Product Question, Minions vs. The Bestiary?

[proditor]

Hello all, I just finally managed to pick up Fantasy Hero and the Grimoire but I have an additional question. I picked up the Bestiary ages ago, but don't have the ready cash to get Monsters, Minions, And Marauders just yet. What are the main differences between the two? Will I be "okay" to just swing it with FH, the grimoire and the Bestiary? What are the advantages to the triple M? Any insight appreciated.

[badger3k]

No replies? OK, guess I'll do it. You don't need MMM, but it can make your life easier. While the beastiary has many animals and fantasy monsters, MMM has many more creatures (including such staples as orcs, ogres, and trolls. It also has creatures from various mythologies the world over. It also has templates to add to creatures (such as psionic, fighter, or shaman), as well as sample human adversaries.

 

Like I said, you can run the game without it, but the book is like any other creature book - an accessory that can make it easier and quicker to set up an adventure (or find a random beastie). edit - the simplest way to look at it is that MMM expands upon the beastiary for fantasy campaigns.

[Ndreare]

What badger 3 Said

 

 

I would recamend getting MM&M more than Grimoir myself but thats because MM&M gives scale to the game in the same way CK&K did for champions. Grimoir has things covering such a wide level of power with out any recamendations of what is normal it is harder to stabilize unless you already know what you want.

 

Where as with MM&M you know ok I want thee players to be able to slay orcs and guards but I want giants to cause them fright well lets see...

 

Then you know what level of power you are looking at. (Plus having prefab villians helps a game with concistancy.)

[proditor]

Thanks for the feedback guys, looks like I know what to save up for now.

[Markdoc]

If you are strapped for cash, you can easily do without MMM. I bought it, and it's OK, but I must admit to feeling a little disappointed smply because so much of it is devoted to DnD clones, which are of close to zero interest for me (though I can still mine the book for some useful ideas, I think).

 

However, if you play a DnD syle game with orcs and dwarves and elves an' all, it could be quite useful.

 

I was kind of hoping for more minion types, though - sort of an "enemies" book for FH.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Troll]

Given the choice between the Beastiary and MM&M I would go with the Beastiary. It gives you more bang for your buck. MM&M is useful and I am glad I bought it for my campaign, but it isn't essential to running a FH game.

 

Troll

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Markdoc

If you are strapped for cash, you can easily do without MMM. I bought it, and it's OK, but I must admit to feeling a little disappointed smply because so much of it is devoted to DnD clones, which are of close to zero interest for me (though I can still mine the book for some useful ideas, I think).

 

However, if you play a DnD syle game with orcs and dwarves and elves an' all, it could be quite useful.

 

I was kind of hoping for more minion types, though - sort of an "enemies" book for FH.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

In its defense, its hard to make an enemies book when there's no standard setting. CKC uses the Champions Universe as its base. Maybe when the Turakian Age comes out, there will be an Adversaries book (or whatever it's called).

[Old Man]

Originally posted by Markdoc

I must admit to feeling a little disappointed smply because so much of it is devoted to DnD clones, which are of close to zero interest for me.

 

OTOH, since there are as yet no published adventures for FH, MMM is quite useful as a tool for converting d20 (gag) adventures, for GMs too lazy to write their own (raises hand).

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Old Man

OTOH, since there are as yet no published adventures for FH, MMM is quite useful as a tool for converting d20 (gag) adventures, for GMs too lazy to write their own (raises hand).

 

Hey, I'm converting Hackmaster versions of Old D&D modules. What does that make me?

 

Maybe you shouldn't answer that....

[Old Man]

I'm going to go with "kook". But I mean that in a nice way.

[Lord Liaden]

Originally posted by badger3k

In its defense, its hard to make an enemies book when there's no standard setting. CKC uses the Champions Universe as its base. Maybe when the Turakian Age comes out, there will be an Adversaries book (or whatever it's called).

 

There's one on the publication schedule for mid-2005, Nobles, Knights, And Necromancers (see the "Our Products" link on the left).

[Markdoc]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

There's one on the publication schedule for mid-2005, Nobles, Knights, And Necromancers (see the "Our Products" link on the left).

