125 pts viable?

[Mr. R]

RPGnet has a thread where you make a NPC per day over the month of January.  So as an experiment I have been making FH NPCs based on 125 pts.  And I have been finding it .. hard to make a viable NPC.  After stats and powers and Magesight. I really have little left for skills.  

 

So is this a Feature?  it has all been Mages so far but ALL have SPD 2 because of cost, no skill levels, and just a bare minimum of skills!  

 

Should I eliminate the Magesight?  It does cost 17 pts and makes sense for a more advanced ability.  

 

Or should I just go as is and let PCs get Skills quickly at the start as that would be something they would logically have?

 

Just curious!

[assault]

6e, I presume.

 

Let's see.

 

Deduct 25 points for conversion to earlier editions. That leaves 100 points.

 

25 points for characteristics, 25 for skills, 25 for spells, 17 for Magesight, leaving 8 points over.

 

Yep, you have reinvented the First Level Magic User.

 

An entirely viable character when compared to other characters built on the same points.

[Old Man]

That Magesight seems really expensive.

 

Also, "viable" is relative.  The ICE Robin Hood book statted Robin Hood himself at less than 100 points in 4e FH.  I've played campaigns with 50 point PCs, it works but it feels weird for the entire party to have to gang up on a single goblin.

[assault]

1 minute ago, Old Man said:

I've played campaigns with 50 point PCs, it works but it feels weird for the entire party to have to gang up on a single goblin.

 

Sounds like the goblin is the problem.

[Old Man]

1 minute ago, assault said:

 

Sounds like the goblin is the problem.

He was stronger and faster than any of the PCs, and his disposition was unpleasant besides. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I did magesight as a campaign thing; its 3 points for Second Sight which allows you to see spells that are latent (there but not displaying any perceptible effects) and sense spells being cast nearby.  The "cast nearby" thing is a limitation on all spells: can be sensed by those with Second Sight with a range mod of -1 per meter.  You get Second Sight for free if you buy any of the magical talents to be able to cast spells.

[IndianaJoe3]

I once did a set of 25-point (aka, "first level") characters as an experiment. There wasn't a lot of room for customization, but all the archetypes were buildable and were distinct from each other.

[Ninja-Bear]

3 hours ago, assault said:

6e, I presume.

 

Let's see.

 

Deduct 25 points for conversion to earlier editions. That leaves 100 points.

 

25 points for characteristics, 25 for skills, 25 for spells, 17 for Magesight, leaving 8 points over.

 

Yep, you have reinvented the First Level Magic User.

 

An entirely viable character when compared to other characters built on the same points.

Yes but IIRC, it’s really hard to do elves or dwarves at that point level. You can make a decent fighter at that point level though.

[assault]

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Yes but IIRC, it’s really hard to do elves or dwarves at that point level. You can make a decent fighter at that point level though.

 

Good point.

 

Part of it is that we are trying to balance the unbalanced.

 

It can be partly worked around by being minimalist in terms of "this is what an Elf/Dwarf is". If it doesn't cost too much, the points can be found, at the expense of something else.

 

Multi-classing is something else. The only way I can see to handle It is to make the character weaker in each class than a single class character. That's pretty basic point budgeting.

 

So an Elf or Dwarf should be possible, but they are going to have to forgo a bit of power.

[assault]

Looking at 3e Fantasy Hero, and doing an in my head conversion to 6e, Elves and Dwarves should be doable.

 

Multi-classing will still require serious compromises.

 

3e FH is the only set of Hero rules I keep on my phone. I'm still a little tempted to use Justice Inc for Pulp fantasy though.

 

Back on topic, Magesight and other character taxes on Magic Users need to be kept under control.

[Mr. R]

Actually 5th Ed

[assault]

That makes things bit easier, without solving the problem.

[Mr. R]

1 hour ago, assault said:

That makes things bit easier, without solving the problem.

True.

 

But now that I think about it, the Mage Sight was NOT essential.  So with 17 extra points....

 

At least 4 skills at basic level 12 pts and a +1 to DCV 5 pts.  I don't have a problem with them starting with a SPD 2.  Depending on Dex it will cost 5 to 8 pts to get it to 3.  

 

Yeah that works.  They are wimpy, but those first EP are spent really fast to plug the holes in the build!

 

 

 

 

OH and side note, this is an all human setting!

