Power Level

[Alcamtar]

Okay, a question for you all. What is the power level in your game, and how do you keep maintain it (if you do at all)?

 

For my current campaign I had planned to have "normal" attacks around 4-5 DC, and attacks by a combat specialist up to about 6-7 DC. Defenses were similarly targeted at 3-5 DEF average, and about 8 DEF maximum. I set CV at 8/8 for a dedicated warrior, less for others.

 

The PCs stuck to these guidelines nonimally -- their base attacks and skill were within parameters, but after adding in the effects of PSLs, martial arts, and other things, I had characters with +10 to +15 effective OCV and 4d6K attacks. The dwarf could fight at SPD 4, 11 OCV, 11 DCV, two attacks per round, 4d6K damage, at pull off a called shot to the Thigh (2x damage), all reliably with no penalties except for the 1/2 DCV for Sweep -- this was his "standard" configuration. He also had a detailed development plan to go even further. We toned this down a bit, but I realized my guidelines had been completely circumvented by PSLs and maneuvers and things, because I had failed to account for them.

 

How do you define your campaign limits? Do they include only regular skill levels, or DEX and PSLs and everything else? If a character is at the limit from raw skill, do you allow them to stack a manuever on top of that, or do you disallow further bonuses? Do damage limits apply to the base HKA, or to the final total damage?

 

Many creatures in the bestiary have CV 3-5 from Dex, with no skill levels; a lot of "tough" monsters have CV in the 6-7 range. These seem really low and not very threatening when compared to my party; is a SPD 2 zombie at CV 3/3 even worth fighting for a warrior at CV 8/8?

 

Also, what is normal? How many skill levels do you give to "normal people" like town guards? Any at all? I'm tempted to give them 3-4 skill levels just so the players will have a little respect for them, but that seems excessively skilled.

 

Mike

[Markdoc]

I don't attempt to balance power levels. I enforce balance by starting players on low points levels (50+50 normally) so that they have to sacrifice in some areas if they want to excel in others.

 

As time goes on, obviously they get the power. But I have had a 325 point monster in the game, and he was not nearly as offensive as he would have been had he been designed to (say) 300 points - the extra stuff (languages, skills, contacts and so on) that he had acreted over time spread the points out.

 

Of course to hypercompetent characters like that, a SPD 2 zombie - or even a couple of dozen zombies - is not going to be a challenge. But that's the way it is.

 

In my experience, setting limits is essentially the same as encouraging players to rush those limits as fast as is possible.

 

cheers, Mark

[TheTemplar]

*Nods in agreement*

 

It seems limits tend to be thought of as minimums as much as maximums. However, what I've developed for my FH campaign is a system of limits that are tailored to each player. For instance - My Elven Rogue can have a DEX of up to 22 before the NCM cost doubles. However, he can't have any higher than 16 CON. Also, no one else can have higher than 20 DEX (IIRC, the next closest is the Half Elf Ranger at 18 DEX.) Basically, I sat down with the players, went over their character concepts, and created their personalized limits to achieve:

1. Power levels stay under control

2. Not everyone flocks to the same STR,DEX, and CON values because everyone's maximums are different

3. Characters don't lose their "thing" that makes them special (DEX/SPD for Elves, CON/STR for Dwarves, etc.) by everyone else having the same characteristics values.

 

I'll probably increase the caps by 10 AP or so once the characters all reach the 30 exp mark (kinda like a "level up" type thing.) The only character w/ "powers" that aren't just taken straight from the FH book is the Wizard/Cleric, and his AP limit is currently 30 AP - same as the Paladin's 2d6 HKA Greatsword. Now, the Paladin can add his STR for more DC's, but he can't do it at range and lacks the Wizard's versatility.

 

Balance is one of those things that (ironically enough) really can't be universal for all campaigns. I really think it has to be tailored to each group. I consider myself a balance freak, and could probably talk about it for hours (and probably already have.) SO, I'll shut up now...but I'm curious to know what other GM's do to keep their games under control.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Markdoc

I don't attempt to balance power levels. I enforce balance by starting players on low points levels (50+50 normally) so that they have to sacrifice in some areas if they want to excel in others.

