Activate Point Limit in Fantasy

[Jrandom]

I am running a fantasy game with a group who has never played Hero System before. I was explaining to them how in Fantasy Hero, the power levels for characters is less then the power level for characters in Champions. I had decided to start them off with 40 Activate Point Limit, but then some of the players pointed out that using a 2-Handed weapon with Haymaker and a few DC skill levels, you can break the 40AP Limit.

 

How do you address power level limits in FH? Do you just keep mages and clerics to the 40pt AP limit and let the warriors go bananas with their 4d6 HKAs?

[Lucius]

Given that the spellcasters will have access to a wide variety of abilities the warriors wouldn't, that might work.

 

You can allow Skill Levels to enhance OCV or DCV and not directly enhance damage. I've taken that approach.

 

You can also allow players to push or to haymaker spells.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Going bananas with a palindromedary

[mhd]

I'd much rather limit the warriors... Active points in a fantasy campaign might be a start or it might be totally irrelevant. It's definitely not a stop to all potentital abuse cases. So I don't really see a big advantage on arbitrary limits there. Compared to the modern world where superhero campaigns tend to take place, it's way easier to introduce unbalancing effects, at pretty much any active point value.

[Ndreare]

There is no reason the wizard couldn't hay maker.

Personally I suggest a giving a target of say

6 CV

6 DC

And then allow the players to exceed by 5. This would let one player have a 55 ap attack but only a 6 ocv while another player may have a 10 OCV be known for never missing but be limited to 30 ap.

At these levels the players are heroic but not able to mouth off to the king do to speak.

[bluesguy]

That can be a problem.  It really depends on how you want magic to work in your campaign.  If you want the magic to be really big and flashy then more active points will be necessary.

 

Also remember that if someone is using a 2 handed sword, they won't be using a shield so their DCV will be lower than an opponent with a shield.  And if they Haymaker then they are engaging in an attack an extra segment (I think) and their DCV drops quite a bit.  There are a lot of disadvantages in that scenario. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree that the damage output between mage and non mage needs to be carefully considered; certainly letting someone use martial arts maneuvers and skill levels with a 2 handed sword to do 3-4d6 damage or more will be trouble for your campaign.  Its part of the juggling act as a GM to keep all those factors in mind and make sure they don't stack up too much.

At the same time, the mage who can start fires, levitate, blast things 500 feet away, read minds, and create food has a lot more utility than grog who can hit things with his hammer.  So if the non mage characters are doing a bit more damage, that's reasonable given their limitations.

[Tasha]

I am running a fantasy game with a group who has never played Hero System before. I was explaining to them how in Fantasy Hero, the power levels for characters is less then the power level for characters in Champions. I had decided to start them off with 40 Activate Point Limit, but then some of the players pointed out that using a 2-Handed weapon with Haymaker and a few DC skill levels, you can break the 40AP Limit.

 

How do you address power level limits in FH? Do you just keep mages and clerics to the 40pt AP limit and let the warriors go bananas with their 4d6 HKAs?

Remember that Mages can Haymaker spells as well and also push. So when I worry about DC limits I don't include Skill levels, Pushing, or Normal Combat Maneuvers.

[Steve]

Regarding martial arts, it is possible to let mages have ranged martial arts that can be used with attack spells. I believe the Hero System Martial Arts book calls it Enerjutsu, but it would be easy enough to make your own for your game world. Being part of an order of mages with such ranged martial arts could give a spellcaster character more flavor.

[Lucius]

Regarding martial arts, it is possible to let mages have ranged martial arts that can be used with attack spells. I believe the Hero System Martial Arts book calls it Enerjutsu, but it would be easy enough to make your own for your game world. Being part of an order of mages with such ranged martial arts could give a spellcaster character more flavor.

Or hand to hand Martial Arts for touch spells.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Weapon Element: Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

[Markdoc]

I am running a fantasy game with a group who has never played Hero System before. I was explaining to them how in Fantasy Hero, the power levels for characters is less then the power level for characters in Champions. I had decided to start them off with 40 Activate Point Limit, but then some of the players pointed out that using a 2-Handed weapon with Haymaker and a few DC skill levels, you can break the 40AP Limit.

 

How do you address power level limits in FH? Do you just keep mages and clerics to the 40pt AP limit and let the warriors go bananas with their 4d6 HKAs?

