Recommended power level Start and Max

[TWoods]

Do any of you have campaign guidelines for attack power / defense power / skill rolls with start range and max limits?

I'm starting a fantasy group (actually restarting a group and jumping over to Hero rules) and could use some help on starting limits and growth of the characters.

I would also be interested in seeing some of your character's combat levels and how high you would allow an OCV/DCV to get.

Thanks!

[Curufea]

http://www.curufea.com/hero/doku.php...acter_creation

[TWoods]

Thats GREAT! thanks!

Question ... why limit OCV to 9?

[Curufea]

Because otherwise you have folk shooting the iris of a hobbit in a fog at night from 3 miles away.

[Killer Shrike]

Due to the way the HERO System works, to a large extent the level of OCV vs DCV, opposed skill rolls, and similar 3d6 roll under abilities scales relatively, so it really doesnt matter what level it scales to as long as when examined overall the primary pro and antagonists (the PC's and their opponents) are within the same general range of each other with a spread of around 4 to 5 points between high and low.

However exaggerated levels do allow characters to overcome assumptions in static penalties, and this is particularly noticeable if you are implementing optional rules that are intended for "heroic" -- i.e. more realistic play -- rather than the more unrealistic "superheroic" level of play (and note that in this context "superheroic" is not limited to the concept of COMIC BOOK superheroes; rather any characters in any genre that operate at a level of competence far beyond the norm for their setting, regardless of genre).

The most significant and obvious place where this occurs is if you are using the Hit Location Chart. The -8 penalty for Head Shots is intended to demonstrate the high level of difficulty for making such a shot at will (and benefiting from the much higher lethality for doing so), but in a setting where people routinely acheive +20 OCV (for instance) it is a trivial concern.

Similarly, with a few specifically noted exceptions -10 to a Skill Roll is intended to represent a nearly impossible task, but if a character has a 27- Skill Roll then it is meaningless -- they only fail on a natural "18", the roll of which always fails.


Generally speaking you should decide what the PC's level of power is relative to the average, normal, nameless NPC masses of the setting. If they PC's are more skilled and capable, but still ultimately just better versions of Joe Average and still suffer the vagaries of physics and reasonable expectations of success (even cinematic ones) then you will likely want to reign back the "numbers" a bit in a lot of areas. The easiest way to do this is to just run the game at fewer points, but you can certainly take steps to define maxes (generally called caps or a "rule of X").

However, what you might find is that defined MAXIMUMS have a tendency to be viewed by players as a de facto MINIMUM, and many will tend to design characters that work backwards from those maximums rather than being built in a more natural fashion and ending up where ever the designer runs out of points. It is for this reason that I prefer to not use them

Personally, I only use caps in specific and controlled fashions, preferring a more incentive and aspiration based means of encouraging players to design "natural" characters rather than metagamed characters.

The aspiration aspect involves giving them benchmarks that are notable to different archetypes to measure themselves against (and aspire to attain for their characters). If the only thing players see to measure their characters against is who can beat who in a fight, then don't be suprised when being good at fighting and "winning" is a focus of many characters. If you want players to design and enjoy characters of diverse abilities which in turn will enrich your campaign and thus ultimately everyones' play experience you need to demonstrate in some fashion what constitutes capableness for other types of characters than just those that rely on OCV / DCV / Hitting / Damaging limits.

It is also important to run a campaign with a sufficient variety of challenges that characters specializing in maxing out their capabilities in a narrow fashion do not have a monopoly on relevance. This provides an incentive for players to make a diverse variety of characters to interact with the variety of challenges you are presenting, and ultimately be rewarded as players in their game experience by solving challenges in interesting ways with their uniquely and diversely designed characters.

In the end if players are aspiring to acheivements, they will spend character points in the direction of their goals and will have a natural tendency to specialize in various directions, and if at the same time you are provided an environment where specialization ensures that a character cannot cover all the potentially necessary challenges on their own you foster team play, which the typical RPG campaign thrives on. It also ensures that there will be a place for both specialized role fillers, and also hybrid generalists who are able to fill more than one role though to a lesser extent than a specialist.