[mallet]

Have all your character's start with 8 in each main stat, rather then 10. Selling back those points gets them 14 extra character points to build their characters with.  This will provide more of a spread in their starting characteristics and allow them more points  to individualize their builds from each other. 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

@assault, it also depends in what the GM makes the elves and dwarves pay for to be an elf or dwarf. In 6th main books, it is even suggested that something like LS-Long life may not have to paid for if you don’t intend on running games over the course of years of centuries. And i also combined some of the dwarf special abilities dealing with stone into one skill instead of what 3? Iirc.

 

I forgot, if you use an edition with package deals that help off set the cost, that can help a long ways too!

[HeroGM]

Doing 6e and I tend to start everything out at 175pt base or 225 depending. Also go through killershrike's stuff for a lot of hints and tips on things.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Its a bit against the rules, but when I build races for Fantasy I "balance" them with complications to 0 points.  Theoretically, in Hero terms, all the characters are the same point value that way because they all have drawbacks to offset their abilities.

[LoneWolf]

What are your expectations when building NPC’s?  Are these NPC’s designed to be opponents of the PC’s or are they supposed to be characters the PC’s interact with.  If they are designed as opponents they will need to have similar stats and combat ability, which can be expensive.  If they are designed to be characters the PC’s interact with but not necessarily fight they can have lesser stats and combat ability.  The scholarly mage who specializes in divination magic can have lower physical stats and no combat ability, but have lots of KS and INT based skills.  A 2 SPD for that type of character is more than enough. Even the spells they have might be different.   

[Hugh Neilson]

Whether 125 points is viable depends on the rest of the world.  If a typical Commoner has stats of 8 across the board, using the sellback to buy a few skills or "higher than 8s", and the City Guard is largely the same, but bumped up to STR 12, CON 12, 4 OCV and DCV and is Proficient with a spear or a sword, it seems like a 125-point PC would be pretty powerful.

 

If the average Bar Tough has STR 18, CON 15, DEX 15, OCV 6, DCV 6, SPD 4, 8 PD and ED, 30 STUN, 12  BOD and 7 REC, and he backs down or runs away if faced with a single member of the City Guard, the 125 point PCs seem pretty pathetic.

[Scott Ruggels]

On 1/7/2023 at 1:53 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Its a bit against the rules, but when I build races for Fantasy I "balance" them with complications to 0 points.  Theoretically, in Hero terms, all the characters are the same point value that way because they all have drawbacks to offset their abilities.

This was how things were done in the days before sixth edition. In third addition, the package deals didn’t balance, and encouraged people to take them by being “bargains”. I much prefer that method as Encouraged players To take skills, and perks, that they would not otherwise purchase for efficiency sake.

[Sketchpad]

On 1/7/2023 at 4:53 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Its a bit against the rules, but when I build races for Fantasy I "balance" them with complications to 0 points.  Theoretically, in Hero terms, all the characters are the same point value that way because they all have drawbacks to offset their abilities.

 

2 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

This was how things were done in the days before sixth edition. In third addition, the package deals didn’t balance, and encouraged people to take them by being “bargains”. I much prefer that method as Encouraged players To take skills, and perks, that they would not otherwise purchase for efficiency sake.

 

I kind of liked the Package Deal Bonus for the same reasons Scott mentioned. 

[Killer Shrike]

You can accomplish the equivalent of a package deal bonus by allowing a custom enhancer, which is what I generally do in 6e. Such a custom enhancer costs 3 points, and reduces the cost of each ability allowed to be taken within it by 1 point. Just be consistent about what you allow them to apply to, and the scope of what you'll allow a given enhancer to cover (in fantasy and sci-fi, race and profession serve as easily applied bounds).

 

For instance...this character has one for race and one for profession; currently they are just breaking even on the Rogue enhancer (but can still get some future net gain there in future if they stick to concept and buy 1 or more abilities within it):

 

A different character leans heavily into their race and class, and gets more squeeze from it (but is putting less points into stats and misc abilities):

 

This character is fairly evenly spread across enhancers for race & class, getting a small net benefit from each:

[MrAgdesh]

On 1/6/2023 at 10:46 PM, Old Man said:

Also, "viable" is relative.  The ICE Robin Hood book statted Robin Hood himself at less than 100 points in 4e FH.  I've played campaigns with 50 point PCs, it works but it feels weird for the entire party to have to gang up on a single goblin.

 

The write-ups of the Merry Men are very reasonable.