Should FH Characters Pay for Equipment.

[Gauntlet]

Was wondering if people think it might be a good idea to have Fantasy Hero characters pay points for their equipment. It can be said that it is rather hard to determine the strength of FH characters if their equipment is free. Or is there any other way to better determine the strength of your characters?

[LoneWolf]

That is going to turn a FH game into a Champions game.  What I would do would be to track the equipment but not have the character pay for it.  That way you have an idea of their power level, but keep the feel of a FH game.  It also allows the characters to lose equipment without taking away huge amounts of points.       

[HeroGM]

If it's part of 'them', yes.

 

where would Corwin be without his sword?

[Steve]

I really like using Resource Points for this to help manage a heroic character’s load out instead of using character points on the sheet. While you’re still keeping tracks of points somewhat, it’s not as intense as it is for a Champions character. So I use Equipment Points, Contact/Follower Points and Base/Vehicle points.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I will let a player pay points for a special item and if the item is taken, destroyed, etc they can then over time repurpose those points into something else or a replacement.  But just regular gear you can get off the rack?  No.

[Scott Ruggels]

Different take on the above. If a player pays points, then the item paid in points for, will return to the character. They cannot lose it permenantly. Items paid for in money can be lost, stolen, or damaged,permanently. This was discussed 6-9 months ago already. 

[Duke Bushido]

10 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

. This was discussed 6-9 months ago already. 

 

 

And, if tradition holds, will be discussed in 6-9 months hence.

 

 

 

 

My standard answer is "it depends _entirely_ on the feel I am going for at the time."

 

  

[Gauntlet]

Now I have to admit, a good part of me is arguing about this just for the sake of being able to argue, but I can see some real points for characters paying for equipment. One of the big ones could be fighters vs magi. A fighter can get a 2d6 HKA with a single skill level (typical Great Sword) for absolutely no points while the magi must pay a base cost of 32 points. It can make it easier to create a fighter who can do a decent of damage for less points. Now it can be argued that he/she would also need to pay points to buy up their STR, purchase skill levels, and the weapon familiarity to be able to use the weapon, but the STR and skill levels allow him/her to do a lot more than just do damage. It allows them to also make themselves harder to hit or make it easier to hit their target, and if you are utilizing 5th edition, he/she even gets additional PD, REC, and STUN for no additional points. What that Magi only gets to use the point for is damage and has to pay additional points to make it easier to hit with the magic-based attack that they had to pay for.

 

So I do have to say that there is a real argument for requiring characters to pay for equipment, at least equipment that can be utilized in a fight.

[Chris Goodwin]

A mage can also use that sword...

[LoneWolf]

7 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Now I have to admit, a good part of me is arguing about this just for the sake of being able to argue, but I can see some real points for characters paying for equipment. One of the big ones could be fighters vs magi. A fighter can get a 2d6 HKA with a single skill level (typical Great Sword) for absolutely no points while the magi must pay a base cost of 32 points. It can make it easier to create a fighter who can do a decent of damage for less points. Now it can be argued that he/she would also need to pay points to buy up their STR, purchase skill levels, and the weapon familiarity to be able to use the weapon, but the STR and skill levels allow him/her to do a lot more than just do damage. It allows them to also make themselves harder to hit or make it easier to hit their target, and if you are utilizing 5th edition, he/she even gets additional PD, REC, and STUN for no additional points. What that Magi only gets to use the point for is damage and has to pay additional points to make it easier to hit with the magic-based attack that they had to pay for.

 

So I do have to say that there is a real argument for requiring characters to pay for equipment, at least equipment that can be utilized in a fight.

 

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?   There is nothing that states magic items have to be rare and expensive.  The monetary cost of a magic item is not something that is set by the rules.  Your problem is being created by your own house rules.  From a game mechanic standpoint, a bow and a wand of magic missiles will cost similar points.   

 

Most FH characters I have seen eventually get magic items.  The most common magic items seem to be weapons and armor.  Logically caster focused items should be more common.  In most campaigns it is spell casters that create items.  Why are they creating so many items for other types of characters instead of for themselves?