 

I've never bothered with active point limits: to be honest, I see them as baby-wheels for starting GMs, and the frequent discussion of them on the boards seems to support my experience that they cause at least as many problems as they solve. They're an optional extra anyway, so I'd question whether you need to add them to your game at all.

 

The best test for any power is "Is this going to break the adventures I have planned?" This is particularly true for fantasy hero, where it's not hard to build game-breaking powers for 40 AP. A simple 20 rPD, 0 END force field will render wizards all but immune to physical attacks, for example, and it's hardly a way-out power. Long-range teleport, invisibility, clairvoyance, telepathy and crippling debuffs are all possible on 40 AP. Wizards usually have better things to do than just casting an RKA, so letting warriors have their 4d6 HKA is not going to unbalance your games - particularly since you need to sink a fair few points into getting up to 4d6 in the first place (High STR, martial arts, levels).

 

Of course, not using active points means the GM needs to be more involved in setting guidelines and vetting powers. In a way, this is already done for mundane types: the powers they most frequently have access to (weapons and armour) are fixed and simple. In my own experience, the most important thing for any fantasy hero campaign is setting the guidelines for magic, so that you get the game you (and your players) want. In that regard, active points are not that important.

 

As an aside, in threads of this kind, I frequently read comments suggesting that if you allow 4d6 HKAs in your game that you'll have problems, but in nearly 30 years of running and playing fantasy hero, we've often had characters reaching that level of damage, and it's never been a problem. I wonder whether this perception is based on actual experience, or just theorycrafting.

 

Cheers, Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

Allowing 4d6k into one's game is only a problem if that is the average damage instead of the maximum (ish) and the npcs and creatures defenses (and stun and body) are not rebalanced to match that damage level.

[mhd]

It's also a problem if the fightey guys have to work for it, but the mages don't (area attacks, auto-hits etc.). Now that's more an area that's worse attending, not just maximum damage (especially if it's overkill anyways).

 

That can be a problem even between mundane melee and ranged combatants, but with some power combinations (regardless of APs) wizards can be a lot worse.

[Markdoc]

Allowing 4d6k into one's game is only a problem if that is the average damage instead of the maximum (ish) and the npcs and creatures defenses (and stun and body) are not rebalanced to match that damage level.

 

Right. The system is highly flexible, and you can easily rebalance it. That's one reason why statements that allowing fighters to reach 4d6 KA is a problem bug me: it requires not just one, but multiple fumbles on the part of the GM before it becomes a problem. In my Sengoku-era game, we had a PC (and some NPCs) slinging 4d6 HKAs - in a game where the commonest armour was ... actually armour was not common: the PC's spent most of their time in kimonos, meaning 3rDEF from combat luck. And you know what? It wasn't a problem.

 

But the other reason it bugs me is because really, HKA is not the problem in fantasy. mhd his the problem on the head. As a GM, if you give me two PCs - one a fighty fighter with a big-ass HKA, and one a wizard with a toolkit of 40 AP spells ... I can tell you right off who'll be difficult to handle 90% of the time, and it's not Mr. Fighty fighter. A simple entangle or flash can take opponents out of the fight just as quickly as an HKA, and as noted, there are lots of ways to ensure that it hits most of the time.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher R Taylor]

It depends a lot on the kind of game you're running in terms of lethality and what threats people face.  If 4d6 KA is not uncommon in the game, there are going to be a lot of dead PCs or fudged die rolls by the GM (average body to the head = decapitation).  If that's the kind of game you're fine with and the players like, good.  If you want a different sort of game, you're going to have to be careful with what damage players can do.

There's always the problem with escalation if you aren't careful as a GM.  Upping the defenses of the bad guys to deal with the increased damage of the players makes them want more damage which leads you to... well you get the idea.

[mhd]

One important factor for some games is the level of required preparedness for maximum efficiency. Or in other words: Two guys might have a 4d6 KA, but one would have it much easier to apply said onslaught. A haymakering berserking greataxe wielder can't always bring his A game, especially in more polite company. The weaponmastering dagger specialist on the other hand... (assuming you don't use the damage doubling rule here). And this can be especially true for the wizarding folk: If you can just point your finger at someone to make his head explode, you're statistically better off than someone who needs to bite down on some overripe lemons and bring four feet of steel.

 

Defense is even worse, as there are more situations where weapons are okay (e.g. your ceremonial rapier/saber/voulge-guisarme), but full plate is considered a bit gauche. Whereas a wizard could whip up a force field instantly.

