250 character points vs 350 character points

[CaptainOne]

Hi all. I'm coming back from a decade long hiatus from Champions. I've tried to search through the forums, but couldn't find an answer to this one. I'm simply wondering why the suggested point cost for a superhero has gone from 250 (4th edition) to 350 (5th edition)? It does not seem like power costs have changed much (I noticed drain increased and flash decreased). So is it just a different philosophy in creation, or is there a reason I am missing? I wanted to run my campaign on 250 points, since all of the characters I currently have created (over 100) are based on that 4th edition number. Now that my current players see that 250 is suggested for Low-Powered supers, they don't feel it fits my campaign concept of Avengers/Justice League like heroes.
Any feedback on why the extra 100 points in 5th would be greatly appreciated.

[Silbeg]

Any feedback on why the extra 100 points in 5th would be greatly appreciated.

Having the extra 100 points certainly makes it easier to balance out the "extras" that any good hero should have.

Things like non-combat skills, PRE, COM...

Also, the typical attacks have increased to 12DC/60 AP, rather than the 10DC/50AP of previous editions.

You also may tend to see rampant use of limitations decrease, since you don't need to make all of your powers OIF just to have the points to build your concept!

[ghost-angel]

I've found that 350pts definitely allows for more rounded characters.

No more 2-6 skills on a sheet. In fact most Supers games I'm in try and aim for 20% non-combat related purchases these days. It's worked very well.

[CTaylor]

I strongly advise going for fewer points in every single instance unless you specifically are trying to run a high end, high cost game. Even lower than your low range.

Why? Well by having fewer points, characters tend to be built on tight concepts and grow rather than "I can buy anything I want" jumbles. Characters tend to be beginning heroes that build powers to concept and need rather than just buying stuff because you can afford it but don't necessarily have any value. A character that starts with 100 points and built to 250 will be better built and usually more effective than a character that started at 250 in my experience (I've read others who point out the same thing, too).

Starting low gives you far more scenario and enemy opportunities than starting high, when a bunch of thugs with baseball bats is a genuine threat, you've got a lot of options. When you have to throw a platoon of Godzillas after the PCs, having the mafia mad at them makes them giggle.

[Flames]

A lot of powers have adders available that customize the way they work. These adders get expensive. There's also a wider variety of skills and talents than there used to be.

[CaptainOne]

Maybe I will just split it down the middle and go with 300. The skills comment is correct. Many of my 250 point build characters are pretty skills-lite.

[ghost-angel]

One thing a current campaign did was start at 250 but very quickly (in 4-5 sessions) built up to 350 points.

It was done through acquiring in game Disadvantages for points and fast XP granting. Once we reached 350 we slowed to a much more normal progression of XP.

[pinecone]

One thing a current campaign did was start at 250 but very quickly (in 4-5 sessions) built up to 350 points.

It was done through acquiring in game Disadvantages for points and fast XP granting. Once we reached 350 we slowed to a much more normal progression of XP.

I've also set aside a chunk of points that could be permanantly spent in play for something....so "I am an expert on middle eastern history!" means you spend points for KS: MEH at (11)+ that way skilz and contacts are more game centric...it's been good sometimes, and munchinized madness sometimes....

[Trebuchet]

We found the extra 100 points made for much better rounded characters with a wide range of Skills and Powers. Our 250-point level characters tended to be straight combat machines; the 350 pointers were much more effective out of combat and had a lot more individuality.

[CTaylor]

You can get the skills and background stuff on characters easier by dedicating points to it. Tell the players "you have x points to work with, plus 20 for skills and background." That makes them spend the points in the area you want, without just throwing extra points at them in the hopes they take the hint. But seriously, I encourage you to consider a lower level game.

[Teflon Billy]

Hi all. I'm coming back from a decade long hiatus from Champions. I've tried to search through the forums, but couldn't find an answer to this one. I'm simply wondering why the suggested point cost for a superhero has gone from 250 (4th edition) to 350 (5th edition)? It does not seem like power costs have changed much (I noticed drain increased and flash decreased). So is it just a different philosophy in creation, or is there a reason I am missing? I wanted to run my campaign on 250 points, since all of the characters I currently have created (over 100) are based on that 4th edition number. Now that my current players see that 250 is suggested for Low-Powered supers, they don't feel it fits my campaign concept of Avengers/Justice League like heroes.
Any feedback on why the extra 100 points in 5th would be greatly appreciated.My feedback? There is absolutely no way that you are going to accurately fit a Avengers/Justice League concept in a 250pt supers world. You will get a nerfed version of that concept.

I would just use the NPCs you have as is and add 350pt NPCs as you come up with them.

TB

[braincraft]

'Power Level' depends more on DC, CV, SPD, and DEF values than point totals. I have 500-point heroes written up who would have trouble against gangs of normals; I have 350-pointers written up who could stomp the Champions singlehandedly.

