Should FH Characters Pay for Equipment.

[Gauntlet]

Have you actually heard how quiet a grizzly bear can be. They can be almost completely silent. It's absolutely terrifying. 

[Duke Bushido]

Yep.

 

It's then big ol' feets and the fact that they dont typically run anywhere until they want to murder something.

 

 

 

 

[rravenwood]

16 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

Question, how in the hell did someone come up with an Owlbear??? I know it's from D&D but just wondering what the purpose of it would be.

 

Gygax had said that a cheap plastic toy was the inspiration for the owlbear.  (The URL I'd saved in reference to this and some other D&D monster origins no longer works, but it was from Enworld forums, a Q&A thread with Gary Gygax.)

[Duke Bushido]

Yep.

 

I used to have the same,bag of "dinosaurs" when I was a kid.  I think Scott Ruggles still has one or two.  All I can tell you for certain is they had English and Japanese witing on them; they were labeled "dinosaur," and if you ever had them, the first time you saw the picture of the Bullette- however it's spelled-- you recognized every one of the early D and D monsters as coming from that same set of "dinosaurs."

 

Except the Beholder.  I have no idea what sort of LSD-and-weed nightmare that came from....

 

 

[mallet]

Lots of other factors in this as well (sorry if covered already. I read through most of the posts but might have missed if these were brought up already):

 

First, Fighters can lose their weapons and armor (and/or maybe have to put their armor on, find and draw their weapons, etc...) while a spellcaster always has access to their spells (in most magic builds).

 

Second, the rules have to be looked at as a whole. Fighters, more then most, have to worry about encumbrance. You might need STR 17 to use that Great Sword, but it also has major weight when combined with full armor and other adventuring gear, that can make fighter's slow, and lose DEX, END, long term END, etc... Now if your game house rules away encumbrance that's fine, but then don't blame fighters for being overpowered compared to mages because they have tons of high damage weapons and can take a ton of damage. There is a reason Conan had a great sword but ran round fighting in a loin cloth, he didn't want to be slowed down by the weight and limitations of heavy armor. Same with the Spartans and Ninjas and many other examples. If you ignore the limitations and drawbacks of heavy, difficult gear (because no one wants to keep track of bookkeeping, and such) then the characters are getting major advantages without any of drawbacks so of course they will be overpowered in some instances then other characters. 

 

The same also with allowing Fighters to wear their heavy armor all the time. Like, how do they take a piss or dump when they are in plate mail and wearing gauntlets? How do they scratch an itch on their back? How long does it take to get sand or a rock out of their armored boots? If they have to spend ten minutes and make a lot of noise taking off some or all of their armor every time they need to go to the bathroom and then even longer to get back in the armor? How about sinking deep into mud or drowning in a lake or river? 

 

There are major limitations and disadvantages built into most fighter's gear, but if the GM doesn't bother with them that is on the GM for making things unbalanced, not the rules.

Edited November 25, 2023 by mallet

[LoneWolf]

Nothing in the game prevents a wizard from using weapons or wearing armor.  My wizard in one of Gauntlets games probably had some of the best defense of the group.   I started out wearing light armor (DEF 3) but ended up with 0 weight chain (DEF 6).  The rest of the group wanted the heavier DEF armor we found.  The heavy fighter preferred the DEF 10 hardened armor to the 0-weight chain. I also had a robe that gave me an additional 5 DEF for a total of 11 resistant DEF and 17 DEF total.   In addition to this I had a spell that gave me -3 DC of both physical and energy damage negation and 10 points of mental and power defense. 

 

I also had a magic staff that in addition to boosting my magic was also an enchanted weapon.  It did an extra 2d6 above a normal quarter staff and added +2 OCV to attack, or to DCV to defend.   The character has very defensive staff based martial art for when he could not cast spells.  It had only 3 maneuvers a martial block, a marital strike and a takedown.  Since I had a decent amount of attack spells my OCV was bought to max (8).  The ring of protection I wore gave me an additional +3 DCV, so the character had a high DCV.  

