that was explanation and cost enough. Of course, they could also be lost through the narrative. I don't see it as any different from other equipment for the average heroic game, just rare and somewhat exotic. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be statted out or the cost shouldn't be determined, but in the end it doesn't automatically follow that its a special case compared to laser pistols or time-bombs (etcetera). And, just jotting down quick notes may be sufficient.

[Vondy]

Also, everything in KS’s build has a reason that fits with what was requested, a flaming sword. Why does your flaming sword have +1OCV? Because it’s magic? Are we assuming all objects on fire increase your chance to hit? Is your 1-1/2d6K damage against PD or ED? I’m assuming ED because it’s on fire. So what happens if you meet a fire resistant/impervious character? You can’t hurt him with the sword just because it’s on fire?



I think it can be modeled however the GM feels is appropriate for the game they are running. I don't feel automatic to hit bonuses always follow. I've statted out flaming swords that were effectively normal weapons, but could affect creatures only affected by magic (SFX vs limitations on their defenses), and which has something as mundane as a RKA 1/2d6, 0 End and a the naked advantages continous, uncontrolled, and sticky with an activation roll and "only versus combustible materials" tacked on. At the same time, if someone wants it to be a huge fire attack, or to give to hit bonuses, that's also apropos. Hero is designed to enable you, not tie you into someone elses limited perceptions.

[prestidigitator]

Redefine the sword's HKA as working against ED instead of PD. Maybe bump up the damage to be above the norm for that type of sword. Maybe throw in a little Continuous if desired. Done. :p

I usually model "normal" fantasy armor so that the metal varieties provide only half their protection in ED as well. Feel free to call it due to conductivity or just for flavor and game balance as you wish. Works well for me.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Redefine the sword's HKA as working against ED instead of PD. Maybe bump up the damage to be above the norm for that type of sword. Maybe throw in a little Continuous if desired. Done. :p

I usually model "normal" fantasy armor so that the metal varieties provide only half their protection in ED as well. Feel free to call it due to conductivity or just for flavor and game balance as you wish. Works well for me.

I've considered that in the past. Cloth and Leather provide very little protection from intense heat and fire. Chain mail even less protection. Think about the heat build-up in a set of full plate. Why do I smell roast pork?

[Killer Shrike]

le sigh...clarification time.

A) I'm not a proponent of stating every mundane misc thing out, never have been.

In fact, I'm the guy that wrote the "Flashlight" (http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/HEROEquipmentDebunk.htm) Refutation, debunking the myth that you must pay points for mundane things or that they must even be stated out.

B) For that matter, for Fantasy, weapons generally must and should be written out as they are primarily combat items and will almost certainly be used in combat time, but I can agree that modeling the differences between say an axe and a sword in terms of...hey, they're both just HKA's...can get tedious and needlessly complex.

Towards that end I discuss multiple variants (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.aspx#WEAPONS%20&%20ARMOR%20VARIANTS) on different ways to handle mundane weapons in Fantasy, including a pretty involved mini-system (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeArmsArmament.aspx) that I use for my own Fantasy campaigns. Note the lack of character point costs involved, or even full power builds.

C) Flaming Swords, and other exceptional items of unusual power on the other hand are hardly the same as something you would pickup out of a barrel of random junk or find on every other thug; they merit full power write ups in my opinion, and in my experience general practice as well. If Flaming Swords are uber common and not worthy of mention in your setting, this doesn't apply, obviously but I would think that would be the exception rather than the rule.

Now, this doesn't also mean that they cost CHARACTER POINTS necessarily, only that they have a full write up behind them with AP, RC, etc.

I personally use the Independent Limitation in Fantasy for Permanent Magic Items, which means that they cost points to CREATE, but not to ACQUIRE. I have a very structured and fully defined meta-system for creating Magic Items (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeMagicItems.aspx), how they are defined using standard HERO System mechanics, and so forth.

D) Though being human I occasionally misspeak or am less than 100% precise or am even completely wrong, in general I say precisely what I mean.

More to the point if I had meant to say ALL THINGS MUST BE STATED OUT, I would have said exactly that. Similarly if I had meant to say ALL THINGS STATED OUT MUST COST CHARACTER POINTS, I would have said exactly that.

What I actually said was "Flaming swords are not usually considered 'equipment' in any campaign Ive run, played in, or heard of. ". Notice the use of the word "equipment" in lower case and in quotes vs the GAME TERM of Equipment as a capitalized unqualified word.

If it helps to make it more clear, the full meaning I was trying to convey lo those many years ago was:

"Flaming swords are not usually considered a mundane unexceptional item that might appear as a line item on an equipment list with nothing more than a gold coin cost in any campaign Ive run, played in, or heard of. "

If you are going to take exception to something, particularly something this dated, you might want to take exception to what it actually says vs what you've read into it.

[NuSoardGraphite]

le sigh...clarification time.

A) I'm not a proponent of stating every mundane misc thing out, never have been.

In fact, I'm the guy that wrote the "Flashlight" (http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/HEROEquipmentDebunk.htm) Refutation, debunking the myth that you must pay points for mundane things or that they must even be stated out.

B) For that matter, for Fantasy, weapons generally must and should be written out as they are primarily combat items and will almost certainly be used in combat time, but I can agree that modeling the differences between say an axe and a sword in terms of...hey, they're both just HKA's...can get tedious and needlessly complex.

Towards that end I discuss multiple variants (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.aspx#WEAPONS%20&%20ARMOR%20VARIANTS) on different ways to handle mundane weapons in Fantasy, including a pretty involved mini-system (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeArmsArmament.aspx) that I use for my own Fantasy campaigns. Note the lack of character point costs involved, or even full power builds.

C) Flaming Swords, and other exceptional items of unusual power on the other hand are hardly the same as something you would pickup out of a barrel of random junk or find on every other thug; they merit full power write ups in my opinion, and in my experience general practice as well. If Flaming Swords are uber common and not worthy of mention in your setting, this doesn't apply, obviously but I would think that would be the exception rather than the rule.