It's nice to be able to include contacts, background skills, and even some vehicles or bases without having to scale back your effectiveness. A lot of my characters have more points in skills than in powers, or even characteristics. It's also great to have little side powers that lend some individuality; hard to fit those in on a budget.

Also, when you look at many characters, they seem to be less effective than their 'super' status would suggest. Grond, one of the most powerful villains in the setting, would take minutes to wreck a tank, assuming he did nothing but haymaker. Raising points a bit keeps you from having strongmen who can't toss a car, or speedsters who can't outrun one.

[incrdbil]

I recall the 250 poitn days..and it seemed that p[layer went to far more creative (read, rules-twisting) ways to concoct up builds to squeeze out every point they could, and skills got a short shift, and really skill heavy characters were hosed. Adding the extra points just seemed to take that pressure off. For example I saw more HIDO type power armor instead of Focus based on another focus with a 1 turn activation one a day not effective on alternate wenesdays due to maintenance....and trying to add HIDO on there as well.

[CTaylor]

While it is likely true that in some campaigns fewer points results in greater number crunching, it also is likely that in some campaigns more points means sloppy builds and random stuff bought just because you can afford it.

However, if you as a GM are careful to point out that these are beginning characters which will grow into having more power, if you help them build the characters,then you can avoid the problem at the low end. Plus you have a greater variety of encounters and adventures available to you.

Run the game you want to and have ideas for, I'm just trying to point out that the push for ever more points misses out on a lot. There's a reason Daredevil is a popular comic as well as Justice League.

[McCoy]

It does not seem like power costs have changed much (I noticed drain increased and flash decreased).
Full Life Support went from 30 points to 50 points.

Most defenses can no longer be put in Elemental Controls.

[Thia Halmades]

I strongly advise going for fewer points in every single instance unless you specifically are trying to run a high end, high cost game. Even lower than your low range.

Why? Well by having fewer points, characters tend to be built on tight concepts and grow rather than "I can buy anything I want" jumbles. Characters tend to be beginning heroes that build powers to concept and need rather than just buying stuff because you can afford it but don't necessarily have any value. A character that starts with 100 points and built to 250 will be better built and usually more effective than a character that started at 250 in my experience (I've read others who point out the same thing, too).

Starting low gives you far more scenario and enemy opportunities than starting high, when a bunch of thugs with baseball bats is a genuine threat, you've got a lot of options. When you have to throw a platoon of Godzillas after the PCs, having the mafia mad at them makes them giggle.

Um... well, I used to agree with this. I don't now. i submit that 250 point characters are POTENT, yes, but they're supposed to be by that point. However, the potency comes from tightness of concept. FREX, of my PCs at 250:

The Druid is most assuredly a Druid. Almost ALL of his points are in either his VPP, the skills to control said VPP, racial abilities or his nature-based skills, including tracking, herbalism, etc.

The Ninja is most definitely a ninja. One of the strongest ninja concepts I've ever seen. 250 points. Tighter than a damn drum.

For leadership, they turn to their trusty Paladin who at 250 has his core powers, his mount (Follower), and a smattering of very solid, very cool Paladin Powers, but he is by no means "over the top" in terms of power level or anywhere near out of control. With very little design effort I can crush the entire party (and almost did, were it not for the Overconfidence Flaw in the last Demon they fought).

That leaves us with the Rogue, Zeb, whose entire focus is split into two halves, but the player behind him epitomizes 'crafty' so while he isn't combat effective, he's still "darn efficient." Basically he has an NCC VPP with the SFX "Follower," -- at least that's how it's worked out, since he's paid for the Follower as an AI, and the Follower gets turns like anyone else. But at least once per combat he heaves some massive Evocation that gets Zeb's fat out of the fire.

Wile_E01 plays the Ranger/Cleric split class, which means in HERO you pay a bit more points-wise, but you have a much broader array of spells you can cast per day because of the total amount of freedom afforded you in the design. I think he casts... what, 10 1st Level Spells per day right now? So he's far from the unfortunate one, but they're only 1st Lev., so he isn't anywhere near game breaking.

Ultimately, the point is that these characters are all well rounded, balanced, have good disads, and everyone loves the game. Loves it. But don't go hanging your hat on point cost claiming that 250 = Super Heroic. They are FAR from Super Heroic. They're terrified of anything Huge or larger. ;)

[CTaylor]

But don't go hanging your hat on point cost claiming that 250 = Super Heroic.

I don't. I simply am pointing out that the inflation of point values does not actually mean a better game. I think people should at least consider thinking low, because low gives the GM more opportunities and options. Superheroes with godlike powers can fight godlike foes, but they're missing out on hundreds of potential adventures at the lower level. Street crime becomes meaningless when you can singlehandedly take on the entire street gang population of the city at once.

For me, superheroic means "has powers and abilities far above the normal human being" not "can take on bad guys of cosmic power." My comparison starts from the low end, yours starts from the high end.

[mayapuppies]

The characters in my Fantasy campaign are based on 150 and are very much considered skilled but not powerful by any means. They most likely wouldn't stand up to most Turakian Age characters of the same point value. Having the Skill Maxima in place and running a very diverse skill intensive campaign makes the points spreadout a lot more.