This basic dynamic is at the heart of most successful group based campaigns and settings. The HERO System doesnt structure them into the game design like most other games do, and you generally don't want to push them down the players throats either as one of the advantages to the HERO System is that design freedom is in the hands of the player and the GM rather than some distant game designer.


I got to rambling a bit there, but hopefully something in it will prove useful.

[Curufea]

Nicely said. I wish I could give you more rep again

[LordGhee]

yea what he said, and Curufea also


Lord Ghee

[Thia Halmades]

Killer Shrike is correct in the sense of scale - in a gun fight, a guy with a 20 OCV on his Pistol isn't going to be worried about anyone duking & dodging him - he'll just hit them. Especially if he bought his weapon with a Naked Power Advantage: Area of Effect (Accurate, One Hex) for all of his pistol shots. Not only does he have an OCV of crazy, he's just reduced everyone else's DCV to 3. Probably not something you would want in your campaign, considering just how powerful it would make the PC.

I've always considered the OCV/DCV argument moot - as KS pointed out, if you have an OCV 12, and I have a DCV 12, then we're back at zero for all intents and purposes. Insofar as power levels, that's a matter of taste. Generally we have two caps: Straight/Advantage, and it's... 30/45 right now, I think. In other words, I don't want any "power" having more than about 2d6 RKA. However, I also want people to get creative, build in Advantages and other groovy things. The best way to simulate this is by capping the total damage that can be done, but increasing the total amount of points that can be spent.

Skills I haven't capped, because there hasn't quite been a need yet. If people want to routinely do very well at routine tasks, hey, that's their perogative, but I'm using the whole of the system, so you'd need your KS, PS, if applicable, SS, and so on. Oddly even my skill monkey characters aren't pure skill monkeys; they're spread out in their concepts. Hero promotes both lateral growth (broader abilities) and vertical growth (better abilities) equally well. So long as your players are on board with the idea of Roleplaying instead of Die Chucking, you're doing good.

[Outsider]

Giving some players campaign limits just acts as a challenge for them to work around them.

If you set an active point limit on attacks, some players will find it irresistable to have many, many skill levels so their attack can always target an increased damage location.

If you set a combined limit on attack power and CV, then they will add Find Weakness, or self immune darkness, or some other attack enhancing power/skill that gives them an edge over what was supposed to be a maximum.

Sometimes I think I should make a set of characters ahead of time and let the players pick which they want to play, instead of going through the headache of trying to get several players to remain happy while simultaneously making characters compatible in power with eachother.

Better yet, I should avoid GMing... Did it for years, but I dont seem to have the patience anymore.

[TWoods]

Great posts guys, thanks for the feedback. Right now I'm looking at an CV starting range of 6-8 but the best fighters in the the world not having much higher than 11 to 13.

I really want to have that feeling of growth over time that other systems give on attack values. Luke Skywalker's 5D blaster skill compared to Boba Fett's 9D Blaster is a cool range, but when I look at a lot of Hero writeups most charactes have the same +2 to +3 with combat -- which seems kinda dull.

My PCs will be in a world where several factions are at war and each faction will have their legendary heroes to go up against, so that is why I want to figure out up front who are the heavy hitters and just how powerful they are.

[Killer Shrike]

So just stat the heavy hitters first, then decide what the campaign norm should be relative to that.

[Killer Shrike]

I really want to have that feeling of growth over time that other systems give on attack values. Luke Skywalker's 5D blaster skill compared to Boba Fett's 9D Blaster is a cool range, but when I look at a lot of Hero writeups most charactes have the same +2 to +3 with combat -- which seems kinda dull.

You should consider what +2 to +3 means on the Bell Curve. The reason why characters tend to polarize in that range is because of the diminishing returns of more bonuses -- at a certain point plusses exist primarily to offset penalties and to raise the bar a notch as to what is routine for the character.