 

Yeah, but given that the Turakian age uses a non- standard system for magic, I must admit to minimal interest in it.

 

I think it was collossal mistake for the first official seting to use some wierd non-hero system variant for magic, since that is an important part of any FH setting.

 

I generally buy anything FH-related, and I'll certainly check out the the Turakian stuff anyway as a possible source to mine for ideas, but for now am waiting instead for The Valdorian and Tuala Morn settings.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lord Liaden]

Mark, would you mind expanding a bit on what you mean by Turakian magic being "a non-standard system" and "weird non-hero system variant"?

[Nightshade]

I'm pretty sure he means the method of calculating spell costs, which is to take the real cost and divide by three. This is actually something that was mentioned in Fantasy HERO to get more people to buy spells, or to make spells more accessable without power frameworks.

 

Nightshade

[Qamar]

Originally posted by badger3k

In its defense, its hard to make an enemies book when there's no standard setting. CKC uses the Champions Universe as its base. Maybe when the Turakian Age comes out, there will be an Adversaries book (or whatever it's called).

 

I thought MMM was based on the Turakian Age setting.

[Steve Long]

MMM is a general book of Fantasy-oriented monsters. There are some sidebar "examples of how to use this monster" that are set in the Turakian Age, but the monsters themselves are suitable for most FH campaigns, not just the TA setting.

[Markdoc]

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Mark, would you mind expanding a bit on what you mean by Turakian magic being "a non-standard system" and "weird non-hero system variant"?

 

Yeah, Nightshade got it - the "divide real cost by three for powers with the special effect Magic" means that magic users from the Turakian setting are really hard to use if you don't use that house rule.

 

I called it a "weird non-hero system variant" because there's no way to accomodate it within the standard rules. A comparable example would be if the GM said in a standard superhero game "All bricks can buy their powers at one third normal price"

 

Part of my disdain comes from my liking for Hero as relatively robust, balanced system - it irks me that a thief who buys invisibility in shadows as "extra sneakiness" would pay three times the cost of a character who buys the *exact* same power and defines it as "magic"

 

Ordinarily that would not be a huge problem except for the fact that magic-users are the character type that typically take me the most time to generate

 

If I can't use them, then that detracts a lot from the attractiveness of a FH product. Still, like I said, I'll wait and see: there may be notes on how to deal with the problem, or other material to make up for the fact that the mage characters are useless to me.

 

cheers, Mark

[Lord Liaden]

Hmm... okay, I can see why that would bother you. But is it that hard to change? Couldn't you just increase the cost of the spells that the characters are written with, or substitute spells from the Fantasy HERO Grimoire while keeping the rest of the writeups? A bit more work, granted, but it would make the writeups and setting far from "useless." Or is there another issue I'm missing?

 

Regardless, YMMV. Whatever works for you.

[Ndreare]

I agree the change/hand waving in the rules bugs. It removes the inherant balance of the HERO system in order to favor one class over others. Why not just let them have EC that would at least help with anti magic power that could affect EC as a whole often in fantasy games or books.

 

I think it severly gimps the fighters and realy screws the Rouges (the most expensive character type in any HERO game). Now the mage becomes more powerful than the rest of the group and the others are all forced to either be magic users also or suffer.

[Killer Shrike]

But only if that optional rule is used. Also, the other limitations of a Magic System curtail the usefulness/act as a control mechanism as well.

 

Heres the thing, even using the divide by 3 example (of which Im not a big fan either), the mentioned thief with super-sneakiness bought as Invis a) is likely going to have far fewer super-skills-bought-as-powers than a Wizard type is going to have spells the thief's superskill is probably usable at any time, requiring a Stealth Roll or similar where as most Magic Systems limit the number or volume of spells the Wizard type can cast and c) the Wizards Spell is of the SFX Magic and is thus vulnerable to Dispels & Suppresses vs Magic where as the thief's super-skill is only vulnerable to Dispels & Suppresses specifically vs Invisibility, or assuming they have RSR: Stealth and/or RSR: Concealment things affecting their DEX or INT respectively -- far less common scenarios in most Fantasy settings.