[Thia Halmades]

I don't. I simply am pointing out that the inflation of point values does not actually mean a better game. I think people should at least consider thinking low, because low gives the GM more opportunities and options. Superheroes with godlike powers can fight godlike foes, but they're missing out on hundreds of potential adventures at the lower level. Street crime becomes meaningless when you can singlehandedly take on the entire street gang population of the city at once.

For me, superheroic means "has powers and abilities far above the normal human being" not "can take on bad guys of cosmic power." My comparison starts from the low end, yours starts from the high end.

Wow. No, it doesn't. I've had PCs built on 100, 200, 250. And IMO you get much more better defined characters in higher point ranges.

But you know. YMMV.

[Vondy]

The characters in my Fantasy campaign are based on 150 and are very much considered skilled but not powerful by any means. They most likely wouldn't stand up to most Turakian Age characters of the same point value. Having the Skill Maxima in place and running a very diverse skill intensive campaign makes the points spreadout a lot more.

This is my experience, too. If you run a game where breadth is important (skills, perks, etc) then you end up with higher point totals without overpowering power levels. This is true of my heroic and superheroic games. For me, more points is more comfortable not in terms of ramping up power, but filling the character out. This is doubly true when you take into account the additional cost granularity has added to some powers and even skills. If you use sub-categories for skills like animal handler, survival, and the like you get inflation there too.

[ghost-angel]

Wow. No, it doesn't. I've had PCs built on 100, 200, 250. And IMO you get much more better defined characters in higher point ranges.

But you know. YMMV.

I have to agree here.

I've built Heroic level on everything from 50 to 175 points (and played them - I have built others on more) and the higher point characters were much more solid concepts, I was able to really define the kind of Character/Person I wanted to play.

[jtelson]

It's not how many points you have but how many points in relation to campaign expectations (Upper AP limits, Stat/DC ranges, etc).

[CTaylor]

Wow. No, it doesn't. I've had PCs built on 100, 200, 250. And IMO you get much more better defined characters in higher point ranges.

Depends what you mean by "better defined," I'm pointing out that lower point values mean you grow into the character, higher point values means you start with everything. Lower point values means you have to let things go or get a minimal value of something with a plan of building up more later. Higher power means you get what you want immediately and have points for other stuff.

There's room for both types of games... it's just that everyone seems to be leaning toward high power and ignoring the benefits of lower powered games. Since this guy asked I wanted to make sure he had that perspective too :)

[mayapuppies]

And this is why I love HERO.

There is no such thing as "The RIGHT Way".

[braincraft]

And this is why I love HERO.

There is no such thing as "The RIGHT Way".

Sure there is. My way is right, and everyone else is wrong.

It's true! I can prove it, with science!

[mayapuppies]

I can't believe they laughed you out of the academy.

[TheQuestionMan]

That extra 100-points allows Players to create Characters who are less one dimensional and more veristal. I recreated some of my first Champions Characters and discovered that they were 250-point Characters with 100-points of in Talents, Skills, etc... I do not min/max as much because I have more points to match the mechanics to the character concept.


IMOHO


QM

[lapsedgamer]

I like having the ability to build coherent backgrounds for my characters and then give them the skills, perks and minor abilities that the concept calls for. It's nice not having to throw all your points into combat effectiveness.

I wouldn't worry too much. With the 60 AP cap on powers and the other suggested limits, you can cut down on the silliness that you would normally have to look out for. I'm sure no one misses the days of 5D6 Killing Attacks with limitations piled on to make them cost 20 points and the characters built around those attacks. You know, the ones with no background skills or personalities.

[Trebuchet]

I like having the ability to build coherent backgrounds for my characters and then give them the skills, perks and minor abilities that the concept calls for. It's nice not having to throw all your points into combat effectiveness.I totally agree. As an example in our Champions campaign, our brick Silhouette's Secret ID is a Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist. Not only does she have several appropriate Science Skills (instead of just buying SS: Astrophysics), she also bought Lightning Calculator, Perk: Nobel Prize winner, and Contacts with both a US Senator and an American astronaut who were connected with the backstory for her Nobel Prize. It's almost inconceivable that the character could have afforded to buy any of those with 100 fewer starting Character Points.

[Hugh Neilson]

I totally agree. As an example in our Champions campaign, our brick Silhouette's Secret ID is a Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist. Not only does she have several appropriate Science Skills (instead of just buying SS: Astrophysics), she also bought Lightning Calculator, Perk: Nobel Prize winner, and Contacts with both a US Senator and an American astronaut who were connected with the backstory for her Nobel Prize. It's almost inconceivable that the character could have afforded to buy any of those with 100 fewer starting Character Points.

On the other hand, many characters have their backstory develop over their publishing history, as the character is fleshed out, while their powers change little, if at all. This could be reasonably viewed as spending xp for background abilities that coincidentally never came up before, instead of spending xp to become more combat-capable.