Now, this doesn't also mean that they cost CHARACTER POINTS necessarily, only that they have a full write up behind them with AP, RC, etc.

I personally use the Independent Limitation in Fantasy for Permanent Magic Items, which means that they cost points to CREATE, but not to ACQUIRE. I have a very structured and fully defined meta-system for creating Magic Items (http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/shrikeMagicItems.aspx), how they are defined using standard HERO System mechanics, and so forth.

D) Though being human I occasionally misspeak or am less than 100% precise or am even completely wrong, in general I say precisely what I mean.

More to the point if I had meant to say ALL THINGS MUST BE STATED OUT, I would have said exactly that. Similarly if I had meant to say ALL THINGS STATED OUT MUST COST CHARACTER POINTS, I would have said exactly that.

What I actually said was "Flaming swords are not usually considered 'equipment' in any campaign Ive run, played in, or heard of. ". Notice the use of the word "equipment" in lower case and in quotes vs the GAME TERM of Equipment as a capitalized unqualified word.

If it helps to make it more clear, the full meaning I was trying to convey lo those many years ago was:

"Flaming swords are not usually considered a mundane unexceptional item that might appear as a line item on an equipment list with nothing more than a gold coin cost in any campaign Ive run, played in, or heard of. "

If you are going to take exception to something, particularly something this dated, you might want to take exception to what it actually says vs what you've read into it.

If we did that, there wouldn't be nearly as much to discuss around here.

[bigbywolfe]

Wow, and the Snarkyness continues! (Okay, so that may have overly rude on my part, but seriously...) I quite disagree. If we did that, topics might actually stay "on topic" and new threads created when conversations veer to far from the original intent. Heck, I know I've derailed a couple threads when I could have started new ones.

Also, is making a smart aleck remark instead of addressing anything he said supposed to be clever? Zen? Or do you just lack a response because he's correct?

[cutsleeve]

The only reason to really stat up an item like that in a low or moderate powered game is in case its hit by an adjustment power(drain,dispel,ect.). Other then that there are a few other instances where you might need a "price total" but overall a few general stats should work.

A simple HKA with a Flaming Sword SFX should work just fine. A lot of people forget special effects count for something especially in heroic games.

[bigbywolfe]

Special effects don't tell you whether it's Physical or Energy damage, or both, unless you actually say it in the special effects’ description, which she didn't. That doesn't mean you have to stat out the points, but if its’ actual effects are not at least stated (note: stated/said, not statted) somewhere in the description, then it is completely up to the GM. Having things left up to the GM to decide “on the fly” is fine, unless it’s in a forum where someone asked how to do it.


The only reason to really stat up an item like that in a low or moderate powered game is in case its hit by an adjustment power(drain,dispel,ect.). Other then that there are a few other instances where you might need a "price total" but overall a few general stats should work.

A simple HKA with a Flaming Sword SFX should work just fine. A lot of people forget special effects count for something especially in heroic games.

The original request was for a “standard” flaming sword. I don’t think “standard” automatically implies “low or moderate” power level in the game, that’s simply your inference. I would assume that your inference was correct, but that doesn’t really change the fact that it was a blanket request on how to build something.



It has +1OCV because I like to give "magic" weapons additional OCV bonuses. Makes them better than non-magic weapons of the same kind.

That’s nice. When I ask a question I like to be told how to do something by the book and I’ll adjust it as I see fit. But I’m glad you “like to give ‘magic’ weapons” bonuses for no apparent reason (at least not one built into the weapon). Personally I would think the added damage from the fire would "make them better" than weapons of the same kind. I almost laughed when I read that, because the way you word it almost implies that you have 'non-magic' flaming swords.



I occasionally run a Space Opera style game in HERO. I spent probably 4 or 5 years working on this campaign setting before I ran it. I had statted out about 300 weapons and about 100 different types of armor and armor options. I didn't have the active or real costs on a single one. I just had a big-ass chart of the equipments combat effects. (OCV, Rmod, Damage, StunX, Ammo, Rate of fire, Range, SFX and relevant Advantages/Limitations. In the case of armor, its Defense, which hit locations it covers, weight and the number of options slots it had) You know what? It worked beautifully.

Good for you. A lot of people wouldn’t or couldn’t take that much time to set up a campaign. If I was going to, I’d dang sure stat out weapons and armor, so I knew how they balanced and would be more “exportable” to other genres/campaigns and easier to share with people working on a different level than I was. How your campaign turned out has no real influence on this conversation, or what was stated earlier in this thread.

[NuSoardGraphite]

That’s nice. When I ask a question I like to be told how to do something by the book and I’ll adjust it as I see fit. But I’m glad you “like to give ‘magic’ weapons” bonuses for no apparent reason (at least not one built into the weapon). Personally I would think the added damage from the fire would "make them better" than weapons of the same kind. I almost laughed when I read that, because the way you word it almost implies that you have 'non-magic' flaming swords.


I was mainly talking about "magic weapons" in general, not just magical flaming swords. Kinda like how in D&D (and pretty much just about every other Fantasy RPG in existance today) magic weapons give bonuses to hit and oftentimes to damage as well. I happen to like that aspect of Fantasy Roleplaying, thus I've ported it into my own HERO games. So if a 'standard' Longsword is +1OCV, 1D6+1K etc, a magical long sword might be +2OCV and 1-1/2D6K.
Of course, one thing I didn't like about many other Fantasy RPG's is the standardization of magical weapons, as if such weapons were commonplace. Thus I try to make each piece of magical equipment as unique as possible. But thats just me.




Good for you. A lot of people wouldn’t or couldn’t take that much time to set up a campaign. If I was going to, I’d dang sure stat out weapons and armor, so I knew how they balanced and would be more “exportable” to other genres/campaigns and easier to share with people working on a different level than I was. How your campaign turned out has no real influence on this conversation, or what was stated earlier in this thread.

I set it up when I was a bachelor with tons of time on my hands. I don't have that kind of time anymore, so it was fortunate I was able to do it before hand.
And I don't need to figure out the Active and Real point costs to know how well a piece of equipment will balance out with other aspects of a different campaign setting. I have more than enough experience with the system to simply look at Accuracy, Damage Class and advantages and limitations and know instantly if something is underpowered or overpowered or balanced. Neighter active points nor real point costs are indicative of true power level or utility in HERO.

