Should FH Characters Pay for Equipment.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I've never really felt that wizards needed to be squishy or rickety or old.

 

Sure, they don't need to be, but as I said, you only have so many points so you can choose between "physically fit" and "has magic."  Warriors are buff and fit because that's what drives their main purpose and abilities, that's good point spending for that character.  Wizards have spells to buy, INT, magic skill rolls, maybe END if that's what fuels your magic, etc.  In Hero terms at least, that means you are going to tend to have lower physical stats in order to be good at your main purpose and abilities.

[LoneWolf]

Having spells without having the END to cast them is pointless.  If your REC is too low you cannot maintain the spells, and takes you too long to regain the END.  You could of course buy all your spells with reduced END or 0 END, but that makes them more expensive.   Many GM’s require spells to cost some END, so 0 END may not even be an option.

 

If the GM is tracking END and using LTE spell casters need to worry about END usage.   Spell casters in my experience tend to burn through END more than any other type of character.   Unless your combat only lasts a turn or so END becomes the limiting factor on spell casters.  Unless you want your spell caster to be a 12 second wonder you need to boost END and REC.  Prior to 6th edition Boosting your primary stats was the most efficient way to do that.

 

@Christopher R Taylor  Go back to some of those old characters and look at their stats.  If you bought up your PD, ED, REC and END try rewriting them with boosted STR and END and see if they come out cheaper.   I think you will find that investing in the primary stats does not actually reduce the points you have for your spells.    

 

 Under 5th edition Buying a 36 END and 8 REC cost 16 point.   If I buy an 18 STR and 18 CON and sell back my STUN to 20 it also costs me 16 points.  But I have 2 extra PD and ED and I am harder to stun, can lift more and make STR and CON rolls easier.   

Edited November 29, 2023 by LoneWolf

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I think you will find that investing in the primary stats does not actually reduce the points you have for your spells. 

  

Like I said, it varies campaign to campaign, but its cheaper even in 5th edition to buy up your END than buy up your CON to get END.  Assuming that's the system your GM uses, of course.

[Gauntlet]

Normally in FH games I have magic-based characters have different characteristics for END and END Recovery when a spell caster. I have it as the following:

 

For Wizards (or spell casters who are obtaining magic from themselves):

MANA: 2 x INT

MANA REC: INT/5 + EGO/5

 

For Clerics (or spell casters who are obtaining magic from a higher source):

FAITH: 2 x PRE

FAITH REC: PRE/5 + EGO/5

[Ninja-Bear]

And speaking of Strong Warriors have any looked on how Hero System rewards have a high Strength? I’m looking at both STR Min and free extra damage for high STR. Depending on the weapon you want to use, you need to meet that STR Min just so as to not get penalized. And if you have extra STR you can boost damage of said weapon. I’m not saying Fighters shouldn’t strong but how many 18 STR fighters are there?

[LoneWolf]

In a world where everything is done by manual labor, there are probably a lot of 18 STR characters.  In a world where typing speed is more important to earning a living, there will be few people with an 18 STR.   

[Gauntlet]

Depends, in a Fantasy World, definitely, but in the real world, due to poor food intake and disease, the average might be higher than today's average due to a much greater amount of physical labor, but the maximum was much lower. I would say that the average today would be 7 or 8 while then it would be 11 to 12. But now we do have individuals with STR of 20 but then that would be overwhelmingly rare and 15 would be the top.

[Christopher R Taylor]

It is an interesting discussion with good thoughts on all sides.  I haven't really decided one way or another: people are taller and bigger now, so innately greater strength, but usually soft and with little exercise.

[Scott Ruggels]

George McDonald was of the opinion that heroic games need strong heroes, so strength was always the first go to stat for Champions.

[Ninja-Bear]

52 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

George McDonald was of the opinion that heroic games need strong heroes, so strength was always the first go to stat for Champions.

That’s interesting however for a system that prides itself on building the game you want should that be a default assumption?