 

Also, if casters are creating the magic items why cannot a PC caster create their own magic items?  Doing so might require a skill.  So, if the PC caster buys the equivalent of inventor, they might be able to create their own magic items.  If this is the case the caster is actually has the advantage. 
 

[Duke Bushido]

7 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Now I have to admit, a good part of me is arguing about this just for the sake of being able to argue, but I can see some real points for characters paying for equipment. One of the big ones could be fighters vs magi. A fighter can get a 2d6 HKA with a single skill level (typical Great Sword) for absolutely no points while the magi must pay a base cost of 32 points. It can make it easier to create a fighter who can do a decent of damage for less points. Now it can be argued that he/she would also need to pay points to buy up their STR, purchase skill levels, and the weapon familiarity to be able to use the weapon, but the STR and skill levels allow him/her to do a lot more than just do damage. It allows them to also make themselves harder to hit or make it easier to hit their target, and if you are utilizing 5th edition, he/she even gets additional PD, REC, and STUN for no additional points. What that Magi only gets to use the point for is damage and has to pay additional points to make it easier to hit with the magic-based attack that they had to pay for.

 

So I do have to say that there is a real argument for requiring characters to pay for equipment, at least equipment that can be utilized in a fight.

 

 

These are all good points, and in general, the points that tend to come most often with this conversation.  The problem is at their core, these points are all based on arguments that are biased toward emulating D and D (either pro or con, but still bases on the idea of D and D, where fighters buy stuff and wizards learn it.

 

Branching out a bit, we find _other_ good points that counter the arguments:

 

 

21 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

A mage can also use that sword...

 

 

That is an _excellent_ point that the D and D model fails to consider:  no reason your sorcerer isn't sporting a STR 23 and a CON 18, and wields a sword like a barbarian.

 

 

 

It's no secret that I hated D and D from the get go, and like it even less now; mostly because I found it's system to be terrible and its assumptions to be assinine.  The Fantasy Trip, though, as many flaws as it had, demonstrated _easily_ that there were other ways to do fantasy.

 

Even Traveller, the science fiction game against which all others are judged, had a more interesting way to handle "magic-like abilities:"  roll some dice; maybe you got something; maybe you didn't.  (A friend once claimed to have run the numbers.  He said it worked out to something like 1 in 1300 player characters, but I never tried to verify that)  in all other ways, you operated like any other character save one or more abilities that could only be had by random chance operating at random levels-

 

What I am saying is this argument-  eh...  More precisely, this topic of discussion exists _only_ because on  some subconscious level, the person asking assumes that all fantasy shares the same horribly-flawed magic v might dichotomy as Dungeons and Dragons, when the reality is that _good_ fantasy won't go anywhere near them.

 

For example, why the assumption that magic is somehow points-expensive?  It can just as easily be a skill roll (manipulate cosmos) or prayer (ransom actions of the GM) of even a two-point perk: "can perform magic" with the wizard buying his spell books or scrolls oe what have you with cash money the same as the the gladiator buys his swords or the healer buys his elixirs.

 

It might even be something else entirely:  perhaps this world has a set of know interactions between various magical elements- or magical reactions between mundane items-  and the magician spends cash for his spell components and makes a knowledge skill check to see what he is able to make from components on hand.

 

 

The only thing the "wizards spend points and everyone else spends cash" mindset does is prove the D and D is so pervasive that it can screw up HERO, too.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

The only thing the "wizards spend points and everyone else spends cash" mindset does is prove the D and D is so pervasive that it can screw up HERO, too.

 

I solved that by making wizards pay only for the capacity to cast spells of a certain power level, but the spells themselves are purchased with money or discovered like any other equipment.  Then I added in many martial arts packages and talents that people can buy to be better with their equipment and/or spells.

[Chris Goodwin]

2 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?

 

In FH1e, characters did start with any weapons they had at least one Skill Level with.  That doesn't seem to be the case in any of the later books, though I would allow it myself in Fantasy Hero (and have done in my Star Wars Hero game). 

