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

[DarkGreen]

Title sort of says it all.

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

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

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

-DG

[Old Man]

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

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

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

[Nelijal]

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

[Fitz]

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

[mudpyr8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Old Man]

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

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

[Thirdbase]

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

[mattingly]

75 pts. total is about the sweet spot.

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

[lensman]

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you guys shun higher points ?

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

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

[Agent Escafarc]

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

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

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

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

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

Why do you guys shun higher points ?

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

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

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

[Nelijal]

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

Ditto that. That's why I went with 100+50 (not an epic game--just some good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm. . .); some points could have been better spent (a lot of this is still new to us), but the PCs are not starting the game with one foot in the grave.

[Chris Goodwin]

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

[Old Man]

Originally posted by lensman

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

Why do you guys shun higher points ?

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

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

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

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

[Tyrant]

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

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

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

It was great : )

[DarkGreen]

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

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

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

It was great : )

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

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

-DG