[GDShore]

We have approached this topic before. The strength of Medieval denizens versus those of the mighty 20th. century. The peasant/serf may have been stronger than the average 20th denizen however his poorer diet and greater susceptibility to disease lessen's the peasant/serf ability to reach and maintain a peak str. maximum. (check out some of the archeology on middle age gravesites, you will find that almost without exception a greater predilection towards arthritis and other osteo conditions) At any rate I have yet to encounter a player who willingly chose to be a peasant/serf, the nobility however probably were on average much fitter and stronger than we are today. AS for the magic types, if you are spending 8 - 10 - 12 hours a day studying or researching spells you will not have the time or energy to also stay fit and study the martial arts. Some exercise would be required, you need a good constitution strength not so much. Anecdote == Richard the Lionheart is supposed to have, in the middle of a battle, split a man a twain, from his shoulder through his body  and spine and out his hip, with a single blow from his sword while mounted. Now assuming that King Richard was 6 foot plus in height, mounted on a knights horse 16-17 hands to 20-22 hands at the shoulder [a hand is 4 inches] the victim had to be also mounted {if the victim had been afoot Richard would "only have cut the shoulder off"} this would be a prodigious feat of strength (a number of other Medieval kings are attributed similar feats, Charlemagne for one, and while not a king El Cid as well). I know how much work achieving and then maintaining a high skill level in any martial art (when I was younger, like fifty years younger I could clean and jerk a 100 kg. , a lot of people can do that, at the time I weighed in at 46 kg. soaking wet.). I used to be a fencer and archer, a better than average fencer, and a champion level archer, I exercised two hours a day, shot the bow twice a week for four hours a session, and fenced once a week for five to six hours. I could not have maintained that and studied anything for ten to twelve hours a day. A better man than I am might have, but not me. {I have a problem with the range modification in the rules -- It is out to lunch bigtime.

[LoneWolf]

The poor diet and health care is going to result in shorter life span and more issues later in life.  During his peak the medieval serf is probably going to be stronger than the man of the 21st century.  But he will be old and worn out a lot sooner.   The nobility is also going to have to do a lot of things manually so will be even stronger due to better nutrition.  He will be able to maintain his peak years far longer than the serf. 

 

This is also not taking magic into account.   In the Middle Ages disease was a huge problem, but in a fantasy world that may not be the case.  Creating a spell to cure disease is not that difficult, nor would creating a charm to ward it off.  Historically when disease ran rampant people made a fortune selling amulets and trinkets that were supposed to protect you from getting the disease.  In the real world they did not work, but in a fantasy world they might.   Life Support immunity to a specific disease cost 1point before you put on any limitations.  An amulet (OIF) that gives you immunity to all disease is only 3 points.  Depending on the nature of the campaign these could be fairly common to extremely rare.  Assuming magic is at least somewhat accessible it is not unreasonable to assume that at least the wealthy have access to this type of items.  

 

I brought subject up earlier in the post when I mentioned wizards might be able to purchase magic items the same way warriors purchase weapons and armor.  I was talking more about magic wands and defensive items, but there is no reason it has to be limited to those.  
 

[GDShore]

Yes in a world filled with magic such amulets and healings are possible but they will cost, and the peasant/serf has nothing, owns nothing and his horizons are limited. He is one step up from the slave, and in some cultures treated worse. Knowledge and its use is expensive, and to the peasant/serf a single copper would be a fortune and medicine or medical help is always costly. 

Quote

3 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

I brought subject up earlier in the post when I mentioned wizards might be able to purchase magic items the same way warriors purchase weapons and armor.  I was talking more about magic wands and defensive items, but there is no reason it has to be limited to those.

 

I agree with this , in my present campaign magic is wide spread and a great variety of items can be acquired quite easily. But you would still have to have something with which to purchase or barter for them. Everything they have and use is owned by the noble they are tied to, so no magic amulets for him although the middle class will be indulging in them.

[Ninja-Bear]

I’m not really worried about real life strength of people. My point is that the mechanics are dictating a certain build. If that is what you want the. That’s great but for a game that bills itself as design the game you want you need to be at least be aware of the bias that’s in the game. If you make the game design that the only way to gain experience is to kill monsters then you expect first level characters to kill monsters.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Ninja-Bear

[Scott Ruggels]

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

That’s interesting however for a system that prides itself on building the game you want should that be a default assumption?

“Should”, or “Should not” it’s generally too late,now since Espionage had the same assumption. Strength is the key stat for heroes. 

[Ninja-Bear]

11 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

“Should”, or “Should not” it’s generally too late,now since Espionage had the same assumption. Strength is the key stat for heroes. 