 

N.B. I also assume that spells, magic items, and other things that characters pay points for are exempt from AP/DC limits, though as GM I reserve the right to decide otherwise in play if it breaks things at the table.  The rationale being, the equipment available for no point cost is already limited by STR minima, DCs, and DEF values; paying points, especially in a heroic level game where fewer points are available, should grant you greater abilities. 

[LoneWolf]

44 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

In FH1e, characters did start with any weapons they had at least one Skill Level with.  That doesn't seem to be the case in any of the later books, though I would allow it myself in Fantasy Hero (and have done in my Star Wars Hero game). 

 

N.B. I also assume that spells, magic items, and other things that characters pay points for are exempt from AP/DC limits, though as GM I reserve the right to decide otherwise in play if it breaks things at the table.  The rationale being, the equipment available for no point cost is already limited by STR minima, DCs, and DEF values; paying points, especially in a heroic level game where fewer points are available, should grant you greater abilities. 

 

If I remember correctly that was more of a character creation suggestion, rather than a rule.   It also only applied to starting characters.   That is the same thing as a caster starting out with their foci.  If you latter picked up a skill level, you did not have a free weapon drop from the sky.  Also, if you lost the weapon or it was destroyed you had to acquire a new weapon by purchasing it. 

[Gauntlet]

3 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

That is an _excellent_ point that the D and D model fails to consider:  no reason your sorcerer isn't sporting a STR 23 and a CON 18, and wields a sword like a barbarian.

 

I don't argue against this point, the only issue might be is where to spend the points. If you pay points for high STR and CON plus skill levels and even martial arts with swords it means points that you cannot utilize on spells. Usually due to point constraints, a fighter will be much better in HTH combat then a spell caster just because he/she can use all his/her points in HTH combat.

 

Similar to how it is in a Superhero game, if your character is a brick, martial artist, mentalist, energy blaster, they probably won't be as good as other characters who concentrate on one.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Gauntlet

[Gauntlet]

5 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

 

A fighter does not get a 2d6 HKA by buying a skill level.   They get one for purchasing a sword with cash.  Why cannot a wizard buy a wand that gives him a 2d6 RKA for cash?   There is nothing that states magic items have to be rare and expensive.  The monetary cost of a magic item is not something that is set by the rules.  Your problem is being created by your own house rules.  From a game mechanic standpoint, a bow and a wand of magic missiles will cost similar points.   

 

Most FH characters I have seen eventually get magic items.  The most common magic items seem to be weapons and armor.  Logically caster focused items should be more common.  In most campaigns it is spell casters that create items.  Why are they creating so many items for other types of characters instead of for themselves?

 

Also, if casters are creating the magic items why cannot a PC caster create their own magic items?  Doing so might require a skill.  So, if the PC caster buys the equivalent of inventor, they might be able to create their own magic items.  If this is the case the caster is actually has the advantage. 
 

 

Definitely a good point, depending on the campaign of course. I personally have a tendency to give out a decent amount of magic items, but not all GMs do.

[Beast]

On 11/16/2023 at 7:05 AM, Scott Ruggels said:

Different take on the above. If a player pays points, then the item paid in points for, will return to the character. They cannot lose it permenantly. Items paid for in money can be lost, stolen, or damaged,permanently. This was discussed 6-9 months ago already. 

if the item is paid for the GM should have it so the character can find it when they escape

 

[Gauntlet]

3 hours ago, Beast said:

if the item is paid for the GM should have it so the character can find it when they escape

 

But what if the item is completely destroyed rather than just being stolen?

[Beast]

10 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

 

But what if the item is completely destroyed rather than just being stolen?

then talk about a replacement for them to reuse those points for and maybe allow more points to be added for improvements

[Duke Bushido]

I understand what you are saying; I do.

 

However, you are still stuck in that mindset:

 

4 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 the only issue might be is where to spend the points. If you pay points for high STR and CON plus skill levels and even martial arts with swords

 

 

I don't wish to in any way appear as offensive when I say this. But doe this particular mini-conversation, I would take it as a personal favor of we just avoided any discussion of HERO's "Martial Arts System."  I have a grindstone with me, obviously, but I did not bring that particular axe with me this time.