[Hugh Neilson]

I was mainly talking about "magic weapons" in general, not just magical flaming swords. Kinda like how in D&D (and pretty much just about every other Fantasy RPG in existance today) magic weapons give bonuses to hit and oftentimes to damage as well. I happen to like that aspect of Fantasy Roleplaying, thus I've ported it into my own HERO games. So if a 'standard' Longsword is +1OCV, 1D6+1K etc, a magical long sword might be +2OCV and 1-1/2D6K.
Of course, one thing I didn't like about many other Fantasy RPG's is the standardization of magical weapons, as if such weapons were commonplace. Thus I try to make each piece of magical equipment as unique as possible. But thats just me.

So you like all magic weapons having bonuses to the same things, but you don't like standardization of magical weapons. :nonp:

Seems to me it would be much less standardized to have a magical sword which is more accurate, yet less damaging, or provides a bonus to damage but is difficult to wield (penalty to OCV) than to provide that all magical swords must be superior to a normal sword in all respects.

[Hugh Neilson]

I set it up when I was a bachelor with tons of time on my hands. I don't have that kind of time anymore, so it was fortunate I was able to do it before hand.
And I don't need to figure out the Active and Real point costs to know how well a piece of equipment will balance out with other aspects of a different campaign setting. I have more than enough experience with the system to simply look at Accuracy, Damage Class and advantages and limitations and know instantly if something is underpowered or overpowered or balanced. Neighter active points nor real point costs are indicative of true power level or utility in HERO.

So what happens when a player wants to buy a piece of signature equipment - that is, customize one of your weapons as his special "character schtick" weapon? I guess he can't, since we don't know what any of them cost to begin with.

[Killer Shrike]

Personally, I just find it kind of ironic that an argument about flaming swords has devolved into flames. Xanatos appears to be long gone or at best an infrequent lurker at this point. Any chance we can all just take a deep breath, let it go, and walk away from it?

[cutsleeve]

Internet forums have that as a disadvantage.

Enraged: Any thread longer that 2 posts. Very Common, 14- to become enraged, and 8- to recover. :mad:

[NuSoardGraphite]

So you like all magic weapons having bonuses to the same things, but you don't like standardization of magical weapons. :nonp:

Actually, I was just using +1OCV/+1DC bonus as an example. I vary the bonuses considerably depending on the weapon/equipments design and function. However, the most basic consideration is that magic weapons are supposed to be without a doubt, better than mundane weapons, thus magical weapons will get at least a +1OCV/+1DC bonus.



Seems to me it would be much less standardized to have a magical sword which is more accurate, yet less damaging, or provides a bonus to damage but is difficult to wield (penalty to OCV) than to provide that all magical swords must be superior to a normal sword in all respects.

well in my experience, i've never read a fantasy novel or seen a fantasy film where a magic weapon was in any shape or form inferior, unless the weapon was somehow incomplete, or being weilded by the wrong hands. To me, it feels far more in genre to make magic weapons superior to mundane ones. But thats just how I see it. With the addition of advantages and limitations, artificial intelligence and various powers added to a weapon, avoiding standardization is quite easy.

[NuSoardGraphite]

So what happens when a player wants to buy a piece of signature equipment - that is, customize one of your weapons as his special "character schtick" weapon? I guess he can't, since we don't know what any of them cost to begin with.

I do the same thing that every other Fantasy RPG does...make the character go on a quest to find the materials and someone to forge and enchant a weapon for him. If the weapon is Independant, no points are paid for it. Characters only have to pay points for innate skills and abilities in my Heroic level games.

If a character wants to start the game with a special or magical weapon, there has to be a good reason in that characters background for them to have it. And of course, as a GM, I have no problem saying no to a player if the weapon they want is too powerful or unbalancing at the start of a campaign. Then again, if it fits within the framework of the campaign and isn't unbalancing, then I'll let them have it. No problemo.

[Hugh Neilson]

So what happens when a player wants to buy a piece of signature equipment - that is, customize one of your weapons as his special "character schtick" weapon? I guess he can't, since we don't know what any of them cost to begin with.


I do the same thing that every other Fantasy RPG does...make the character go on a quest to find the materials and someone to forge and enchant a weapon for him. If the weapon is Independant, no points are paid for it. Characters only have to pay points for innate skills and abilities in my Heroic level games.

If a character wants to start the game with a special or magical weapon, there has to be a good reason in that characters background for them to have it. And of course, as a GM, I have no problem saying no to a player if the weapon they want is too powerful or unbalancing at the start of a campaign. Then again, if it fits within the framework of the campaign and isn't unbalancing, then I'll let them have it. No problemo.

So the answer to my actual question, then, is that the player cannot apply the rule referring to signature equipment because he cannot purchase such a piece of equipment using the character's own points. Is that correct?

[NuSoardGraphite]

So the answer to my actual question, then, is that the player cannot apply the rule referring to signature equipment because he cannot purchase such a piece of equipment using the character's own points. Is that correct?

probably. Depends on the game, but for a firmly Heroic level Fantasy or Space Opera game, that would be correct. (they would get their "signature equipment" for free essentially)

[Hugh Neilson]

probably. Depends on the game, but for a firmly Heroic level Fantasy or Space Opera game, that would be correct. (they would get their "signature equipment" for free essentially)

I believe the rules suggest that a character purchase his signature equipment with points in purely heroic games.

Even absent this, how do you handle naked advantages applied to weapons with no direct build? The general rule is that I need a naked advantage high enough to add to the base weapon. These are not uncommon in heroic fantasy or sci fi games.

[prestidigitator]

Sure there can be non-magical flaming swords. Coat a sword in oil, or more likely pitch, light it, and away you go. Especially in a fantasy setting.