 

As time goes on, obviously they get the power. But I have had a 325 point monster in the game, and he was not nearly as offensive as he would have been had he been designed to (say) 300 points - the extra stuff (languages, skills, contacts and so on) that he had acreted over time spread the points out.

 

I allow redesigns, over time. At one point we limited them to two redesigns per campaign, in our roleplaying group, but fettered it down to "redesigns as needed."

 

Theres a few reasons for redesigns:

 

• 1. A skill the character has, is now obsolete, or needs an upgrade.
  2. Redundant powers, talents, perks, etc.
  3. Ineffective character - poor character design.
  4. Inexperienced player - poor character design.

 

And many other reasons.

[slaughterj]

I use a rough guideline metric to see if characters are reasonably in line from the start. My equation for this is CV+DC<13, including the typical bonuses from the usual martial art used, but probably would just eyeball PSLs and shields, and don't worry with the +1OCV a given weapon might give. This provides a balance, enabling a high skill but less damaging sort vs. a wild warrior sort. Further, since 2 CSLs can be combined for 1 DC or spread to +1 to OCV & DCV, the equation is balanced with regard to them.

 

I'm not REALLY strict about it, nor do I want it to be viewed as a ceiling that all need to start at. Also, DEF isn't really an issue, since that's controlled more in the game (tend to play in low armor campaign settings), but usually runs about 2 DEF leather. Plus DEF is somewhat countered by penalties to DCV.

 

It allows for quite a bit, but not excessively so IMNSHO, for starting characters. Here's some examples which "fit":

 

Nimble Rogue, STR 13, DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), with plenty of room for CSLs/MA

 

Strong Warrior, STR 18, DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (6DC), with plenty of room for CSLs/MA

 

Also, I try to have characters adjusted to be "balanced" with one another, so if someone makes a "mighty barbarian warrior" (with STR 15, DEX 11 (4CV) , 1 1/2D6K sword (5DC), and 2 CSLs), that he isn't unbalanced against "lean street waif pickpocket" (with STR 13, DEX 20 (7CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), and 5 CSLs), by either boosting the warrior (seems a good idea in this case) or trimming the pickpocket (also seems a good idea in this case).

 

Finally, a good way to get characters built "properly" according to your game world might be to provide the stats for a typical city guardsman, so the players know how the characters stack up and are made appropriately. E.g., if your city guard has STR 13, DEX 11, 1D6+1K sword, and 1 CSL, then the warrior character might be very happen to be at STR 15, DEX 14, 1 1/2D6K sword, and 3 CSLs (knowing he'll best 1-2 guards fairly readily), and the pickpocket might be happy with STR 10, DEX 18, 1D6K sword, and 2 CSLs (knowing that he can do okay against a city guard, being heroic, but not needing to be able to beat a whole unit).

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by slaughterj

Finally, a good way to get characters built "properly" according to your game world might be to provide the stats for a typical city guardsman, so the players know how the characters stack up and are made appropriately.

 

I agree. I once played a character who was a Doc Elliot type, but with DEX 14. I was slaughtered by the first gunman my character met, who moved so fast (DEX 23), I didn't even see the gunman's movements. If I had known I would be meeting a DEX 23 gunman, I would have had at least a 24 DEX.

[Talon]

I provide the players with a table which measures DEX + levels, providing sample values for NPCs (guard, soldier, veteran, weapon master, legendary fighter, etc.) and let the PCs know what level I expect them to average out at. I also don't allow most DC increasing items (Deadly Attack, Extra DC, martial arts), and count PSLs as CSLs for purposes of the above table. This gives me a baseline from which I ballpark based on other PC abilities.

[Legendsmiths]

I use a rule of X:

 

Total Points/20 + 7 = STR/5 + CV + Skill +2 (if martial artist)

 

Weapons and Magic Items do not change this.