You seem to have a background in d20, so to put it into those terms, in the
Profession Conversion portion of my D&D3e conversion I recommend that Skill Ranks be converted using the following forumla:

(Base Skill Bonus-4) / 4 = +1 to HERO System Skill

Rounded in the character's favor;

D&D RANKS  	 	HERO SKILL LEVEL  	 	COST*
1-5 	 	 	Base Skill 	 	 	3
6-9 	 	 	Base Skill +1 	 	 	5
10-13 	 	 	Base Skill +2 	 	 	7
14-17 	 	 	Base Skill +3 	 	 	9
18-21 	 	 	Base Skill +4 	 	 	11
etc 	 	 	... 	 	 	 	...
*These costs reflect standard Skills; some 
Skills such as Knowledge and Professional Skills
have a variant pricing structure.

and Base Attack Bonus as so:

Base Attack Bonus (BAB) / 5 = +1 CSL of appropriate type


Working backwards +3 All Combat is equivalent to a +15 BAB, and +3 to a Skill is equivalent to 14-17 Ranks in D&D.


Now, granted, that's just by the internal logic of my conversion, and other GM's may very well differ on the details, but perhaps it will provide a frame of reference for you.

[Rapier]

250 starting points (125 + 125 w/ 30 pts of Mystery Disads)
Stats max at 25 (with a couple of Ogre or Troll racial exceptions)
CVs max at 9
AP maxes at 45, more requires approval
DEF (natural) maxes at 6 (allowing two levels of Combat Luck) non-resistant maxes at 11 (natural 5 PD + 6 rPD)
Skills not above a 15-.
SPDs of 3, with an occasional 4 for a martial artisty type quick-guy.

[Markdoc]

Depends entirely on what "feel" you want.

I do the opposite to KS, which is stat the bottom of the scale and then work up.

My basic guardsman type (yer basic combat foe) typically runs OCV 4-5, SPD 2 and has a spear and light armour - if any. We're talking 10-25 points total.

On that scale, a 100 point PC (which is where I start most games) who emphasises combat is capable of tackling a patrol of city guard by himself, but there's still a reasonable chance that he could get himself gacked. A stealth character can be highly stealthy and still have enough combat ability to go toe to toe with a couple of guards if he has to and so on. In D20 terms, we're talking about equivalent to a non-munchkinned 4-5th level character.

Personally, I don't use active points caps, as they warp games and character design in ways I don't like. They are also largely unneccessary. If you hit 90% of the time with OCV 9, spending points on working up to OCV15 is likely to be wasted - making you *less* effective than your fellows. Players pretty quickly learn that there is such a thing as enough.

Not having caps leads to interesting developments - in none of my games have the PCs developed entirely as I expected: in the current game there is a tendency developing towards really high skill rolls in specific areas. So even with NCM, I have one character with a 23 PRE and he's starting to buy up nobility-associated skills, allowing him to command random guardsmen, etc - another has a similar approach, but emphasising "soft skills" (dancing, conversation, etc) The two of them working as a team are awesome, intimidating or seducing their way through scenarioes. One character has adopted the "servant" role specialising in stealth and information gathering, while another has become "the strong guy", heading for 23 STR (no mean feat, in a game where STR costs 2 points per). Quite different from the combat-oriented PCs of the last campaign and I like the fact that the players feel free to experiment with different approaches.

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Actually, to be clear, I was recommending that TWoods start at the top and work down because that seems to be where his concern lies and that is the most direct way to address his particular concern. I mean, if I'm worried about what characters are going to look like at the heavy end of the scale, or if a high level magic user is balanced against a high level warrior, or whatever, I could either sit around and worry about it or take the direct approach of just making a couple of characters to see what is what.

Personally I usually take more of a "leafing" approach. I figure out what I want my upper and lower boundaries to be in relation to each other and then go to the mid point, then go to the quatrapoints and so on and making sure that things "fit" in relation to each other. Depending on how far apart the boundaries are I might do this several times (i.e. if the range is something like 150 to 750, I'll leaf a few more times than if its 75 to 225). If need be Ill slide the boundaries up or down to compensate.

However, this is an extremely comprehensive approach and takes a lot more work and thinking than most people care to invest, particularly someone new to the system.

In the end whatever method is used, it is always useful to have some "measuring sticks" or benchmarks or anchor or however you prefer to think of them as something to provide comparison points and a general frame of reference.