 

So besides active points, working out a good way to balance things by making things less universally accessible is usually needed. If I need a staff or components, and this gets taken away as often as my companions arms, then we're good. If magic can't be worked in the presence of cats, then you're worse off than your groups unarmed fighter for a change (NB: Don't try this at home. Leads to needless felicide.). Magical resource usage is a mixed bag. For some campaigns a spell that can be cast only two times daily is a bit limit, for some it's hardly an inconvenience. Although generally I'm fond of the "traditional" wizard limitations: Let him blast and blast well, but limit how often he can do this and make defense way harder than offense (e.g. by not granting defense spells or allowing mundane armor).

 

And as Markdoc said, especially beware the non-damage spells. As any D&D optimizer will tell you, "blasters" are considered to be waaaaay sub-par.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I actually don't mind when mages have more defenses than melee types for three reasons.  First, the melee types are a lot tougher under the defenses so they tend to fold up when their shield spell is breached rather than say "ow."  Second, when a mage is interrupted casting a spell, terrible things often happen to them, which a warrior doesn't have to face.  And third, when you stun a mage, most if not all of his magic will tend to shut off, and a suit of chainmail stays in place.  So the mage with 15 resistant PD is not really better off than the warrior with 6, overall.

 

A good mage is going to shine because of their non-kill spells though, yes.  In fact, in my world and magic system, utility is emphasized over booms.  You can blast that guy for 6d6 fire damage... or float him in the air half DCV for everyone to use as a pinata.  Which is better?

[bluesguy]

One of the things I have done in my campaign world is to define active points for different 'classes' of spells and for different cultures.  Here is a link to the Magic Power Levels in my new campaign.  As each culture and race have specific spells it gives a nice variety to mages as well.  Also I have defined the spell options for each culture and race.  Finally no one can learn another culture or racial magic - bad things happen ("Don't cross the streams").

[mhd]

First, the melee types are a lot tougher under the defenses so they tend to fold up when their shield spell is breached rather than say "ow."  Second, when a mage is interrupted casting a spell, terrible things often happen to them, which a warrior doesn't have to face.

I just like to note that both those points aren't inherent in the system, so they're amongst the candidates for introducing a bit more balance (i.e. a social contract of "mages aren't that hardy" and a magic system where side effects are common).

[Markdoc]

It depends a lot on the kind of game you're running in terms of lethality and what threats people face.  If 4d6 KA is not uncommon in the game, there are going to be a lot of dead PCs or fudged die rolls by the GM (average body to the head = decapitation).  If that's the kind of game you're fine with and the players like, good.  If you want a different sort of game, you're going to have to be careful with what damage players can do.

 

Or not.

 

There's no question that if characters can - not always - but can, dish out 4d6 HKA and defence is limited, then running into a group of armed men and wailing away with your sword is unlikely to be a winning strategy. But players can - and do - adapt to the base assumptions in the game. A high damage to defence ratio means that play will be different to a game with high defences and low damage. But it emphatically does not mean a high rate of PC death or fudged die rolls is inevitable. It means that a PCs (and NPCs) will try and tilt the odds in their favour, that block and dodge become far more important, etc.

 

In hero, especially, there's very much more than one way to kill a cat than just drowning it in cream.

 

Understand that I'm not discussing this from a theoretical point of view: we've actually been playing fantasy hero like this for decades now, and not just a single group with an implicit understanding. I mean with a whole raft of different players and different GMs, playing in multiple different game settings, and a range of different play styles: short scenarios, one-off games and multiyear campaigns.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ximenez]

I agree that active point limits don't help much. In a campaign with castles, for example, Tunneling is a <STOP> power. Yes, there are workarounds, but it made more sense for my campaign to just ban tunneling. The power to go under a castle wall is immense, and the power to go through a castle wall even more so. If you want to knock a hole in a wall, you'll need to buy the KA to make it happen.

[Markdoc]

I agree completely that you need to think about how magic impacts your world design: in my opinion, it's the single most important decision you can make.

 

But I am a bit iffy about banning powers outright, because that reduces your options, and because often that just exposes other problems. Tunneling can definitely render a standard medieval castle useless. But so can flight and teleport, or for that matter, mind-control, transform or invisibility. Even a simple darkness spell can neutralise most castle defences. As a GM, some of my biggest headches have been n-ray vision and clairvoyance. And so on.