Part of the problem is that writers tend to want to make characters more "interesting" over time while gamers want to make characters more "powerful" over time.

[Vondy]

Part of the problem is that writers tend to want to make characters more "interesting" over time while gamers want to make characters more "powerful" over time.

And this is a significant issue in terms of campaign sustainability. Breadth, including power breadth, as opposed to vertical growth, can make or break a game in the long run. If you're just running it for six months to a year, its not a big deal. If its on-going you run into serious problems. Everybody needs to be on the same page.

[Trebuchet]

On the other hand, many characters have their backstory develop over their publishing history, as the character is fleshed out, while their powers change little, if at all. This could be reasonably viewed as spending xp for background abilities that coincidentally never came up before, instead of spending xp to become more combat-capable.In our campaign we see a pretty judicious mix of both. I think combat abilities have a slight advantage percentagewise, but most of our players really enjoy expanding and building upon their Secret IDs and backgrounds. Even when players go for more combat abilities, they tend to focus on adding more flexibility rather than just bigger attacks or higher defenses.


Part of the problem is that writers tend to want to make characters more "interesting" over time while gamers want to make characters more "powerful" over time.The two approaches are not mutually exclusive.

[CTaylor]

Yeah it's a difference of approach between "you can have everything you want right now" and "you will grow into your character over time and with experience."

A lower powered campaign has more room to grow, in my experience.

[Trebuchet]

Yeah it's a difference of approach between "you can have everything you want right now" and "you will grow into your character over time and with experience."

A lower powered campaign has more room to grow, in my experience.Maybe, although I suppose that depends on how you define growth. I've seen low-powered yet dreadfully combat-oriented campaigns where the only "growth" was in number of dice delivered per attack, defenses, and directly combat-relevant Characteristics; just as I've seen higher-point campaigns with enormous personal growth amongst the characters.

In any case, it should be a campaign-specific decision and character growth should be only one of numerous factors considered by the GM and players as they set up the game.

[Vondy]

Yeah it's a difference of approach between "you can have everything you want right now" and "you will grow into your character over time and with experience."

A lower powered campaign has more room to grow, in my experience.

I think this is a false dichotomy and wholly anecdotal. It also depends on power levels and play style. I have seen 200 point fantasy characters grow into 400 point characters with only a moderate shift in characteristics and combat values. They grew out rather than up - and their growth was impressive. It depends on how competent the character is supposed to be in relation to the average yokel - and how competent the average yokel is. If they are on the verge of heroic to start with you may only have a handful of points to fill them out as reasonable people in other respects. Not giants, just reasonable. That doesn't hinder "growth." They will gain tons of new skills, languages, perks, maneuvers, and various skill levels along the way, as well as perks, spells, and a few nasty talents. Not everyone wants to start play as "farmer bob," or "frank the moderately competent caravan guard." There are several correct ways to run a campaign. A lot of people are more comfortable with a few extra points to fill characters out.

[Vondy]

In any case, it should be a campaign-specific decision and character growth should be only one of numerous factors considered by the GM and players as they set up the game.

Which is something people need to remember! The point totals for different kinds of campaigns in the rulebook are guidelines! You set them as needed for you!

[Cassandra]

Characters could have two character levels 250 for group members, and 350 for individuals.

Batman at 350 could be the name as his 250 version, but with a 100 points of vehicles, bases, and followers (Batgirl, Robin, etc.)

[Silbeg]

On the other hand, many characters have their backstory develop over their publishing history, as the character is fleshed out, while their powers change little, if at all. This could be reasonably viewed as spending xp for background abilities that coincidentally never came up before, instead of spending xp to become more combat-capable.

Part of the problem is that writers tend to want to make characters more "interesting" over time while gamers want to make characters more "powerful" over time.

I cannot but agree with you here, Hugh! Rep to you!

I do have to say that I enjoy seeing players add "background" stuff to their characters. Eventually, a few of the characters may become something more than the socially inept walking cannons that they start out as!

With 350 points, most players can find a power level that they are comfortable playing the character at, without having to constantly increase DCs, CVs, DEF, etc. From there, most XP expenditure can be used on making a more rounded character (though hopefully some of that was already done), and a more interesting character.

[CTaylor]

I'm sitting here trying to think of what kind of monty haul god-killing uber campaign has 400 point fantasy hero characters in it.

[archermoo]

I'm sitting here trying to think of what kind of monty haul god-killing uber campaign has 400 point fantasy hero characters in it.

If 400 point characters are killing gods, then I'd say the gods are a bit on the underpowered side. :)

I'll also point out that just having 400 points at your disposal doesn't necessarily mean that a character is overpowered for a heroic level campaign like Fantasy Hero. Just because you CAN build uber-powerful heroic level characters with 400 points doesn't mean that that is ALL you can build.

[CTaylor]

I'm sorry I sounded more critical and mocking than I meant to, I was just trying to figure out how exactly as a GM I'd challenge characters more powerful than the average starting Superhero in Champions.