 

This scales fairly well. You can adjust it as necessary. It balances skill with strength.

 

This also applies to skills:

 

Total Points/20 + 9

 

I also start my games at 25 base + 50 disads.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Galadorn

I agree. I once played a character who was a Doc Elliot type, but with DEX 14. I was slaughtered by the first gunman my character met, who moved so fast (DEX 23), I didn't even see the gunman's movements. If I had known I would be meeting a DEX 23 gunman, I would have had at least a 24 DEX.

 

Hey, I thought you were ignoring me And you use my name in vain!

 

Good point, and I like Talon's list of ranges so that characters can know where they stack up. I've done up the stats for the city guardsman, lieutenant, and captain of the guard range before, to know how characters should stack up.

[Guest Keneton]

Campaign Limits

Using the Effectiveness Rating the campaign limits are set as per the chart below. Player characters may not exceed these limits. Villains and NPC’s are not under these restrictions and in most cases are not rated. This information is similar but not identical to the chart in HERO System 5th Edition p. 15.

 

Campaign Type ER OCV/DCV Act. Points Skill Roll Per Roll

 

Low Heroic 40 12/15 40 15- 15-

Standard Heroic 50 13/16 40 16- 16-

High Heroic 60 14/17 50 18- 18-

Leg Heroic 70 15/18 50 18- 18-

Low Super 80 15/18 60 18- 18-

Superhero 100 18/21 90 18- 18-

Legend Super 120 20/23 120 18- 20-

Cosmic 150 20/23 150 18- 24-

 

In addition to these guidelines I have set the following guidelines out for you approval.

[Killer Shrike]

I prefer the Darwinistic approach. I stop or limit anything too "meta" or broken in the design phase (like UAA Movement Powers, Naked Megascale on the base 6" of Running, tunneling mentalists, or Desolid Flashers and similar), but otherwise allow a free reign as long as its in keeping w/ concept. I dont particularly care how high or low a characters stats are or if they have a particular ability, skill, or talent. They paid for it afterall. No character is all things, and the fewer points involved the more true that is.

 

I believe that poorly conceived or improperly realized characters will not survive. The HERO System is sufficiently complex and multi-faceted that it is much harder to acheive a "lockdown" on superiority by exploiting a particular game mechanic. I can look at a character and spot any overpowered exploitations, but most of them are surmountable or foilable.

 

To me a large part of the fun of the HERO System is seeing not what individual characters can do, but how characters with radically different designs interact with each other. So frex if skippy the elf wants to buy his DEX up to whatever (paying NCM doubling), then I dont really care until it gets to the point that the character becomes more of an exercise in absurdity rather than imagination.

 

The realities of game play help dictate character progression more than any other element in my opinion. When you are only getting 2-4 points per session and your character is constantly bumping up against shortfalls in play, you spend a good deal of time trying to back fill design shortfalls, rounding out the character, covering weaknesses, improving on inconsistent abilities, etc. Eventually most character will reach what I call a "gravy stage" where they have all the basic bases covered and all new points earned can be targeted at "luxury" expenditures, but thats usually fairly far along in a characters progression.

 

This is really more a function of the GM than anything else. If the GM runs their game in such a way that all you need is DEX, STR, and Armor, then obviously characters are going to be able to put a lot of points into such things and maintain their effectiveness in that GMs campaign. But if the GM runs their game so that you need much more than brute STR, high DEX, and defenses to function then characters that put all their points in such will fall apart in many situations, be useless in others, and get much less use out of their expenditures than other more broad-based characters.

[Legendsmiths]

I agree with the Killer to a certain extent, but guidlines help if for no other reason than setting the tone. I use my rule of X to guide my creation of NPCs so I know what levels will be challenging. Otherwise, without any guidelines it is too easy to simply create 25 pt thugs that are as good as a marginally rounded 75pt character in combat.

