Stacking Problems?

[JLXC]

I have had Fred for quite some time but just ordered Fantasy Hero.

 

I was wondering if there are guidelines besides just "Don't let them" for stacking Defense?

 

Example.

 

A Sorceror has Combat Luck, a Chain mail suit, and a Force Field spell. This adds up to invulnerable pretty fast. I could just say "NO!", and I would, but it doesn't quite sit right with me.

 

I was just wondering if there was anything in the book on this, or if any of you devioud GM's have already licked this. Thanks.

[Killer Shrike]

We were just discussing this tonight actually. Its a hard decision to make in the HERO System, since normally defenses stack.

 

My tact has been to limit the # of levels of Combat Luck, not let defenses of the same type stack (you get the better value), make it not impossible but difficult to wear armor and cast spells, imposed mild penalties for wearing armor (-1 to DEX Rolls & DCV in Medium armor (DEF 4 to 6) and -2 in Heavy Armor (DEF 7 to 9) -- PSL's can be applied to offset this), require 2 point proficiencies for each category of Armor (Light, Medium, Heavy) and 1 point for Shields, and made it real clear that anyone cranking their DEF too high is really just saying they want "special attention" from the GM's bag o tricks

 

My players have mostly grok'd to the idea that Im not a confrontational GM, so as long as they dont get carried away and self-police they are better off in the long run.

[Eosin]

I limit mundane rDEF to 8.99 ***whole body DEF.

 

This means, no more than 2 levels of Combat Luck and then you could only wear sparse armor. Magic I don't really requlate as much since it tends to be both more rare and has a cost of its own.

 

If it looked to be a real issue then I would old school triple the cost of DEF and make players purchase armor with character points. This ensures Combat Luck would be rare and magic armor nearly so.

 

****Whole Body DEF = total amount of DEF across all 15 locations and then divided by 15 to get the total body average.

[Outsider]

Or you could, for the sake of your campaign, rule that defences not from the same source stack by "pseudo-mass".

 

ie a 6 DEF Chainmail suit and a 8 DEF Forcefield, if converted to actual armor, would mass 20kg & 40 kg, respectively. Together, they therefore provide defence equivalent to 60 kg of armor, or about DEF 9. Tacking on 6 DEF from Combat luck will add yet another 20 kg of pseudo-mass, for a total of 80 kg, or 10 DEF total. Done this way, it makes sense that most wizards dont bother with the heavy chainmail suit.

 

It isnt strictly the rules, but it means you dont have to just reject the possibility of stacking defences outright, and you dont have to worry about DEF 20 casters running around either.

[JLXC]

I am AMAZED it's not coevered in the book... Seriously. Steve should have said SOMETHING about it or new GMs will be plowed under! WOW.

[Hierax]

I asked Steve about this a while back regarding a battle blessing spell or something and, IIRC, he said that officially there wasn't any rule against stacking but a GM certainly could make one if they felt they needed it.

 

(Edit: here's the actual post: http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/HeroSystem5thEdQuestions/000767.html )

 

Personally, I think that there needs to be some limit to stacking or it gets out of hand. It's been an official rule in DND at least since the early '80s, and I think a good rule for game balance.

 

At the least, I'd think that you should only be able to have one of each type of power in effect but be able to stack with another kind of power -- e.g., you could have a forcefield over armour but not an armour spell over armour; armour over damage resistance etc.

 

Besides game mechanical stacking rules, a GM should very carefully review what the total possible acheivable is before allowing a character to gets such things, lest they out of hand -- be it OCV, DC, DEF, or whathaveyou.

[John Desmarais]

Re: Stacking Problems?

 

Originally posted by JLXC

A Sorceror has Combat Luck, a Chain mail suit, and a Force Field spell. This adds up to invulnerable pretty fast. I could just say "NO!", and I would, but it doesn't quite sit right with me.

 

Hasn't been a big problem for yet, but I've been enforcing the encumbrance rules - Spell flingers typically having low STR, the weight of that chain mail added up real fast.

 

John D

[Killer Shrike]

I dont mind physical Armor over Damage Resistance personally, as conceptually I see DR as "thick skin" or the like, and physical Armor would be worn over that, so the two could work together.

 

But a "Mage Armor Spell" based on Armor rather than FF over Chaimail frex just doesnt fly with me.