Could someone post such a character so I can see how this isn't going to make dragons a trivial encounter? What, exactly, are you spending your points on?

[Lord Mhoram]

I'm sitting here trying to think of what kind of monty haul god-killing uber campaign has 400 point fantasy hero characters in it.

I ran a fantasy hero game with a start of 250 (this under 4th ed) and ended with the characters on 600 or so. Decent combat numbers (the group could take an elder dragon at campaign end) - but I allowed no frameworks, and ecouraged a lot of skill use, as well as lots of power and combat tricks. They were not uber powerful.

My current FH game I started at 250 again. But I kept the CV and Damage cap low, to force breadth. But to be a decent starting mage, the investment is about 45 points, and again I encourage combat tricks (like follow through attack in FH). I encourage non-powered powers.

In both games the characteristics are higher than normal FH (but I still enforce Char Max), but I like High Fantasy, and the heroes are Aragorn and Gandalf, Mhoram and Brinn, Belgarion and Silk. They are the heroes upon which the fate of the world turns.

[Lord Mhoram]

This is a character (solo play) that my wife runs for me) - he is an epic character (grandson of a goddess, although he doesn't know that).


Camelo (Cam for Short)
Val Char Points Roll Notes
15 STR 5 12- HTH Damage 3d6 END [3]
18 DEX 24 13- OCV 6 DCV 6
15 CON 10 12-
13 BODY 6 12-
23 INT 5 14- PER Roll 14-
23 EGO 12 14- ECV: 8
25 PRE 7 14- PRE Attack: 5d6
22 COM 7 13-


8 PD 5 15 15 PD (7 rPD)
8 ED 5 15 15 ED (7 rED)
4 SPD 12 4 Phases: 3, 6, 9, 12
6 REC 0 6
30 END 0 30
30 STUN 1 30
9" Running 6 9"
2" Swimming 0 2"
3" Leaping 0 3" Total Characteristics Cost: 105

Cost Powers END
8 Hero of the Mind: +8 INT
14 Hero of the Mind: +7 EGO
8 Hero of the Mind: +8 PRE

15 Knacks Pool: Variable Power Pool, 10 base + 5 control cost, Cosmic (+2) (25 Active Points); Knacks only (-2)

Edit - Knacks are little 1 pt spells that are sort of everyman spells. No more than 10 active, always one real cost. Normal people usually have one or two. A really studied mage masters many of them - hense the pool.

5 Archmage Lifespan: Life Support (Longevity: Immortal) 0

7 Famliar Bond: Mind Link , One Specific Mind, Any distance, Psychic Bond (15 Active Points); Only With Others Who Have Mind Link (-1) 0

30 Spell Power Reserve: Spell Power (60 pts) 0
0 Spells (30 pts worth) 0 (house rule that you get your MP reserve real cost amount of spells for free. Spells are 1-4 points - slot in the multipower).
7 Mana Reserve: Endurance Reserve (60 END, 2 REC); REC: (2 Active Points); Only when asleep, and begins only 1 hour after sleep starts (-1) 0

Equipment
Torc of Defense: Armor (7 PD/7 ED); IIF (-1/4) 0

Perks
65 Followers (Ember and Ironshod)
3 Fringe Benefit: Priest
10 Born Archmage (gives him unlimited choice in spell selection. Normally people can only acess 1/3 or so of the spells)
10 Unlimiited Spell Power (house rule - your Spell MP cannot be greater than x3 your pertinent Characteristic - this allows unlimited max on that multipower)

Talents
5 Rapid Healing

Skills
3 Expert: Magic (we allow the Expert Skill enhancer to work on normal skills as well)
3 Scholar
3 Jack of all Trades

4 Spellcraft (INT-based) 15-
10 +5 with Spellcraft (Born Archmage)
2 Analyze: Magic 14-
2 Spell Research 14-
2 KS: Eldritch Magic Thoery (INT-based) 14-
2 KS: History Of Magic (INT-based) 14-

3 Conversation 14-
3 High Society 14-
3 Oratory 14-
3 Seduction 14-
3 Persuasion 14-
3 Streetwise 14-
3 Healing 14-
3 Acting 14-
3 PS: Storyteller (PRE-based) 14-
3 PS: Courtesan (PRE-based) 14-

2 KS: Current Events (INT-based) 14-
2 KS: Stories/Legends (INT-based) 14-

3 Navigation (Land, Marine) 14-
5 Survival (Temperate/Subtropical, Tropical, Marine Surface) 14-
2 KS: Geography (INT-based) 14-
2 PS: Librarian / Archivist (INT-based) 14-
2 KS: Library tools and Libraries (INT-based) 14-

3 Linguist
0 Language: Human (imitate dialects)
1 Language: Common (idiomatic; 2 pts fam with Human)
3 Language: Ahlorian (idiomatic)