 

This was a pretty high-powered campaign that had been going on for a while, so the other party members were equally well equipped.  But in the beginning of the campaign, I managed to take down a knight in full plate with my staff in one shot.  I will admit it was a critical hit to the head in a campaign using both hit location and critical hits.   The heavy fighter in the group was struggling with an identical foe.  At that point all I had was an ordinary staff and some DEF 3 armor plus my spells.  

 

Hero system is not D&D and Fantasy Hero characters are radically different from D&D characters.  It is a lot easier to build a hybrid character in Hero than it is in any D&D based system.  The fact of the matter is that wizards benefit from free equipment just as much as warriors.  
 

[Gauntlet]

2 hours ago, mallet said:

The same also with allowing Fighters to wear their heavy armor all the time. Like, how do they take a piss or dump when they are in plate mail and wearing gauntlets? How do they scratch an itch on their back? How long does it take to get sand or a rock out of their armored boots? If they have to spend ten minutes and make a lot of noise taking off some or all of their armor every time they need to go to the bathroom and then even longer to get back in the armor?

 

Considering I have worn actual armor, it's not that hard to take a piss. You just hold up the front part and let it out. Going number two is a bit harder, but you don't have to take all your armor off, just the piece around your waist; though it you are wearing chainmail you just have to pull it up as the leg protection does not go up that far. Scratching your back, well that sucks in full plate, but in chain you can partially do something about it, though the cloth undercoat does make it like you are trying to scratch through a thick jacket. Sleep is the big one, you truly cannot get a good night's rest while in full armor. You can rest a little, but not sleep. To sleep you have to take off most of the armor, though you can leave the under padding on which might give you 1 to 2 defense. As for armored boots, they are boots, takes about the same time to clean them out as it does for standard large heavy work boots. 

 

The overwhelming biggest problem with heavy armor is heat. If it is hot outside the time I could spend without rest is about one fourth. On a cold day, not so bad, but if the temperature was over 80, I definitely had to rest much more often. Now, I didn't utilize armor as much as some of the people in the SCA, but even those that were very good at fighting in armor had to rest much more often when it was hot.

[Scott Ruggels]

In my long term campaign, Northern Battle mages looked the same as Medium infantry, unless you look closely. Different Waffenfarbe, and  lot of non standard swords and other weapons.  Equipment was equipment. But once they start slinging spells, the glowing geometric shapes centered on their hands, the glowing eyes, and the otherworldly noise make it apparent you are dealing with Northern Battle Mages

[Christopher R Taylor]

I like the classics, I like the idea of a wizard in a robe with a wand or a staff, so I worked on reasons why they might be that way in my campaign: you techically can wear armor, but encumbrance reduces your magical skill roll, so its impractical.  You wear robes because they are loose and easy to move in; messing up a spell has consequences, sometimes severe ones. That kind of thing.  Now, in the distant past, a wand was a symbol of power and authority, and robes designated power, wealth, and especially learning: academics wore robes.  So that's what people associated with wizards.  But I wanted practical, not simply cultural reasons.

[GDShore]

I agree with Christopher, I am a traditionalist regarding Wizards and Mages. Additionally I added an inability for magic and iron to peacefully co-exist if you carry iron spells can and will short-circuit. The more iron the greater the problem (i have tables that our group developed over a two year period that are quite extensive and in some cases very subtle). this did not mean that a magic caster could not carry weapons just that the could not be made of iron. This lead to a intense study of Medieval weapons and later fighter styles. Projectile weapons became the primary weapon of choice (it fit the standoff nature of magic). Bows of every description began to make their appearance, then crossbows and slurbows (the later in some very unique formats) then slings & staff slings throwing knives, shurikens and such like and finally bolo's. They also brought in bronze melee weapons, later magically reinforced likewise armor. By the time the group broke up in the early 90's we had quite the array of non-ferrous tools and other equipage.