 

So, basically, with exceptions for SFX if necessary, IMC a person can benefit from their single best possible current protection for the following seperate categories of defense:

 

Damage Resistance

Armor

FF

FW

Damage Reduction

Combat Luck

(Entangle and other obstructions)

[badger3k]

For my fantasy I use a system similar to the D&D one - if the effects are the same, then they don't stack (ie, wearing chainmail and an amulet of armor that both have the same base power [armor]). In some cases, then, you can have combat luck, armor, damage resistance/reduction, and force field active all at once, but in practice that rarely has happened (the few games we've managed to play so far). Since we switched from 3.5 to FH, the players already understand the ground rules.

 

In many cases, I have to look at the fx and decide if they stack, since very few powers/items/spells have a limitation such as "does not work with armor" (although that may change over time if there is a need). So far, we haven't had problems yet, but the campaign is young. We'll see.

 

My main advice is to make sure the players know what works and what doesn't (at least in general) before playing, same as any other campaign rules.

[bjbrown]

I just simply have house rules regarding stacking, rather than using limitations or advantages.

 

Generally, the various types of defenses (Armor, Force Field) don't stack. However, I will allow stacking of a general defense with a limited defense (e.g., a Force Field that protects versus fire damage only might stack with chainmail Armor).

 

Since all constant spells in my game require constant END expenditure, it would be difficult for one spell caster to really loaded up on various specific defenses to become invulnerable to everything (at least for very long).

[Markdoc]

I use two simple rules.

 

First, nothing stacks with "free" stuff. You can't add HKA to a normal sword to a bigger HKA and you can't add DEF (by any means) to normal armour to get tougher armour. You just get the best value of the two.

 

You can however stack things you paid points for: a mage's shield (Force field) spell and his Phantasmal Armour (Armour) spell would stack.

 

The rationale/explanation here is that a) this is part of the "real armour/real weapon" limitation and even if your magical armour overlays your real armour, it is no tougher - a little extra thickness has little extra effect. If your skin is as tough as leather, that's going to add little resistance to an attack that can punch a hole in chain mail, for example. The swift movement or "luck" that generally characterises combat luck is inhibited by the extra mass of the armour and so on.

 

The second rule is that you cannot "stack" the same power. Two guys with 1 d6 heal generate a max of 1d6 healing. Two 1d6 RKAs are not the same as a 2d6 RKA and two sets of 8 DEF armour do not give 16 DEF - just 2 times 8.

 

The rationale/explanation here is self-explanatory, I think.

 

I've used these house rules for a very, very long time and they have worked well. You can, of course, with high pointage characters, get combat monsters with magical protection soaring up into the 20's: but then, at that point, they *are* supposed to be legendary heroes, and will be going up against foes who can generate damage sufficient to make them hurt.

 

Uninhibited Stacking: just say no

 

cheers, Mark

[ThothAmon]

Why would a sorceror have Combat Luck? I'd suggest that Combat Luck is only for those who have done a lot of fighting prior to start of play i.e. experienced warriors and rogues. Sorcerors should instead be packing Unluck as a side effect of their dabblings in unnatural forces.

 

Furthermore, Combat Luck should really be (A) at GM discretion only and ( limited to one or two levels of effect.

 

As for Chainmail, use sectional armour from FH and apply the DCV penalty (or END penalty, or both) to the sorcerors Magic Skill roll. Or announce that any armour-based DCV penalty results in Magic Skill rolls at -1 per 5 active instead of -1 per 10 that applies to unencumbered spellcasters.

 

Adjust spells as required e.g. Lightning Bolt automatically gets a 2d6 RKA Side Effect (worth -0) if the caster is wearing metal armour.

 

Never allow Persistent magical defences. Spellcasters must always pay END for topped up rPD/rED. Announce that LTE rules will be used if the caster is encumbered in any way.

[dstarfire]

KISS principle

 

this problem can be solved with 3 words: normal characteristic maxima. Discovered this the hard way in my game. If you buy your figured pd/ed way up and take combat luck (for the rDef), than anything heavier than leather is wasted, as it exceeds the maxima.

 

On top of that, our gm went even further and ruled that armor based ped/ed doesn't stack with stat-based pd/ed, though powers, (and power-derived talents) stack with everything ... up to maxima, then it stops (or you pay double, though nobody's tried that yet).

 

Of course, my group has at least 2 hero system veterans that can pull 40 pts of effect with only 2-3 pts of cost, so he has to be very careful to keep things from getting ridiculous. On the flip side, we don't mave to mess around with a lot of the day-to-day minutia like encumbrance, food supply, and basic/non-combat riding/driving as long as we don't go crazy (i.e. a portable forge, an arsenal big enough for a small army, etc.). So far, it seems to work pretty well.