1 WF: Staffs
Total Powers & Skills Cost: 274

Total Cost: 379

200+ Disadvantages
10 Hunted: Some sort of Archnemesis 8- (As Pow, Harshly Punish)
10 Hunted: Troubled Situations 8- (As Pow, Harshly Punish)
20 Hunted: Villian of the Week 11- (As Pow, NCI, Harshly Punish)
15 Psychological Limitation: Wanderlust (Common, Strong)
20 Psychological Limitation: Curios (Very Common, Strong)
15 Psychological Limitation: Devoted to God (Common, Strong)
15 Psychological Limitation: Sense of Justice (Common, Strong)
10 Psychological Limitation: Ego Signature: Gypsy Clothes (Common, Moderate)
10 Dependent NPC: Floating DNPC 8- (Normal)
5 Social Limitation: Gypsy (Occasionally, Minor)
5 Enraged: Innocence/cents Abused (Uncommon), go 8-, recover 14-
5 Distinctive Features: Handsome (Easily Concealed; Noticed and Recognizable; Detectable By Commonly-Used Senses)
10 To be Figured Out In Play
0 Normal Characteristic Maxima
Total Disadvantages Points: 150

His most powerful attack spell is a firebolt, a 3d6 Killing attack. But it takes a lot of mana to use, so it isn't an every phase thing.
He has aa 1 1/2d6 fireball. Some minor healing, enhanced turning spell, and a lot of utility spells.
He carries a testsubo for his staff.
Ember is his Familiar - a pheonix - pretty much a falcon/Eagle from HSB with a few other extra bits added in. Ironshod is his staff.

Note he is a priest of a god who's areas are Libraries, travel and the exploration of new things (both in knowledge and world).

[Kenn]

What were the starting points for Tolkien's "campaign" that had Gandalf (NPC?) and Aragon, even Boromir, but also Merry, Pippen, Sam and Frodo?

[CTaylor]

Gandalf was an NPC, Aragorn was around 200-250 points with nice gear, and the hobbits were like 100 points at most, I'd say: and most of those points were in racial abilities. Aragorn was a good combatant with a few minor spell effects and eventually an artifact weapon, lots of contacts.

And Mhoram's example wasn't even a 400 point character.

[archermoo]

Gandalf was an NPC, Aragorn was around 200-250 points with nice gear, and the hobbits were like 100 points at most, I'd say: and most of those points were in racial abilities. Aragorn was a good combatant with a few minor spell effects and eventually an artifact weapon, lots of contacts.

And Mhoram's example wasn't even a 400 point character.

Do you really think that the another 21 points would've suddenly made that character "uber powerful"?

[Lord Mhoram]

Do you really think that the another 21 points would've suddenly made that character "uber powerful"?

His next 21 points are on some skills and perks I forgot to get at character creations anyway. :)

[CTaylor]

Do you really think that the another 21 points would've suddenly made that character "uber powerful"?

Mhoram's character? That guy was uber powerful already, at least any character with 4 stats over 20 and 60 points of spells (in a multipower) plus 2 followers over 100 points and a 15 point power pool, plus regeneration and immortality? Yes. We don't even see the equipment there. Add in 21 more points and see what happens.

There's a reason points cost what they do, you can't wave your hand and decide that since you spent three times the usual campaign build in points that's not powerful somehow.

Now imagine 400 points worth of martial artist. The fact that you chose not to spend those points on dex and speed and CV doesn't make them go away.

[Lord Mhoram]

Mhoram's character? That guy was uber powerful already, at least any character with 4 stats over 20 and 60 points of spells (in a multipower) plus 2 followers over 100 points and a 15 point power pool, plus regeneration and immortality? Yes. We don't even see the equipment there. Add in 21 more points and see what happens.

10 pt VPP, but only for cantrips basically. 30 Pts of spells (the other 30 is the reserve cost). The equipment, is just his torc, and his staff. And his is a solo character. :)

But he only has at best a 7 OCV, and a 7d6 Normal attack, or a 7 OCV and a spell he can only cast a few times a day that is a 3d6 killing. Not unreasonable for a 150 pt character. He just does other things really well too. :)

[assault]

Characters could have two character levels 250 for group members, and 350 for individuals.

Interesting, but I think this would be more relevant for some characters than others. Sure, Green Lantern and the Flash have contacts and stuff that aren't relevant to JLA, for instance, but nowhere near as much as Batman or Superman.

[Lord Mhoram]

Now imagine 400 points worth of martial artist. The fact that you chose not to spend those points on dex and speed and CV doesn't make them go away.

Well, I think that is part of my point, a 400 pt character is not, by being 400 pts uber powerfull.

[assault]

An FH character could easily burn 100 points on "Being a noble". Not a point of that would go to spells or being able to swing a sword.

[Lord Mhoram]

Aragorn was a good combatant with a few minor spell effects and eventually an artifact weapon, lots of contacts.

.

Don't forget his "Rightful King of the West" Perk, KS history, PS Poet, and likely a 20+ ego (he did win a battle of wills with Sauron after all)...

I think a 200 pt Aragon would feel an awful lot like a 350 pt Silver Age Superman.