In any case, it's likely everyone is going to have different parameters for their games, especially the heroic ones, and especially the heroic ones involving magic. Let's remember our "many different ways of doing things" approach, and note the possible benefits (AND drawbacks) of ALL of these suggestions. You don't have to use all or even any of them in your own games. :celebrate

[NuSoardGraphite]

I believe the rules suggest that a character purchase his signature equipment with points in purely heroic games.

yeah, I don't like that rule so I ignore it.



Even absent this, how do you handle naked advantages applied to weapons with no direct build? The general rule is that I need a naked advantage high enough to add to the base weapon. These are not uncommon in heroic fantasy or sci fi games.

well, we don't have a lot of Naked Advantages running around in our games, but it could come up. When it comes up, I can just look at something and know about what the Active Points should be. And even if the Active points were a bit higher than what the character should be able to apply their naked advantage to, if it makes sense for them to be able to apply it, I usually let them. Again, I'm flexible like that.

[bigbywolfe]

Yet again, what rules you choose to ignore and how "flexible" you are, has nothing to do with the reason this thread was started. It was started to ask a question. You yelled "RESSURECTION! I must answer this." Then you proceeded to try to call someone out about a point that he NEVER MADE, unless you have absolutely no understanding of context for a conversation, and even if he did mispeak, you completely ignored when he corrected himself; Then threw out a half-arsed suggestion which did not in any way answer the initial question:

What is the most elegant/correct way to model a "flaming sword"? (a sword that is a standard sword and that does a little more fire-damage on top of the standard damage)

I'm pretty sure you already responded to this question, but with the crash of the msg boards I wasn't able to find it.


I mean, the fact that he asked Steve shows that he wanted to know how to do it By The Book.

[Scion Zane]

Yet again, what rules you choose to ignore and how "flexible" you are, has nothing to do with the reason this thread was started. It was started to ask a question. You yelled "RESSURECTION! I must answer this." Then you proceeded to try to call someone out about a point that he NEVER MADE, unless you have absolutely no understanding of context for a conversation, and even if he did mispeak, you completely ignored when he corrected himself; Then threw out a half-arsed suggestion which did not in any way answer the initial question:


I mean, the fact that he asked Steve shows that he wanted to know how to do it By The Book.

dude put your ego back in the box Nsg did answer the guys question. But when you post a question on the hero board your going to get a 100 diffrent ways of writeing some thing up. So tell him how to write up his flame sword bye the book

[NuSoardGraphite]

Yet again, what rules you choose to ignore and how "flexible" you are, has nothing to do with the reason this thread was started.

That makes perfect sense, considering I wasn't replaying to the original post.



You yelled "RESSURECTION!

Yeah, I do that sometimes.



Then you proceeded to try to call someone out about a point that he NEVER MADE,

Actually, he did make the point I was attempting to counter:


Thats not what I said; I said Flaming Swords (and by inference other Magic items) are not "EQUIPMENT". They are Power Constructs. If the item is constructed with Independent, then of course characters gain them for free when 'found' by the definition of Independent.

As a side note, even Equipment must be expressed as a Power, so either way such effects should be statted out.

I took umbrage with his statement that Equipment must be expressed as a Power and that the effects should be statted out. My counterpoint was that the effects need only be statted out as much as the GM needs them to be and not always do they need full writeups including Active and Real point costs.



unless you have absolutely no understanding of context for a conversation, and even if he did mispeak, you completely ignored when he corrected himself; Then threw out a half-arsed suggestion which did not in any way answer the initial question:

If you noticed very early up in the thread pertaining to the initial question, I posted my response with a fully fleshed out power construct, so I felt no need to go any further with the original posters question, merely stating my opinion on what Killer Shrike posted.



I mean, the fact that he asked Steve shows that he wanted to know how to do it By The Book.

And I gave my opinion on that, much earlier in the thread.

What I really want to know is why you are taking such offense at my post. My replay was aimed at KS's post, not one of yours. Killer Shrike is used to my inane ramblings by now. Don't take things written on the internet so personaly, especialy when they weren't even directed toward you in the first place!

[Hugh Neilson]

yeah, I don't like that rule so I ignore it.

well, we don't have a lot of Naked Advantages running around in our games, but it could come up. When it comes up, I can just look at something and know about what the Active Points should be. And even if the Active points were a bit higher than what the character should be able to apply their naked advantage to, if it makes sense for them to be able to apply it, I usually let them. Again, I'm flexible like that.

OK, we don't know how the character could buy signature equipment, so we just prohibit them from doing so. We don't know how to apply naked advantages, so we just handwave it. We can't figure out how to Suppress, Dispel, Drain, Aid or Succor the equipment, so I guess that either gets disallowed or handwaved as well.

Sounds like this could be a decent game system. Obviously it's working for you. But in my little universe, it's moving further and further away from Hero and closer to other games where you get the effects described by the power, but can't look under the hood to figure out how it works.

To me, Hero is designed to allow for objective resolution of issues like "can I use my naked Autofire advantage with the FlameSword", "did I successfully Dispel his FlameSword", or "How much did my Aid/Drain reduce the power of his FlameSword". Your approach removes that objectivity in favour of a "Trust the GM" approach. That approach can work fine. But it's not the Hero approach.

[Alibear]

That approach can work fine. But it's not the Hero approach.

Well, yes and no. Hero tells you to use whatever rules you like and ignore what you don't. There is no right way in Hero. ;)

[NuSoardGraphite]

OK, we don't know how the character could buy signature equipment, so we just prohibit them from doing so.

Thats actually incorrect. As I said earlier, I would allow a character to design "signature equipment' as long as it fit within the scope of the campaign and wasn't game-busting. The only difference is that I wouldn't make the characters pay points for it. In my (Heroic) games, all equipment costs money, not character points. Even special/magical equipment.



We don't know how to apply naked advantages, so we just handwave it.

Oh, I know how. I'm just not strict. Also, in general, players in my games don't need Naked Advantages, because I'm a supporter of powers written up as Superskills, and I'm perfectly fine with Power Frameworks in my Heroic games, most especialy Multipowers. Of course, I do support Naked Advantages, but my players rarely purchase them.