Oh yeah, I’m not saying that boat hasn’t long sailed. 😂 I guess my point more than anything is certain games get picked apart due to their assumptions yet Hero has the same issue too.  And like I said, just be aware of Heroes bias. What would happen if you got rid of STR Min and extra damage for STR? I think in theory you would see less higher STR. I don’t know for sure. For clarity I’m not saying that Fighters having higher STR is bad. I’m just saying that what you think your game world should be like?

[Duke Bushido]

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m not really worried about real life strength of people. My point is that the mechanics are dictating a certain build. If that is what you want the. That’s great but for a game that bills itself as design the game you want 

 

 

I blame the fans. 

 

The game didn't bill itself as build the game you want.  The game billed itself as build a superhero.

 

Shortly afterward, the game creators offered a tweaked version of the rules and said "build yourself a spy according to these rules."  Fans said "this is exactly like the superhero rules!"  but it wasn't.  Very, very similar, at least in key high-profile bits of the system, but not the same.

 

Then the original rules were tweaked again and they went back to "build youself a superhero."  Then those rules were tweaked and,altered here and there and we fot "build yourself a superhero," and more variants and twesking of the superhero rules and spy rules lead to "build yourself a sorcerer" and "build yourself a cold war operative" and "build yourself an intergalactic adventurer" and even "build youself a mech."

 

And each one of those rules sets was _different_ in fundamental-for-their-intended-purposes ways, while retaining a lot of key similarities to the rules set that inspired the tweaks.  Unfortunately, they were similiar where the system is the most obvious, which lead to a lot of claims of "it's the exact same game!"

 

Sometimes, this was hyperbole by folks who noticed the similarities; sometimes it was sincere from folks who sae the obvious similarities and too few of the differences.

 

One thing lead to another, and we have the world's biggest set of "build yourself a superhero" while we run around proclaiming "build anything you want!"  While each subsequent edition has gotten more and more complex, and has, in its own way, tried to invent a balance that has never once existed within the rules, very little has been done to move it away from superheroes fundamentally; there have just been a thousand options dumped on top.

 

For example:  weapons familiarity, strength minimum, martial Arts, magic schools, incantations, gestures, spell components-

 

Absolutely _none_ of these are  necessary to build "6d6 magic missile" or 3d6 HKA battle axe."

 

They are just a bunch of points-sucks (for "balance") and options laid on top of Optic Blast and WolverClone and called "fantasy stuff...."

 

You _can_ make fantasy, and you dont have to squint super-hard, but you do have to pretend a lot of options are absolutely necessary, and ignore that you are using a system that, no matter how hard it has tried, to this day is optimized to make superheroes.

 

 

 

 

 

[LoneWolf]

9 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I’m not really worried about real life strength of people. My point is that the mechanics are dictating a certain build. If that is what you want the. That’s great but for a game that bills itself as design the game you want you need to be at least be aware of the bias that’s in the game. If you make the game design that the only way to gain experience is to kill monsters then you expect first level characters to kill monsters.

 

I think the default goes beyond a game and is actually reflecting the human condition.   The default hero in fiction is usually STR based.  Some modern fiction the emphasis may be on technology, but for the most part the default hero in almost any story is usually STR based.  There are of course exceptions but for the most part heroes are usually depicted as strong.   Even characters that have non-strength-based abilities that are more powerful than their strength are still usually physically strong.  

 

A perfect example of this would by Harry Dresden.  Harry is one of the strongest wizards on the planet but is still physically strong.  Even in the beginning of the series he is over 6 feet tall and is in fairly good shape.  After he became the winter knight his strength went to low superhuman level.  The only main character in that series that was not above average strength is Waldo Butters.  Even he got stronger after he became a knight of the cross.   

 

Removing figured stats in 6th edition actually removed a lot of the game mechanics favoring primary stats.  It did not on the other hand remove our human prejudices that favor strong heroes.  
 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

It is my belief that mages, good ones, will be in good physical condition simply because of the physical demands of casting spells -- not END or physical exertion but stress and complex gestures, etc.  If you are feeble, you tire quickly and that will affect your ability to do anything.  And casting spells badly ends very badly.  So I don't think mages should be below normal stats. And that to me is the key.