 

Finally, you can always just multiply the RC of the discounted spells by 3.

 

Shouldnt be to big of a deal I wouldnt think.....

[Michael Hopcroft]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

But only if that optional rule is used. Also, the other limitations of a Magic System curtail the usefulness/act as a control mechanism as well.

 

Heres the thing, even using the divide by 3 example (of which Im not a big fan either), the mentioned thief with super-sneakiness bought as Invis a) is likely going to have far fewer super-skills-bought-as-powers than a Wizard type is going to have spells the thief's superskill is probably usable at any time, requiring a Stealth Roll or similar where as most Magic Systems limit the number or volume of spells the Wizard type can cast and c) the Wizards Spell is of the SFX Magic and is thus vulnerable to Dispels & Suppresses vs Magic where as the thief's super-skill is only vulnerable to Dispels & Suppresses specifically vs Invisibility, or assuming they have RSR: Stealth and/or RSR: Concealment things affecting their DEX or INT respectively -- far less common scenarios in most Fantasy settings.

 

Finally, you can always just multiply the RC of the discounted spells by 3.

 

Shouldnt be to big of a deal I wouldnt think.....

 

I guess the optimum questuion to ask then 9although we are subjecting ourselves to severe topic drift) is whether wizards and other magic-using charactera re viable without the cost break. In other words, if wizards had to "play fair" and pay the full cost for their spells, would that be so restrictive that nobody would play a wizard?

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Michael Hopcroft

I guess the optimum questuion to ask then 9although we are subjecting ourselves to severe topic drift) is whether wizards and other magic-using charactera re viable without the cost break. In other words, if wizards had to "play fair" and pay the full cost for their spells, would that be so restrictive that nobody would play a wizard?

Totally depends on the magic system in question, the point level of the game, the availability & costing (money or points) of equipment & magic items, campaign restrictions regarding access to Powers via means other than Magic Spells, and other such factors.

[Eosin]

Originally posted by Michael Hopcroft

I guess the optimum questuion to ask then (although we are subjecting ourselves to severe topic drift) is whether wizards and other magic-using charactera re viable without the cost break. In other words, if wizards had to "play fair" and pay the full cost for their spells, would that be so restrictive that nobody would play a wizard?

 

IMO and experience with 3 seperate FH games the answer is - few will play a wizard if they have to pay straight up. The costs are to prohibitive. I would say that Heroic Level play giving fighters free swords and armor is also "hand waving" and giving them huge amounts of free points that generally are not the purvue of the spell caster. The cost division only levels the playing field. But even with the discount on magic it is still prohibitive, unless you go into deep, deep hand waving varients [i.e. giving a 10 Point VPP per 5 points of a PERK - Mage].

 

For the fourth campaign that I am planning it looks like one person might try to play a wizard type but I expect that he is going to balk when he starts spending points. I have bent over backwards to make magic attractive to some players but as our math guru is fond of telling me...."It is just not cost effective. It takes to many points." That would be Audie.

 

Of course, I could just be in a strange group. I do know that for rules "efficacy" some of the people I have gamed with are-were fairly legendary around here. In the most abusive powers types of threads (of course, that was 1-2 boards back).

[badger3k]

Topic Drift ... Wheeeeee!

 

(It just slides further away )

 

The campaign I'm running now uses the /3 modifier for spells, which ameliorates the cost somewhat (since they need skill and Mana (END reserve). So far, only one character really uses spells, although 3 of five have 1 or 2. The point costs otherwise would be prohibitive for my system. The players aren't familiar with the game to run with a VPP, and a multipower doesn't fit the concept. Of course, in my templates (currently making the Bllodline abilities from UA), the points for abilities may or may not be modified, depending on how useful/common the ability should be (no real ground rules). Similarly, some of the magic I use (esecially some of the higher-power FHG spells) have no multiplier, since the spells are meant to be costly. To me, the lower magic cost does offset the weapon/armor/combat/skill costs for non-casters (although I place no restriction on casters weapon/armor use). Still, we've only had three gaming sessions, but that's what I've seen so far with these rules - whether that will change later, I'll have to see.