 

 

4 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

It means points that you cannot utilize on spells. Usually due to point constraints, a fighter will be much better in HTH combat then a spell caster just because he/she can use all his/her points in HTH combat.

 

Why do you feel it is mandatory that spells cost points or be expensive?  That is the D and D prejudice showing through.

 

If I have a computer programming skill, I have a chance to use any computer I encounter.

 

What, anywhere in the HERO System Rules stops me from building a universe where the only rhing differentiating magic users from anyone else is five points of "manipulate magic" skill, allowing them the chance to use any naturslly-occuring source of magic or magic item?

 

What, specifically, says I can't do that? 

 

What says magic has to work _any_ particular way, or that magic can't just be a pool of points that I buy from which I can build whatever spell I want?

 

Or maybe all magic in this world comes from spell books and nowhere else, and only those who can read can wield magic?  Or perhaps spells are one point each, limited only by the endurance of the caster, or a special Endurance pool--

 

Or, again, only those with "use magic" skill for dive points, etc. If that is how your world works,  then magic weapons are just normal weapons unless wielded by a magician. (Borrwed that feom a mini campaign I ran for my son's friends:  all magic comes,from music; only skilled musicians can wield it-- they are in the school band, obviously.)

 

If you have decided that magic must cost xharacter points, that is not the rules; that is _you_.  If you have decided that magic spells are bought individually and are super-HERO expensive, that is also _not_ the rules; that is _you_.

 

 

 

 

[Gauntlet]

29 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Why do you feel it is mandatory that spells cost points or be expensive?  That is the D and D prejudice showing through.

 

I never said that they have to be expensive but powers cost points. They may not cost a lot of points but they do cost something. If they don't cost points then why would a fighter have to pay points for weapon familiarities, or combat skill levels, or martial arts. It is just the fact that if you spend point in one place you do not have the points to spend them somewhere else. Even if you only spend 10 points for spells, those 10 points are not usable in other places. That is my only point. The big difference is that someone who is direct in what they can do is very good at what they do, but if in a situation where those skills are not useful they can do almost nothing, while a multi-abilities character can do many things but on the individual items he will not be as good as the concentrated one.

 

Like my example before. Should you have a character who has purchased 50 points in Brick Powers, 50 points in Martial Arts abilities/powers, 50 points in energy blasts, 50 points in mental powers, and 50 points in odd powers, his/her individual power level will not be as good as that character who spent all 250 points on one thing such as energy blasts, so in a situation where ranged combat is the order of business, he/she will not be as effective. But then again if you are in a situation where it is very close and mostly HTH combat your full powered energy blast character may not be as effective as your multi-powered character who definitely has HTH options.

[Christopher R Taylor]

One of the best parts about a real RPG, a face to face pen and paper game with dice, is that game balance is a much less significant problem than a computer game.  If your mage is more powerful than your warrior than your rogue than your hunter with the wolf companion etc, then the GM can address that with what kind of adventure you are presented with and how the story unfolds.  You can tip the scales with a thumb, using equipment, types of enemies, situations, etc.  OK the sneaky gal feels weak, then you have more adventures where sneaky rules or is critical.  

[Gauntlet]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

That is the D and D prejudice showing through.

 

And as for my feelings about Fantasy Hero verse D&D 5.0 is the same as comparing going on the freeway with your car or trying to go down the freeway by foot without any arms or legs (and don't even think about a powered wheelchair).🤪

 

As just a thought I definitely could see one way of doing it as stating that a character has a free pool of points for equipment as a percentage of their character points. That way as they go up in power they are allowed better and better equipment.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Gauntlet

[Scott Ruggels]

2 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

 

But what if the item is completely destroyed rather than just being stolen?

 

If they paid character points for the item, then they get either a replacement, or a point equivalent piece of equipment.

[Hugh Neilson]

When we come back to resource pools, it is interesting to note that D&D 3e implemented a "wealth by level" model to assess whether characters had appropriate gear.  Resource points feels pretty similar.