 

I also feel it is important to keep some sense of balance within the party. If you have a kick-butt fighter who is 4-6 OCV and 2-3 DC above the next character, any combats you make are going to either be too easy for the fighter or too deadly for the others.

 

I agree that the sense of character and tone of the game should drive what abilities are allowed, and if you are comfortable with a 75pt character having a 14 OCV and 9 damage classes then great. I personally prefer to keep things a little more toned down.

 

I'd like to believe the system can balance itself, but it can't. As the GM you have to provide that balance. You can do it in play, as Killer describes, but as I've seen it done it usually ends up with the players either having fun because they lack the abilities to resolve the conflict. Is that enough to get them to see the error of their ways? Probably not. I see the guidelines as an aid to promoting some balance in characters without letting things get out of control. Especially at the 150 pt level, things can be crazy without any limits or even with selective GM imposed limits.

[slaughterj]

In addition to the combat effectiveness metric I mentioned above (CV+DC<13), I also "curb" players' excessiveness by suggesting a lot of skills for the player to consider for the character before they even get to the point of CSLs, which tends to limit how many can be purchased because they see lots of skills they can't live without.

[Guest Keneton]

Originally posted by slaughterj

In addition to the combat effectiveness metric I mentioned above (CV+DC<13), I also "curb" players' excessiveness by suggesting a lot of skills for the player to consider for the character before they even get to the point of CSLs, which tends to limit how many can be purchased because they see lots of skills they can't live without.

 

Although I like this Idea, it seems to low a limit.

 

Example: An human fighter with an 20 Strength and 2 HTH levels does a haymaker with a large axe. The base is DC6 + 4 for the haymaker and 1 for strength = DC11+2 Levels = 13. To be in your campaign his dex would have to be 0!

 

Another less extrem example.

 

Elf with longbow and a martial maneuver for ranged martial arts +1/+0 +2dc. DC 6 base +1 for maneuver=DC 7. If the elf has and 18 Dex he has a base 6 OCV +1 for the maneuver =7. This guy cant be in you campaign.

7+7=14. In fact none of the charcters from Fantasy Hero could be in the campaign.

 

I like the concept, but the limit is far too low.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Keneton

Although I like this Idea, it seems to low a limit.

 

Example: An human fighter with an 20 Strength and 2 HTH levels does a haymaker with a large axe. The base is DC6 + 4 for the haymaker and 1 for strength = DC11+2 Levels = 13. To be in your campaign his dex would have to be 0!

 

Another less extrem example.

 

Elf with longbow and a martial maneuver for ranged martial arts +1/+0 +2dc. DC 6 base +1 for maneuver=DC 7. If the elf has and 18 Dex he has a base 6 OCV +1 for the maneuver =7. This guy cant be in you campaign.

7+7=14. In fact none of the charcters from Fantasy Hero could be in the campaign.

 

I like the concept, but the limit is far too low.

 

I don't include things like basic combat maneuvers, else you could get into things like move-thrus and get to some high silliness Also, as far as the elf goes, I use "CV", not "OCV", so 2 "plusses" have to mean something to me (like how I mention earlier about disregarding a weapon's innate +1), so the elf would probably be fine (also I think I said something about it being a rough guideline). I haven't examined the characters in FH, but am not too concerned as to whether they'd be in - especially because I haven't decided how to handle talents like "deadly blow" (?) (not sure the name of the one that increases base damage), since I've only most recently run FH under 5e before the FH book came out.

[Guest Keneton]

Base CV+Base DC<=13 then works.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Keneton

Base CV+Base DC<=13 then works.

 

Well, it works for me (Oh, and it's not just base CV/DC, it includes CSLs and Martial Mods, just not an extra +1 from a weapon, a PSL, shields generally, or bother to worry with an extra +1 from a Martial Art.) Others might find a desire to "tune" it, even adding in SPD as a third factor, e.g. CV+DC+SPD<16, or simply raising or lowering the # for their campaign and/or starting character points.