[LoneWolf]

If the GM wants to create a magic system where wizards cannot use armor or weapons, then the problem is caused by the GM.  Even in that case paying cash for equipment can still give the wizard equipment.  In a world where magic works there will be some wizards who will create magic items for sale.  This is not any different than a smith creating weapons and armor.   They may be expensive, but then so should heavy armor.  It took a lot of time and effort to create a suit of full plate.  Even without magic items components still cost money, especially if you are using difficult to replace expendable foci.  You start using those and spells get even cheaper than they already are.  

 

If you want a brick type character in Fantasy Hero a wizard is much better at pulling it off than a warrior.  With things like growth and density increase it is cheaper to build a high STR character as a wizard than it is a warrior.  One level of growth and 3 levels of density increase will boost a characters STR by +30.  Buy up the STR to 20 on this character and I have a STR of 50 giving me a 10d6 punch.   In Hero system it cost the wizard the same to buy OCV and skill levels.   This means a wizard can fight as well as a warrior for the same points.   
 

[Ninja-Bear]

On 11/15/2023 at 8:20 PM, LoneWolf said:

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.       

It would be interesting to compare the sample Wizard and Knight that’s written up in 6th (and also 5th genre by genre) by looking at their respective gear as points. 

[Ninja-Bear]

Well I just did a quick comparision between Darien the Bold and Belakar the Wizard. The minimum that Darien pays for the max damage is 19 pts to get his Broad sword upto  3D6+1 KA. Note though the sword is listed as  13 pts Real Cost. Wheras Belakar has Magic Bolt that’s 45 Act pts but needs 18 pts. Note here that the spell though being only 1D6, it’s RKA and it goes against Power Defense and Does Body. The spell requires a Magic Roll but there isn’t one specifically called out on his sheet so I used the minimum of 3pts. I found it interesting that both have the same 5 OCV/DCV. However Belakar doesn’t have any WF, not even with his Staff. Also of note both the Spell uses 4 END and Darien only use 4 END for his STR  the martial arts saves him END. So no matter how you look at it free equipment is free points. How you want to handle it is a whole different question.

[LoneWolf]

If you want to do a fair comparison you need to compare similar attacks.  Assuming the wizard has a 10 STR a 2 1/2D6 will put the damage to 3d6+1.  If I put the limitations OAF expendable (easy to replace), Gestures, Incantations and Requires a Magic Roll it costs 13.  That does not include the magic skill, or buying up the INT or any other stat.  

 

The magic skill will be used for a lot of things besides 1 attack spell, so the cost is spread out among multiple spells.  If the Wizard has a STR higher than 10 they can reduce the cost of spell and still keep the same damage.  

 

While the wizard can match the standard damage of a warrior without too much trouble, that is not where they shine.  Where the wizard has the advantage is in unusual attacks.  For 8 points I can have a 3d6 Drain STR with OAF, No Range, Requires Skill Roll, Incantations, Gestures.  That spell will be devastating against most warriors.  Losing 10 STR is probably going mean the character does not have the STR to wield his weapon properly so in addition to doing less damage they take penalties to hit.  It will also probably cause them to sufferer increased DCV penalties due to the weight of their armor and other gear.  It will also slow them down and increase the amount of END used. 
 

[Chris Goodwin]

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

While the wizard can match the standard damage of a warrior without too much trouble, that is not where they shine.  Where the wizard has the advantage is in unusual attacks.  For 8 points I can have a 3d6 Drain STR with OAF, No Range, Requires Skill Roll, Incantations, Gestures.  That spell will be devastating against most warriors.  Losing 10 STR is probably going mean the character does not have the STR to wield his weapon properly so in addition to doing less damage they take penalties to hit.  It will also probably cause them to sufferer increased DCV penalties due to the weight of their armor and other gear.  It will also slow them down and increase the amount of END used. 

 

To use it though, the squishy wizard has to get within melee range of the sharp, pointy warrior. 

 

Just sayin'.