We can't figure out how to Suppress, Dispel, Drain, Aid or Succor the equipment, so I guess that either gets disallowed or handwaved as well.

well, considering that I know that Player A's Magical Sword of Flame is +2OCV (10pts) 1.5D6K (25pts) and +1 Stun multiplier (+1/4) off the top of my head, and the math is so simple, it would only take me about 2 seconds to figure out that the active cost on that is 42pts. Dispel away!



Sounds like this could be a decent game system. Obviously it's working for you. But in my little universe, it's moving further and further away from Hero and closer to other games where you get the effects described by the power, but can't look under the hood to figure out how it works.

Well, considering the characters have STR, DEX, CON and BOD and attack using OCV vs DCV and roll 3D6 for skills and use the Speed Chart, it certainly feels like HERO to me. Why is it that so many people around these parts think that Powers Building is the core of HERO?



To me, Hero is designed to allow for objective resolution of issues like "can I use my naked Autofire advantage with the FlameSword", "did I successfully Dispel his FlameSword", or "How much did my Aid/Drain reduce the power of his FlameSword". Your approach removes that objectivity in favour of a "Trust the GM" approach. That approach can work fine. But it's not the Hero approach.

Well, ultimately the players have to trust the GM anyway, so I don't think it really adds anything to that equation.
Also, I handwave a lot of that stuff because I think its ludicrous that a character could add an Autofire Naked Advantage or Armor Piercing Naked Advantage to a mundane longsword (25pts) but could not add their advantage to the magical flaming longsword (42 active). I know by the math it shouldn't be done but there is no logical in-game reason why this couldn't happen.

[bigbywolfe]

I apologies for my overreaction and rudeness. I found the drudging up of a five year old post somewhat ridiculous. I was also frustrated by the fact that you seemed to completely ignore the fact that KS elaborated on what he meant, and every time any one points that fact out, you reply to everything they say, except that.

Anyway, none of that excuses my attitude. I’m done with this thread and you have my apologies, for what that is worth.

[Sean Waters]

Bumbling back to the OP, tell me, is this a game where you point pay for the sword or not?

Either way, I suppose, you need to decide what flaming swords do. Start with that. Does a flaming sword just do some more damage? Convert PD damage to ED damage or do both? Does it have continuing burning effects?

Probably the most 'efficient' way to do it would be something like:

2d6 HKA 0 END (45 points with a limtiation that half the damage applies against PD and half against ED -/12) 30 points.

[Hugh Neilson]

Thats actually incorrect. As I said earlier, I would allow a character to design "signature equipment' as long as it fit within the scope of the campaign and wasn't game-busting. The only difference is that I wouldn't make the characters pay points for it. In my (Heroic) games, all equipment costs money, not character points. Even special/magical equipment.

I was referring to the actual rules for signature equipment, under which the character does pay for the equipment, typically does not take the Independent limitation and as such tends to have little difficulty replacing the equipment should it be damaged or lost.

Of course, a GM could certainly run a game where such purchases are not possible, just as he can disallow anything a player could otherwise spend points on. To me, purchasing signature items allows two things, customization of equipment (most commonly in a manner that other characters cannot simply acquire the same equipment themselves) and purchasing back a measure of control that the character will typically have access to the equipment in question and/or it will easily be replaced.

Source material examples?

Sci Fi? In Star Wars, there's Luke's lightsaber - when he loses one, he makes another. Just putting "Dad was a Jedi" in your background could allow you to have a Lightsaber, I suppose, but if the weapon is a significant improvement on typical purchased (wiith money) weapons, how fair is that? The Millenium Falcon probably should have been lost or destroyed a few times, but always got repaired and recovered. Even Chewie's crossbow kept turning up. Why keep it intact - no one but a Wookie used the things.

Fantasy? Elric's Stormbringer is a classic example. He can't even ditch it voluntarily by tossing it in the ocean. It's a seminal part of the character, as compared to many other fantasy characters, like Conan, who just take whatever equipment they can find.

Pulp? The Avenger had Mike and Ike, customized gun and knife, which didn't work like normal weapons, and he always seemed to have available to him.


well, considering that I know that Player A's Magical Sword of Flame is +2OCV (10pts) 1.5D6K (25pts) and +1 Stun multiplier (+1/4) off the top of my head, and the math is so simple, it would only take me about 2 seconds to figure out that the active cost on that is 42pts. Dispel away!

That seems to contradict "I don't stat out the sword", though.


Well, considering the characters have STR, DEX, CON and BOD and attack using OCV vs DCV and roll 3D6 for skills and use the Speed Chart, it certainly feels like HERO to me. Why is it that so many people around these parts think that Powers Building is the core of HERO?

To many of us, it is a key component of the rules.


Well, ultimately the players have to trust the GM anyway, so I don't think it really adds anything to that equation.

I trust the GM to enforce the restrictions of independent equipment purchased with something other than character points equally. if Luke wants to always have that Lightsaber, either he should pay for the privilege, or Han's customized heavy blaster that he didn't pay points for either should be found just as conveniently, rather than requiring him to grab a generic blaster from a fallen stormtrooper. Similarly, I trust the GM to give me the benefit of points spent for signature equipment that is not as restricted as an object paid for in cash.

I also trust the GM, when I play a game with objective point costs for abilities and objective resolution mechanics, to use those objective mechanics and not handwave them away arbitrarily.


Also, I handwave a lot of that stuff because I think its ludicrous that a character could add an Autofire Naked Advantage or Armor Piercing Naked Advantage to a mundane longsword (25pts) but could not add their advantage to the magical flaming longsword (42 active). I know by the math it shouldn't be done but there is no logical in-game reason why this couldn't happen.

This is simply the conflict of game balance vs game logic. Why don't certain D&D effects stack? There's no logic why the Paladin Holy Weapon spell doesn't enhance the properties of a weapon that already has advantages related to critical hits, but game balance makes it so.