[Legendsmiths]

That's essentially the same as my formula (points/20 + 7 = STR/5 + CV + Skill +2 for MA).

 

I originally had an almost identical formual, slaughter, but I found dealing with weapons and damage advantages got way whacky. Since it was for a heroic game, everyone had access to weapons and so on equally, so why not accept that as a constant and simply use STR as the base.

 

Skill includes combat skill levels, including DCV only levels, but not penalty skill levels or shields, nor magical enchantments of any kind. I don't add in specific maneuver bonuses, just a blanket +2 if the character knows a martial art. This does offer a slight advantage to the martial artist (since a +2 OCV +2 DC maneuver isn't that uncommon), but I balance this with the fact they have to spend a fair number of points on the MA to begin with.

 

This has worked very well for us, and balances highly skilled fighters with brutes.

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by mudpyr8

That's essentially the same as my formula (points/20 + 7 = STR/5 + CV + Skill +2 for MA).

 

I originally had an almost identical formual, slaughter, but I found dealing with weapons and damage advantages got way whacky. Since it was for a heroic game, everyone had access to weapons and so on equally, so why not accept that as a constant and simply use STR as the base.

 

 

I get your drift re STR to weapon damage, but I find it to be a cleaner equation when using DC and the weapons come to mind readily for me. I could expand mine a bit to say:

 

base CV (i.e., DEX/3) + base DC + CSL/2 (but this I just include in the previous 2) + 2 for MA (since the typical MA is Martial Strike, with +2DCV and +1DC, thus equal to +1 CV and +1 DC) < 13

 

What do you mean by "points/20 + 7"?

[Legendsmiths]

Total Points/20 + 7. So, a 150 pt character would have a rule of X of 7.5 + 7 = 15.

[austenandrews]

I just eyeball power levels. Sometimes I'm way off, of course. My Hero geekiness manifests in character & power creation, not balancing issues. Personally I think numerical balancing is overrated.

 

-AA

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by mudpyr8

Total Points/20 + 7. So, a 150 pt character would have a rule of X of 7.5 + 7 = 15.

 

Thanks for the clarification. That makes for characters that are more powerful than I'm interested in at the 150pt level personally, especially since the 20 STR only counts as "4" in your calculation, yet provides 6 DC, plus the "15" compared with my "13" provides more...

 

But you seem to list just "skill" where my way is implicitly "CSL/2", so that might provide for some balance, but it might downplay the value of CSLs vs simply buying up STR for your calculation, which I'd rather not promote. Or if you mean the same thing as me, then it allows for well more powerful characters.

 

My 150pt examples were:

 

Nimble Rogue, STR 13, DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA

 

Strong Warrior, STR 18, DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (6DC), with room for some combination of 4 CSLs and/or MA

 

Your 150pt examples would seem to be:

 

Nimble Rogue, STR 13 ("3"), DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (-), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA: the same CSLs as me, unless you mean for CSLs to be divided by 2 (to be equal to CV or MA in the calculation), then it'd be 12 CSLs, i.e. 6 more than me

 

Strong Warrior, STR 18 ("4"), DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (-), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA: 2 more CSLs than me, unless you mean for CSLs to be divided by 2 (to be equal to CV or MA in the calculation), then it'd be 12 CSLs, i.e., 8 more than me

 

Please let me know if I misread/misinterpreted your calculation, else either it's better to buy MA than CSLs under your system, and CSLs are of less value than buying DEX to increase your CV (and the Hero system itself already incentives this). Also, using STR rather than DC allows for a bigger spread by the warrior over the rogue, as shown above.

[Legendsmiths]

You pretty much read it write. We do double cost for STR. Buying a martial art is a good way to go, but requires a bigger point expenditure (at least 10 points), and you end up paying points for essentially multiple bonuses (e.g. 3 different strike maneuvers at 4 pts each). DEX is also good, but only to a point.

 

Penalty skill levels are also ignored, which encourages creative expertise.

 

You and I essentially are doing the same thing, it's just a matter of where we want our focus to be.