[assault]

Aragorn would have lots of Luck and Combat Luck, bought as "Destiny".

[incrdbil]

Mhoram's character? That guy was uber powerful already, at least any character with 4 stats over 20 and 60 points of spells (in a multipower) plus 2 followers over 100 points and a 15 point power pool, plus regeneration and immortality? Yes. We don't even see the equipment there. Add in 21 more points and see what happens.

You know, without seeing the rest of the group, or the typical opposition the group faces, there's no way you can know if his character is uber-powerful, or a pushover. You are making a judgement without a framework of reference. Looking at his offensive potential..unless the capaign features opposition with a lot of really low defenses, there is nothing odd going on here.

the 4 stats over 20 you bandy about. one of them is COM. unless he's romancing giants and dragons, its not helping that much. A high ego and PRe--for mages, it maybe very god, for hsi camapign, it may not be overwhelming. In sheer combat effectiveness, CON/DEX over 20 is usually a destination for the uber-builds.

his power pool--basically limited to cantrip type effects. a sizeable limitation. Not a combat multiplier.


There's a reason points cost what they do, you can't wave your hand and decide that since you spent three times the usual campaign build in points that's not powerful somehow.



Now imagine 400 points worth of martial artist. The fact that you chose not to spend those points on dex and speed and CV doesn't make them go away.

And spending points just doesn't automatically make you uber powerful.It might make you well connected, or very skiled, or maybe it just means you get a lot of minor background stuf really fleshed out.

[incrdbil]

I'm sitting here trying to think of what kind of monty haul god-killing uber campaign has 400 point fantasy hero characters in it.

I've been reading aquite a few fantasy novels lately where 400 points wouldn't even come close to representing many of the main characters. in the latest book of the Codex alera, the powers of the nobility I'd have to classify as 500-600 point characters at least.

An Epic Fantasy game could easily start characters at 400 points..and not even approach god killing sattus.

[Lord Mhoram]

I've been reading aquite a few fantasy novels lately where 400 points wouldn't even come close to representing many of the main characters. in the latest ook of the Codex alera, the powers of the nobility I'd have to classify as 500-600 point characters at least.


Yeah, some serious high point magic going on in those ones. :)

[archermoo]

Mhoram's character? That guy was uber powerful already, at least any character with 4 stats over 20 and 60 points of spells (in a multipower) plus 2 followers over 100 points and a 15 point power pool, plus regeneration and immortality? Yes. We don't even see the equipment there. Add in 21 more points and see what happens.

There's a reason points cost what they do, you can't wave your hand and decide that since you spent three times the usual campaign build in points that's not powerful somehow.

Now imagine 400 points worth of martial artist. The fact that you chose not to spend those points on dex and speed and CV doesn't make them go away.

Yeah, that's the one. With an INT, EGO, PRE and COM over 20. Oh yeah, and the cantrips only VPP, plus multipower for 30 point spells. That character certainly couldn't kill any gods in any campaign I've ever run.

You asked for a 400 point character that wasn't an uber powerful, and he showed you one. Falling back to "well, he COULD have spent those points and been uber powerful" doesn't really make your point, which I thought was only "monty haul god-killing uber campaigns" have 400 point characters. Sure you could certainly make a pretty powerful combat monster in a heroic campaign with 400 points. There is however no requirement that you do so.

[Tonio]

Yeah, that's the one. With an INT, EGO, PRE and COM over 20. Oh yeah, and the cantrips only VPP, plus multipower for 30 point spells. That character certainly couldn't kill any gods in any campaign I've ever run.

You asked for a 400 point character that wasn't an uber powerful, and he showed you one. Falling back to "well, he COULD have spent those points and been uber powerful" doesn't really make your point, which I thought was only "monty haul god-killing uber campaigns" have 400 point characters. Sure you could certainly make a pretty powerful combat monster in a heroic campaign with 400 points. There is however no requirement that you do so.

Yup...

I think the initial opposition to "400pt characters in FH campaigns" comes from the fact that you need very mature and fair-minded players and GM to run a working FH campaign on 400pts. Otherwise you get absurd CVs, damage, and/or defenses, or disgruntled players ("but WHY can't I buy a 7d6 RKA Fire Bolt spell?! I have the points for it!!!").

Which is to say... ~150 is a good default, 400 is not. Then again I don't recall anybody claiming it was. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

plus multipower for 30 point spells. That character certainly couldn't kill any gods in any campaign I've ever run.

.

:)

To be honest, the spells are 60 pt spells. The multipower has a -1 in limitations.

But the GM builds all the spells, and so there is a lot of control there. The worst attack spell is only a 45 active pointer (3d6 K firebolt), and it costs 10% of his mana when he casts it.

[Lord Mhoram]

Which is to say... ~150 is a good default, 400 is not. Then again I don't recall anybody claiming it was. :)

Yeah. I actually have a lot planned out for the character, and I don't have a lot in the way of increasing combat numbers -he's going to get a martial arts package, and a couple of levels- But I don't really plan on him getting all that more combat capable. He is going to grow laterally in a lot of different direction.