To your specific example, I find it ludicrous that people assume there are only two options "handwave the points away" or "rigidly prohibit this from ever working". My answer to the issue would be:

- first, if the player's intent is that his AP NA will work on pretty much any weapon he finds, he should buy it large enough to apply to pretty much any typical weapon. If magic weapons are common, that means buying it to affect more than 25 points. But let's assume no one knew that magic weapons would be an issue, and we now have this 42 point flaming sword, and only 12 points spent on the AP NA, so we have a 9 point shortfall (at most - the naked advantage may be more limited).

We can handwave it and say AP works with any weapon for 9 points. Nice freebie for the character. We'll have to get game balance through some other mechanism. We can absolutely prohibit its use and throw game logic out the window. But we can also make numerous other choices like:

- this is only a once in a campaign type thing - he won't be keeping the flaming sword. Let it work as a "power stunt" due to SFX.

- the character plans on keeping the sword - he can use his AP NA with it, but he has to commit to spending his next 9 xp buying up that ability so he pays for its ongoing use.

- similar to the above, maybe he has to get used to this new weapon, so we impose some limitations on the extra 9 points for his AP NA, like he must make a Skill or Activation Roll to make the flaming sword AP, or Concentrate, or otherwise be limited in this regard. Maybe it's like a Hand Attack - he has to restrict himself to 25 AP worth of damaging effect (bonus OCV is irrelevant to the AP advantage, so it shouldn't count regardless) to use AP, or he can use the superior damage of the item to full effect, but he loses the finesse of AP in the process. Do magic flaming swords interact with armor the same way a length of steel does? That justifies some restrictions as well, from a game logic perspective.

There's lots of middle ground between "you can have this extra ability at no cost" and "no matter how game logical it is, the points will override".

[Alibear]

Luke's lightsabre is just a lightsabre, he isnae paying for it with points anymore than Stormtroopers are paying for their armour or Han is buying his blaster with points.

Someone here is misunderstanding Hero or Star Wars or both at a fundamental level. Maybe it's me?

[Hugh Neilson]

Luke's lightsabre is just a lightsabre, he isnae paying for it with points anymore than Stormtroopers are paying for their armour or Han is buying his blaster with points.

Someone here is misunderstanding Hero or Star Wars or both at a fundamental level. Maybe it's me?

This depends on how the game is functioning. In a fantasy game, I can typically buy my sword with cash. Or I can actually pay the points for a sword, which allows me to customize it. It might be masterfully worked, or magic, making it superior to the sword YOU bought with cash. Perhaps it is a family heirloom. It could be eternally sharp and suffer from none of the drawbacks associated with poor maintenance or using it to hack down doors (it doesn't have Real Weapon as a limitation). Perhaps it is light as a feather and can be wielded with no effort (it lacks a STR Min limitation), or maybe it is difficult to swing (no 0 END advantage). It might be difficult to disarm (OIF, rather than OAF), and it could be something I can readily replace (not Independent).

In Star Wars, many other objects were routinely lost and not easily replaced. Luke was rarely parted from his lightsaber, and even when it was clearly lost (down the Cloud City drain), and irretrievable, he was able to obtain a replacement despite the fact that no one actually makes or sells them. To me, his focus is not Independent, and that means he paid points for it. YMMV.

I could easily envision an SW based game where lightsabers must be purchased with points, or where every WalMart stocks them beside the Heavy Blasters, one aisle down from Protocol Driods.

[cutsleeve]

Conan should probably be build with a purchased HKA that's defined with a "sharp nasty pointy thing of opportunity" SFX instead of a focus limitation.

It would fit with the sword and sorcery schtick. Conan always loses his weapon but you know when he needs a weapon one will just happen to be handy. Him beating up a hapless guard is just part of the SFX for procuring a new one. :D

[Alibear]

To me, his focus is not Independent, and that means he paid points for it. YMMV.

I could easily envision an SW based game where lightsabers must be purchased with points, or where every WalMart stocks them beside the Heavy Blasters, one aisle down from Protocol Driods.


My Mileage does indeed vary. It's a focus and that means he paid cash for the parts and OB1 showed him how to build one.

[Hyper-Man]

re: Star Wars & Lightsabers

page 148 of Star Hero lists an Energy Sword with a cost of 117 real points. The Active cost is much higher. It's a fair approximation of a Lightsaber without the Missile Deflection part.

If I were going to run a Hero Star Wars game I wouldn't require a Jedi to pay points for the Lightsaber. However, I would require them to pay points for knowing how to use it, build/replace it and Missile Deflect with it (With Limitations possibly Linked to having a Lightsaber available).

I can't see how making the Jedi character pay that extra 117 real points, when they already need to pay for other Force Powers above and beyond what all other non-Jedi need to pay for, would make a game more balanced. I would be sure to note the build on the character sheet under equipment.

[Sean Waters]

I'm not sure if it matters whether characters pay for equipment with points or money, so long as the same creation rules apply throughout a given game to all PCs and NPCs. That could be overly simplistic, but it works for me :)

As Hugh points out though, some equipment is 'better' than other equipment, and if characters are not point balancing equipment thent he GM has to amke sure things do not get unbalanced. Everyone will want a light sabre/battlesuit/spaceship if there is no downside other than having to write a little more int he character background.

You might get around that in some other way - perhaps a perk that allows you to use a lightsabre without maiming yourself. That way you are not paying for the equipment directly, but there is a point cost associated with taking it. Similarly the GM might require you to spend points on a skill or perk allowing you to use a battlesuit. By and large some sort of threshold skill or ability is often the way other games balance such things, and Hero is nothing if not adaptable.

[Alibear]

Fair for PC's, sure but NPC's? Who gives a damn about fair for NPC's?

Anyway, in a Star Wars game I would imagine the players would be happy with the premise that only Jedi carried a lightsabre but would be burdened with powers and skills other 'classes' would not.

Failing that all players could play jedi for fairness' sake.

[Hugh Neilson]

page 148 of Star Hero lists an Energy Sword with a cost of 117 real points. The Active cost is much higher. It's a fair approximation of a Lightsaber without the Missile Deflection part.

If I were going to run a Hero Star Wars game I wouldn't require a Jedi to pay points for the Lightsaber. However, I would require them to pay points for knowing how to use it, build/replace it and Missile Deflect with it (With Limitations possibly Linked to having a Lightsaber available).