[Gauntlet]

11 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

To use it though, the squishy wizard has to get within melee range of the sharp, pointy warrior. 

 

Just sayin'.

 

Not when his spells are ranged, which in many cases they are. Even if the power isn't standardly ranged, the ranged advantage can still be added.

[LoneWolf]

Why are you assuming the wizard is squishy?  Even without wearing armor there is no reason the wizard needs to have less defenses than the warrior.  For about 14 points I can have a spell that gives me 10 DEF and 50% damage reduction vs non-magic physical attacks. The wizard will probably not have as much PD & ED as the warrior, but will still buy it up, so probably has 6 instead of 8.  Since the wizard is not wearing heavy armor his DCV is probably going to be higher so is less likely to be hit than the warrior.  The warrior in full plate and 8 PD will on the average take 3.5 Body and 12.75 stun from a 3d6+1 KA.  My Wizard takes .75 Body and 6.375 Stun, if the wizard is wearing DEF 3 armor, he on the average takes no BODY and 4.875 STUN. I am not saying every wizard will have higher defenses than every warrior.  But there is no reason they have to have less defenses.   

 

If I remove the No Range from the drain it only increases the cost by 2 points.  At that point even if I am a “Squishy Wizard” I don’t need to be in melee range. 

 

The other thing to consider is the fact that it is a lot easier to defend against a warrior than it is a wizard.  The vast majority of warrior’s attacks are physical attacks.  Outside of magic items almost all warriors will be doing either normal physic damage or killing physical damage.  You may get the occasional martial flash or nerve strike, but those are fairly rare.  If I want to defend against a warrior all I need to do is to boost my PD and Resistant PD.  I don’t even need to worry about ED much less any exotic defenses.  To avoid being hit I only need to worry about DCV.  With a wizard you have to worry about the exotic defenses.  The wizard also has more options when they are figuring out how to affect their target.  In addition to DCV the wizard can use area of effect attacks to ignore DCV and target your DMCV instead of DCV.  
 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

Why are you assuming the wizard is squishy?  Even without wearing armor there is no reason the wizard needs to have less defenses than the warrior

 

Typically spellcasters have not spent their points in stats like a warrior sort.  So yeah you can have great defenses, but not the CON and Body and Stun of a warrior.  What gets through hurts worse.

[Rich McGee]

On 11/21/2023 at 8:05 PM, Gauntlet said:

Have you actually heard how quiet a grizzly bear can be. They can be almost completely silent. It's absolutely terrifying. 

It's not the hypothetical owl stealth that matters (which doesn't apply anyway since the hybrid can't fly - owls are not especially quite on the ground), it's the neck rotation and incredible night vision that also picks out movement well thing.  Hypothetically it's harder to sneak on an owlbear than a regular bear, which makes it a superior guard animal.  If anything the bear's own stealth is probably helping the owl parts hunt better, since it's at least somewhat akin to an owl's game plan - just with less swooping and more charging and mauling involved. 

 

I've seen a few rulesets that gave them limited gliding abilities that restores swooping as an option, which would go a fair ways toward making these things less absurd.  Bears climb trees quite well, making reaching a position to swoop from easy enough.

 

It's also quite likely that the intent was get a fully flight-capable hybrid out of the experiment and this is the best they could do.  Wizards are usually not aeronautical (bio)engineers. 

 

Or the original creator really, really wanted something special for a rug in their love nest and had a fur-and-feathers fetish.  If you think the owlbear's weird you should see his chinchillafinches and hamsterobins.

 

Mind you, the whole concept only makes sense to people who've been huffing too much yellow lotus dust.  More sane wizards just build animated statues and the like when they want a guard.  The really sarcastic ones sculpt them to look like owlbears.  