 

10's are considered heroic: normals are 8's in primary stats.  A 13 STR is someone in very fine physical condition, it takes a lot of strength to lift just 100 kg over your head, even doing it once.  160 is quite impressive.  Superheroes laugh at 10's but normal people see that as better than average, gifted.  The perspective is tough to grab when you're used to building people with at LEAST 13 in everything, because +1 to rolls and so on.

[Chris Goodwin]

13 hours ago, GDShore said:

Yes in a world filled with magic such amulets and healings are possible but they will cost, and the peasant/serf has nothing, owns nothing and his horizons are limited. He is one step up from the slave, and in some cultures treated worse. Knowledge and its use is expensive, and to the peasant/serf a single copper would be a fortune and medicine or medical help is always costly. 

 

This sounds too much like real life to me.  I don't want to play in this game world.

[GDShore]

All of that is true LoneWolf, but there is a way for the GM to control the issue. The Gm creates a House rule, a player may build above the racial maxima,,, only with major cost penalty. For the first 3 points above x 2, second 3 points x 4, third 3 points x 8 ect. guaranteed you will not get many supraheros. The trouble is societal, western culture in particular is heavy weighted towards the lone hero, especially in literature and foke lore. The Harry Dresden example is vert apt, for history--myth is littered with them. Arthur and Robin Hood, Charlamange and El Cid, Sobiekski the Fat and Gengis Khan. It is almost certainly in our DNA we follow the guy who successfully lead the hunt without ever getting hurt, who slayed the cave bear monster and acquired the residence out of the wind and rain and snow. We admire the (to an extent worship) the lone hero who rides into town on a black hosre or pickup truck or bus and then cleans out the bad guys. He is the big man who defends us protects us and guides us towards a better tomorrow!

[Chris Goodwin]

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Then the original rules were tweaked again and they went back to "build youself a superhero."  Then those rules were tweaked and,altered here and there and we fot "build yourself a superhero," and more variants and twesking of the superhero rules and spy rules lead to "build yourself a sorcerer" and "build yourself a cold war operative" and "build yourself an intergalactic adventurer" and even "build youself a mech."

 

And each one of those rules sets was _different_ in fundamental-for-their-intended-purposes ways, while retaining a lot of key similarities to the rules set that inspired the tweaks.  Unfortunately, they were similiar where the system is the most obvious, which lead to a lot of claims of "it's the exact same game!"

 

Sometimes, this was hyperbole by folks who noticed the similarities; sometimes it was sincere from folks who sae the obvious similarities and too few of the differences.

 

One thing lead to another, and we have the world's biggest set of "build yourself a superhero" while we run around proclaiming "build anything you want!"  While each subsequent edition has gotten more and more complex, and has, in its own way, tried to invent a balance that has never once existed within the rules, very little has been done to move it away from superheroes fundamentally; there have just been a thousand options dumped on top.

 

For example:  weapons familiarity, strength minimum, martial Arts, magic schools, incantations, gestures, spell components-

 

Absolutely _none_ of these are  necessary to build "6d6 magic missile" or 3d6 HKA battle axe."

 

No, but they were the first things added in order to make the standalone games not just another iteration of "build yourself a superhero, only in armor and with a green cover".  I think they are necessary for that. 

[GDShore]

Chris you are right it is not pleasant, it is however the underlayment of all fantasy. The party of warriors who arrive at the isolated village and defeats the evil bandits besieging and extorting them, all seven of us. The cleric who stands between their congregation and the all consuming evil holy symbol clutched in their shaking hand and turns it aside. The young untried knight who enters a tournament ands wins so that the princess will not have to marry the base lord forcing her father to give her to him. All these tropes and many more are built upon the foundation of the peasant/serf, I would not want to live as one. Life though as upper middle class or noble is not so bad. 

[Chris Goodwin]

10 minutes ago, GDShore said:

Chris you are right it is not pleasant, it is however the underlayment of all fantasy.

 

All fantasy?  I disagree with that.

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

No, but they were the first things added in order to make the standalone games not just another iteration of "build yourself a superhero, only in armor and with a green cover".  I think they are necessary for that. 

 

 

Agreed; that is one of the things I am saying:  they are completely unnecessary to build a sword or a goblin or a magic spell, and the do not change the system at all: any superhero can take these same builds.  

 

They are "necessary" ib as much as they are rhe camoflague being dumped onto a superhero game to make it look like something else.