I can't see how making the Jedi character pay that extra 117 real points, when they already need to pay for other Force Powers above and beyond what all other non-Jedi need to pay for, would make a game more balanced. I would be sure to note the build on the character sheet under equipment.

It depends on the value of point-free equipment acquired by other players, IMO. If the Lightsaber has a 117 point value, and the highest power weapon someone can choose if they didn't spend 1 point on WF: Lightsaber is, say 17 points, with considerably less accuracy and damage capacity, why should anyone not spend that 1 point for the WF and access an extra 100 points of value?

Adding in special costs to be allowed to use a Lightsaber, so it will cost more than being able to use a Heavy Blaster, is just another way of charging the guy with the lightsaber more points. That could be a more expensive WF for knowing how to use it, expensive skills for knowing how to build/replace it or a requirement to purchase an array of Jedi powers and abilities that you have decided in advance won't be nearly as useful in game as other uses of those points would be. Now a Jedi with a lightsaber may be balanced against a Pilot with a heavy blaster pistol, a Princess with a blaster and a Wookie with a Crossbow, but a Jedi without a Lightsaber is so much dead weight.


I'm not sure if it matters whether characters pay for equipment with points or money, so long as the same creation rules apply throughout a given game to all PCs and NPCs. That could be overly simplistic, but it works for me :)

As Hugh points out though, some equipment is 'better' than other equipment, and if characters are not point balancing equipment thent he GM has to make sure things do not get unbalanced. Everyone will want a light sabre/battlesuit/spaceship if there is no downside other than having to write a little more int he character background.

You might get around that in some other way - perhaps a perk that allows you to use a lightsabre without maiming yourself. That way you are not paying for the equipment directly, but there is a point cost associated with taking it. Similarly the GM might require you to spend points on a skill or perk allowing you to use a battlesuit. By and large some sort of threshold skill or ability is often the way other games balance such things, and Hero is nothing if not adaptable.

I think this nails it, Sean. Take a look at the D&D weapon list and ask yourself how many of these weapons never see the light of day because there is an alternative which is clearly superior. The weapons that do get used tend to have near-identical stats. For example, a longsword or a battle axe, both martial weapons usable one-handed doing 1d8; the only difference is that the sword gets a critical chance on 19-20 to double damage and the axe gets the chance on a 20 only, but will triple damage. 10% chance to add Damage = .1 average Damage Add. 5% chance to add 2x Damage = 0.1 average Damage Add.

And, as you say, requiring payment of points in another fashion (skills, perks, X points of less useful Jedi powers) is just a different way of making the weapon cost (more) character points. Just like a requirement to take two fairly useless feats as prerequisites for a much more powerful feat is considered to balance out in d20.


Fair for PC's, sure but NPC's? Who gives a damn about fair for NPC's?

Anyway, in a Star Wars game I would imagine the players would be happy with the premise that only Jedi carried a lightsabre but would be burdened with powers and skills other 'classes' would not.

So forced to pay for his lightsaber access with a different form of points, but still paying for his lightsaber.

Forgetting the Star Wars trapping for the moment, suppose we add a melee weapon to the Hero System fantasy charts. It does 2d6 KA base damage, just like a Greatsword. However, it is a one handed weapon with a STR Min of 3 (it's very well balanced and easy to wield). It's so finely balanced it grants a +2 OCV bonus, and it's also defensive, so it grants a +1 DCV bonus. Finally, it can be thrown and returns to its holder, whether it hits or misses, much like a boomerang. Anyone with WF: Common Melee Weapons can use it.

Now, assume the players are in a city about to be besieged, and the rulers have opened up the armory (ie cost in cash is not an issue). How many of the PC's do you think will select a different weapon than the one I have created above?

You could build a character with many skill levels in another weapon, perhaps one who lacks broad familiarities, so is unable to use this new item. But he'd be much less powerful than a guy who spent 1 point on WF: Hugh's UltraWeapon and combines his skills with the innate advantages I have given that weapon. That one piece of gear enjoys clear superiority, so everyone will logically gravitate towards it, unless some other mitigating factor is put in place to reduce or prevent its use. That could be:

- this is a customized weapon; you must pay CP for it
- this is a difficult weapon to learn; the WF costs more points than the usual
- this is a rare weapon and the ability to locate or build one costs points
- this is a very expensive weapon, and I will control wealth levels so you can't afford to buy it without sacrificing other fear (say, armor)
- no restrictions - pretty much everyone will use it, so the power levels go up across the board
- no restrictions, but I'm adding additional uberweapons that have attributes just as powerful, though different, so we can again have a tradeoff between damage, OCV, and possibly DCV.

But if I just add that new weapon to the list, you can bet every character (or at least every character who uses weapons) will want one.


Failing that all players could play jedi for fairness' sake.

If Jedi enjoy significant free benefits, I guess we either all play Jedi (a significant departure from Star Wars IV to VI, but pretty close to Star Wars I to III), or we get to play an exciting game of Mighty Jedi and his Amazing Friends, or alternatively Mighty Jedi and his Hapless Comic Relief Companions. Who wants to play the Protocol Droid?

[prestidigitator]

So, balance the lightsaber then. Make it about as effective as a normal weapon if you don't use martial arts and Missile Deflection and things like that with it. Or give it some kind of Side Effect. Or give it a social connotation that the players understand ("If people see you with this weapon, they'll assume you are a Jedi, and there are lots of folks in this galaxy who have it in for Jedi...," and sure, let/make the players buy a Social Disadvantage or Hunted IF they buy the lightsaber with their OWN points; otherwise just make it a part of that "free" weapon).

The weapon is described for us anyway as a weapon that takes a lot of skill to use effectively. So build the weapon in the system in a way that reflects that.

Perhaps make the weapon with RSR: The Force (with a pretty easy roll) and Side Effects. Then if they buy the skill, they're at least a potential Jedi anyway. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

So, balance the lightsaber then. Make it about as effective as a normal weapon if you don't use martial arts and Missile Deflection and things like that with it. Or give it some kind of Side Effect. Or give it a social connotation that the players understand ("If people see you with this weapon, they'll assume you are a Jedi, and there are lots of folks in this galaxy who have it in for Jedi...," and sure, let/make the players buy a Social Disadvantage or Hunted IF they buy the lightsaber with their OWN points; otherwise just make it a part of that "free" weapon).