[Ninja-Bear]

Speaking of assumptions, I have some idea why S&D wizards are considered squishy but are they as squishy as we think they are? First of all what are we saying by using the term squishy? Is it Strength because there is no rule that a wizard cannot have an 18 STR, just that he rolled for it and in the case of Basic D&D he has a minimum of 9 Intelligence to qualify for Magic User. (In some editions where you can either move points around or assign Rolls to abilities probably helped with the notion of a weakling wizard.  Is it Hit Points? Yes the warrior has potential to have more hit points than a Magic user but if you go by dice rolls well I’ve rolled a 1 for HP on a warrior with a high STR to boot!  (And yeah it’s weird because a wizard is said to have a low HD because they don’t work out like a fighter but dice rolls being what they are).  And when I thought about it, Magic Users aren’t any easier than a Fighter to hit. It’s the gear which makes the Fighter have a better AC which makes him harder to be hit. 
 

@LoneWolf, I realized after I posted about Darien and Belakar I should’ve compared Darien’s Bow to Belakar’s Magic Bolt both are Ranged attacks. 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Ninja-Bear

[Christopher R Taylor]

Owlbear is such a bizarre combination it had to be either random rolls, combining two favorite animals, or a figurine.  I like owls, I like bears but combining them??  Some stuff makes more sense to me like bat wolves or human horses.  But an owl plus a bear just feels really random.  Roll on two tables for animals and combine!

 

[assault]

The figurine origin is well documented.

It also includes the Bulette and the Rust Monster.

[LoneWolf]

I think the real origin of the squishy wizard is actually D&D.  In the Lord of the Ring, it was Gandalf who faced off against the Balrog not Aragorn.  Allanon in the Sword of Shannara is certainly not squishy. In Russian history Rasputin was anything but frail.  According to the stories he was poisoned twice, shot in the chest, but still survived. He was then shot and beaten but still was not dead, finally they wrapped him up and tossed him into a freezing river.  That does not sound squishy to me.

 

If you are using 5th edition with figured stats wizards are going to buy up their CON to equal that of a warrior and if they are smart will also buy up their STR to at least 13.  In fact, buying it up to 18 would actually be advantages for the wizard.  A wizard like any other character is going to buy up his PD & ED.  Spells use a lot of END, so he will want a good END and REC.  To buy 4 PD, 4 ED, 8 REC, and 36 END cost 20 points.  If I buy up my CON and STR to 18 it costs 24 points and I get 28 STUN as well.  The math makes the idea of the squishy wizard a bad assumption when using figured stats.   This is probably one of the best arguments for ditching figured stats.

 

It seems pretty clear that the idea of the wizard as a squishy character is a false assumption until at least 6th edition.  Prior to 6th edition, it would actually be more expensive build the “traditional” squishy wizard.  Even in 6th edition there is no real reason to, but at least you are not penalized for doing so.  Neither fiction nor Hero game mechanics give any reason why wizards should be squishy.  In game systems like D&D on the other hand it is nearly unavoidable.  
 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I like the idea of the Rust Monster, but its a daffy looking creature with a propeller on its tail.

 

Quote

If you are using 5th edition with figured stats wizards are going to buy up their CON to equal that of a warrior and if they are smart will also buy up their STR to at least 13.

 

I mean, everyone's campaign and experiences vary but I never bought a spellcaster huge CON and STR, because I needed those points for magic.  You CAN be a buff wizard but you're going to be a crappy spell caster.  If you buy each spell with points, all those physical stats just make you have fewer spells.

[Chris Goodwin]

I remember building spellcasters with DEX 20 and SPD 4 because, as someone once said (I have no idea where, but I distinctly remember it), "SPD = fun".  That doesn't seem to be as much the case in 6e, where I've played perfectly competitive supers with DEX 15 and SPD 4. 

 

But spellcasters really ought to be in at least as good of shape as rogues.  In pre-6th CON would have been as necessary as it ever was for point savings on ED, REC, END, and STUN, and especially REC and END as those two were very important for a caster.

 

I've never really felt that wizards needed to be squishy or rickety or old.  If someone wants to play the old wizard with a long beard at starting point levels they can, but they should expect him to be a starting wizard.