 

So an alternative is to build your fantasy world to match. Ditch the simple wall-and-keep medieval castle in favour of fortresses with defence in depth designed to channel attackers who breach defences and ensure defences include protection from fliers. A fortress is a big investment - so it makes sense that it will have magical defences, if magical attack is expected. Even simple alarms go a long way towards the defence.

 

The same applies to other aspects of the gameworld. Most people may live a medieval existence, but we could reasonably expect the powerful to have access to protective magic, long distance communication and travel. That will change things.

 

Cheers, Mark

[mhd]

The problem with really basing your whole world on pervasive magic is that This. Changes. Everything.

I mean, a lot of people like to play fantasy because they want pastoral landscapes, scruffy peasants and other ren faire tropes. You probably won't get this if the magic you see in a typical fantasy campaign is supposed to be representative and not restricted to a very small elite. And it's hard to do this in a consequential way, basically "medieval futurology". Rarely seen this done properly. Eberron or Vlad Taltos world come to mind.

 

To be honest, I'm prone to some really big handwaving when it comes to that. It's hard enough to properly judge what effect a power/spell has on inter-party balance, judging how this affects the whole wide world?

[Markdoc]

The simple answer to that is to address the magic system: if the PCs have easy major magic on tap, it's reasonable to assume that other people do too ... unless the GM explains why not. You can ignore that, but my experience has been that over time, that makes player absorption in the game less: it's hard for PCs to feel fully engaged when there is covert (and often overt) moments where the plotline/game makes no sense.

 

I enjoy our D&D games, but despite the efforts of one GM to aim for high tragedy and drama, they're fun, jokey affairs. It's hard to create real drama against a backdrop of farce.

 

I should note that a lot of GM's have a problem with this, and as a result, struggle when PCs start to reach levels of high power. I think it's important for a GM to consider when starting a campaign not just what the starting point will be but also when to end the campaign. If they are not comfortable with PCs who can cross continents in a day, raise the dead, or devastate small armies, then it's probably a good idea to plan for your endgame at the beginning. 

 

cheers, Mark

[mhd]

The simple answer to that is to address the magic system: if the PCs have easy major magic on tap, it's reasonable to assume that other people do too ... unless the GM explains why not.

That's a general issue with PCs: How does their level of power fit in the world. And in most campaigns, that ranges from "high" to "cue ominous latin chanting whenever they enter a tavern" -- regardless of system. There are a few exceptions (deargodforgottenrealms), but even in most D&D worlds, double digit level NPCs were quite rare and your dudes & dudettes(warriors, wizards, bards) were destined for greatness, if they didn't start out that way.

 

With that assumption (e.g. 175 point heroes), it's pretty easy to handwave magic's effect on society: If it's that *rare*, one can expect that most people who have that power are probably the guys the party is fighting. Or something like that. Probably not something you can expect in every middling siege.

 

Personally, I'm a mid-frequency/low-power guy anyway. I don't mind mages/elves/houngans being common, even amongst the general unwashed masses, but if they don't pass the gunship test, they're more flavor than cause of problems or setting holes.

 

But yes, if you've got powerful magic and lots of guys running around with that, you might need to rethink your setting.

 

Although I'd argue that most fantasy settings are *very* fragile in that regard. Even the non-magic parts don't really make sense in 99% of them. Comes with being a carbon copy of medieval Europe, sans most of its defining elements.

[Markdoc]

Yeah, which is why I always think about how the PCs are going to fit into the world - especially as they gain in power - before I run a game, and would recommend that any GM does the same.

 

In the last campaign - which ran for about 4 years of frequent play - the PCs went from being local heroes in a small coastal village, to being troubleshooters for a city-state, where political fall-out from their actions could shake local governments, and ended with them making a deal with a demi-god/demon that would have significant consequences in the neighbouring kingdoms. The game before that, which lasted a similar amount of time, they went from being minor retainers of a local lord, to being warlords leading armies, and heroes taking part in a mystical tournament that would change the fate of nations. I usually start well-shy of 175pts (most of my games start at 100 or 75, and sometimes as low as 50), but typically end up north of 300 points. However, since I know the endpoint, and roughly how the PCs will scale, it always been easy to fit them into the game world.

 

Likewise, I'm also not shy of making changes to the game world to reflect the potential effects of magic - even though I limit to some extent what magic can do. But I always think about what it can/could do, and how common it is locally.

 

cheers, Mark