[archermoo]

:)

To be honest, the spells are 60 pt spells. The multipower has a -1 in limitations.

But the GM builds all the spells, and so there is a lot of control there. The worst attack spell is only a 45 active pointer (3d6 K firebolt), and it costs 10% of his mana when he casts it.

Ah, I misread the character. :o

Even so, anything that can be killed by a 3d6 RKA doesn't really qualify as a god in my book...

:)

[Lord Mhoram]

Ah, I misread the character. :o

Even so, anything that can be killed by a 3d6 RKA doesn't really qualify as a god in my book...

:)

Yup. :)

It's only in the last few years that I really starting looking at the idea of little growth in power. I've been contemplating playing solo (with the wife Gming) a character who's CV and damage really won't change over the course of play... more options, and lots of skills growth, but not more power.

I've played a number of characters that started low, and really became world class (a couple of supers, and a Ninja Hero character), and that path is not one I need to travel again.

But as has been said, you have to have a mature group to pull that off.

[Doctor Agenda]

You can still build an effective superhero on 250 points (just ask Cassandra), but it is harder than it used to be because a fair amount of the non-combat stuff is now more expensive (as Hank McCoy pointed out). It's hard to do a low-powered super game in the Champions Universe because it's geared to 350-point plus heroes. It would be nice to see something oriented to a game somewhere BETWEEN Standard Heroes and DC: The Animated Series or Teen Champions. Maybe 350 points is better for a game inspired by the Avengers or Justice League, but what if you want to run a game inspired by the Doom Patrol or New Warriors? Low-powered Superhero is a neglected power level, IMHO.

[ghost-angel]

I think CTaylor has a valid point - but it (IMO) wording it very poorly (and quire honestly, in a confrontational manner).

It has been pointed out by many people that character's should have space or room to grow - most prefer in breadth and depth rather than expanding on what they started with.

With that in mind, the point value it and of itself can be meaingless. A 150 point game where the worst physical enemy you encounter are poorly trained guards can have Combat Monsters cut swaths through hordes of the things - and a 400 point game where the nicest thing you encounter is a demi-god and you're suddenly not wondering if maybe farming isn't a missed career opportunity.

A good Wuxia Campaign could easily start in the 2-300s for Heroic. Epic Fantasy - 150-200 minimum, even reaching 300 starting.

It's all in the story you want (individually and as a group) to tell. So, back to CTaylor's point, it's not so much that "lower" is better, but if you reword it "incomplete" might fit nicely.

There's something for the Character to grow into.

Sometime in the future one group is looking at starting a high level Fantasy game, so far it's deep into Vague Planning Stage - but the minimum number kicked around is 200 Starting. I think it should be fun and look forward to it.

Yes - you can do a lot with 200 points in a Heroic game. You can also grow a lot.

[Vondy]

I'm sitting here trying to think of what kind of monty haul god-killing uber campaign has 400 point fantasy hero characters in it.

Strange. I'm sitting here looking at three long-term characters for a fantasy game that are built on 350-400 character points who, between them, don't have a CV exceeding 10 or an attack exceeding 3d6+1. They globetrotters with 100+ points in skills each, and a significant number of perks and talents. Their key characteristics are in the skilled-competent range except for their shtick related characteristics, which are in the legendary range. And they all have a few normal range characteristics. This is not to say they aren't massively effective if they are played to their strengths, but they are far from being monty haul god-killers, and they aren't omni-competent. They need eachother. Each of them has weak-points or areas of ignorance. And in terms of combat, while I would expect any one of them to be able to take on 3-4 elite guardsmen (maybe 6-8 for their major fighter), confronted with a score of competent fighters, or characters on their own level (major henchmen or villians), they have to start thinking tactically if they want to survive. These characters started at 200 points. They had plenty of room to grow. Not every campaign runs the same way or has the same style. And not every group has the same common sensibilities about what will and won't break the game. Its not just about the gamemaster running rough-shod over the players, but about the players being mature and astute enough to get into the setting, plot, and characters without trying to power-game the setting to death. Basically, don't assume everyone esle's game runs like the one's you've experienced.

[Lord Mhoram]

There's something for the Character to grow into.

This hits the nail on the head. It's all about character growth.

Not to belabor anything, but in regards to my posted character; I have always wanted to play a "master of all magics" kind of character - someone who (at the end of his career) is Wencit of Rum, Belgarath, Gandalf... the end all of mages, who's name can cause fear by itself. This character is going to be that for me - the campaign has 6 different forms of magic - he knows two (Knacks and the standard spell system). In addition to all the magic that he will learn (which really won't make him that much more powerful, just more versitile) - there a bunch of magic related talents, his abilities as a staff fighter, and whatever skills are picked up by roleplaying.

I have a rough list of over 1000 pts I could spend on this guy (on the mechanics side), and a lot of personality to discover and choices to explore (on the roleplaying side).

That's growth.