The weapon is described for us anyway as a weapon that takes a lot of skill to use effectively. So build the weapon in the system in a way that reflects that.

Perhaps make the weapon with RSR: The Force (with a pretty easy roll) and Side Effects. Then if they buy the skill, they're at least a potential Jedi anyway. ;)

All of which are just added means of bringing the weapon back in line. However, for the player who wants his character to have custom/signature gear, and does not want that gear balanced against the gear one can obtain with money, rather than character points, the answer "buy the gear with normal points, then" seems to be coming to the forefront.

To me, the lightsaber as presented in SW was a much more powerful weapon than blasters off the rack, and also much rarer. That connotes both a game balance reason and a game logic reason to require they be purchased with points. Balance due to power and game logic to ensure that rarity.

[Doc Democracy]

I didn't think that the light sabre was better off the shelf, instead it was an integral focus for martial use of the force by jedi.

In my mind, anyone could pick up a light sabre and use it, however, a jedi couls add to the damage reflect blasts from a blaster and other tricks...

So. A preferred weapon for jedi that is a necessary focus.

[tesuji]

However, one thing to keep in mind is that points do not lead to balance - actual utility does.

looking back to Star Wars, that the light saber was clearly superior to the blaster is obvious, in the hands of a well trained jedi of course. But not having a light saber did not make OPrincess Aradalla or whatever her name was less significant a character.

Its the challenges and the story situations that tell you "how good is a light saber" not its base specs. A plain old crossbow might be far more pivotal to the story if a ranged attack was really important, something beyond hurled lightsabe r range.

perhaps the base mechanics make longswords more appealing than spears, but the plotlines lead you to very good spears - magical artifacts of the nine dead spear kings - for instance.

They key to this is - the Gm with the challenges and benefits he scripts into the games and his scenarios determines the actual in play effectiveness and importance of traits. Balance depends more on how his plots make the PCs equally useful and effective.

So in one campaign, being skilled with and having a light saber might well be "balanced" by giving the other pcs 117 more points (charging the light saber player the cost.) But if the other pc has a starship and starship stuff is frequent and useful (say 20 pts for ship and another 15 for starship skills), or another pc has great diplomacy (say +10 pre and several 5 pt skills) then as a Gm i can easily have the "jedi lightsaber" play off equally well against the "starship stuff" and the "diplomacy stuff" even though the "costs in points" vary greatly.

Consider this - for 5 pts i can get computer skill at 12- or so, depends on int, or i can get +1 OCV with HTH combat or i can get breathes water. Depending on the challenges and direction of the campaign, any one of those can become "absolutely vital" or can become "nearly worthless".

When i GM, its only after i see the PC traits that i decide about most of my campaign decisions. I look at each pc noting strengths and weaknesses and especially with an eye towards "which of these can be spotlighted and how" especially towards "differentiating the PCs. The costs to me are fairly unimportant as objective figures. They key is getting characters who are different enough to play up the differences and create the balance.

This is IMO why hero works with carefully calculated "pay for everything" or hardly calculated "equipment is free" and why so many games run just fine without the complex build everything system. the effects are balanced (or imbalanced) between PCs by the GM choices far more than they are by pre-game number crunching.

but thats just me.

[Sean Waters]

Lightsabre, as used by Joe Bloggs, Force Null - 37 points active, 9 real
Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6 (1d6+1 w/STR), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Penetrating (x2; +1) (37 Active Points); OAF (-1), Requires A DEX Roll (-1), Side Effects (-1)

Lightsabre, as used by Jane Bloggs, Jedi Mistress - 37 points active, 18 real
Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6 (1d6+1 w/STR), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Penetrating (x2; +1) (37 Active Points); OAF (-1)

So...It costs (18-9)=9 points to be able to use a lightsabre like a Jedi - i.e. you tend not to lop your own head off with it.

Create a perk: Safe Lightsabre use 9 points (effectively negates the RSR and Side Effects on a lightsabre).

That way ANYONE can buy and use a lightsabre, but only someone who has the special perk can use it safely. Everyone has the same access to the weapon, and the same number of 'free' points for equipment, but the Jedi will have bought the perk, and so are spending some of their own character creation points to be able to use a Lightsabre, reflecting their abilities and months or years of training, effectively adding to the abilities of the weapon (or negating the limitations). The lightsabre does not missile deflect as such but anyone with one can train (i.e. spend XP) to buy missile deflection through the lightsabre as a focus.

That's how I'd be inclined to do it anyway.

[prestidigitator]

Nice Sean. Good idea. I'd rep if I could.

Going back to the original question, I've been thinking that it bugs me you either have to apply ALL vs. PD or ALL vs. ED or apply damage twice separately, effectively subtracting defenses twice from the amount of damage done by the attack. As a house rule, I think I might allow a power to be defined as a hybrid and then interpolate the amount of the target's defenses. For example:

The Attack
HKA: 2d6, 75% physical / 25% energy

Target's Defenses
PD: 10
rPD: 5
ED: 6
rED: 2

Effective Defenses vs. the Attack
Normal Def = 0.75*10+0.25*6 = 9
Resistant Def = 0.75*5+0.25*2 = 4.25 ~= 4

Obviously this is rather math intensive, and more during play than at character creation (which we are usually able to avoid). That makes it a less appealing option than otherwise might be the case, but I think it'll give me some peace of mind for games where this kind of effect is going to be common (flaming swords, flaming arrows, many potential spells...), so I think I might try it (probably after creating a little helper application to easily do the interpolation for me). Don't recommend it for everyone.

EDIT: Ah. Come to think of it, if I limit the configurations (so maybe you would have to pick from: 10%/90%, 25%/75%, 50%/50%, 75%/25%, 90%/10%) then most of this probably COULD be precomputed on the character sheet. That's comforting. :)