Starting Points?

[CrosshairCollie]

I'm curious ... has the number of points for a starting FH character in a 'typical' campaign gone up, like the ones for a 'typical' superhero campaign for Champions did (from 250 to 350)? I know 'typical campaign' is something of an oxymoron, but I'm insanely curious.

 

*itchitchitch* Must apply FH ... must scratch itch! *itchitchitch*

[Steve Long]

Typically, no; most FH characters start at 75+75. There is some discussion in FH, in the descriptions of the various subgenres, of when it might be appropriate to increase that.

 

Of course, as you point out, I'd say it's much harder to identify the "typical" FH campaign than the "typical" Champions campaign.

[Super Squirrel]

I for one, will never run a game less than 25+25 at start. I tell you, you get some unique characters when you limit people to that many points.

[slikmar]

I am thinking of going 75+50 for my game. I also plan to limit the spending of attributes to 75 pts as i hope to have a fairly decent seperation of fighters and mages(fighters with str/con, mages int/ego based more)

[Shaddakim]

I have been fairly happy both playing in and running FH campaigns at the 75+50 level. My only complaint has always been "not enough points for skills" (I favor skill heavy characters). That point aside, I would recommend starting at 75+50.

 

I am curious as to why a 75 point limit on attributes would create a differentiation between fighters and mages. Due to spell costs (and my requirement that all spells have RSR as a limitation) this is how it has always fallen out (fighters with str/con, mages int/ego). What has been your experience?

[slikmar]

I actually have switched to a 65 point limit on attributes, and the reason i say that a limit will seperate fighters/mages is that without limits, what will keep a char from spending enough to get 20 str, 20 dex, 15 con, 13 body, 18 int, 20 ego for a total of 84 attributes, thereby giving you someone very suited for both magic and fighting equal to almost anybody who specializes in either (game balance problem in my opinion as each character should be able to be equal and/or unique).

I also am thinking of limiting characters to only one prime attribute 19+, and one more 16-18 and the rest limited to 15s, all totals modified by racial bonuses (i.e. Dwarves in my realm have +3 con and -1 dex so the numbers for those would be con 22+/19-21/18 in its grouping, but dex would be 18+/15-17/14. as i say, this is just a thought for now, may change as i see characters built.

Part of my reasoning is that for mages i am allowing the equivalent of a free variable power pool with required skill roll for certain basic powers up to a characters ego (meaning if you have an 18 ego, you can use up to 18 points in an EB, RKA, HKA etc). The powers usable will already have been decided in a list by me. I am also allowing characters to purchase spells of greater power equal to 1/2 their magic skill roll for a college of magic. I hope to do something similar for pure warriors in using martial arts/skill levels to give fighting styles.

The reason for the power pool is, many games (see D&D) limit how many times a mage can do something, I want to give mages at least a semi equal footing with fighters who can effectively swing a 4-6 DC attack as long as endurance holds out.

[JohnTaber]

Hi Slikmar (and Others),

 

I always have started with 75+50 in my FH campains. In my opinion the problem is with what my players call "mystically enhanced fighters". Fighters with one or two spells only. Maybe for defense and such. Since I wanted magic to be rare I simply set a min REAL points that a PC must spend on magic if they want to be a mage. This prevents fighters with just a couple of spells. Personally I've never had an issue with characteristics.

 

Anyway...just my take...

[Sterling]

New Idea for Starting

 

I wanted to run a 75+75 campaign but I love the story of the beginning hero who is struggling but learns fast. Characters with Destiny written across their forhead . So I am starting the characters with 25+75. So they have all their disads and have plenty of points for background, racial abilities, nifty skills while still giving them plenty of room to grow. Then I plan on increasing the xp given per adventure by a about a small amount to increase their rate of growth. I am finding the characters the players build very usable without being to big as starting fantasy heroes.

 

Sterling

[Shaddakim]

Re: New Idea for Starting

 

Originally posted by Sterling

I wanted to run a 75+75 campaign but I love the story of the beginning hero who is struggling but learns fast. Characters with Destiny written across their forhead . So I am starting the characters with 25+75. So they have all their disads and have plenty of points for background, racial abilities, nifty skills while still giving them plenty of room to grow. Then I plan on increasing the xp given per adventure by a about a small amount to increase their rate of growth. I am finding the characters the players build very usable without being to big as starting fantasy heroes.

 

Sterling

 

That sounds cool. If/when I start a new campaign, I'll give that some thought. My one concern is, doesn't this make them somewhat "twitchy" when they start? [One of our long standing limits on Disads is a prohibition on building characters that cannot do anything but stand there and twitch from all their physical and psych lims.]

 

What kinds of Disads do you find your players take in this situation?

[Shaddakim]

Originally posted by slikmar

I actually have switched to a 65 point limit on attributes, and the reason i say that a limit will seperate fighters/mages is that without limits, what will keep a char from spending enough to get 20 str, 20 dex, 15 con, 13 body, 18 int, 20 ego for a total of 84 attributes, thereby giving you someone very suited for both magic and fighting equal to almost anybody who specializes in either (game balance problem in my opinion as each character should be able to be equal and/or unique).

[snip]

 

Hmmm, I see your point. Even taking into account 20-30 points of starting spells and 10-15 points on a fighting style, they would still have something like 21-36 points to spend on starting skills, a little light for my tastes, but do-able.

 

My players tend to favor a heavier set of skills (possibly because I give them in game incentive to by limiting their ability to do things they have no skill in). Looking at the current characters (who range between 150 and 170 in points), I see a spectrum of points in characteristics from 49 at the low end (a thief/mage) to 93 at the high end (a dwarven tank).

 

I think the thing that would keep a character from doing this is the GM, either by saying "nice try, but no" or setting limits like you are.

[Vanguard00]

Re: New Idea for Starting

 

Originally posted by Sterling

I wanted to run a 75+75 campaign but I love the story of the beginning hero who is struggling but learns fast. Characters with Destiny written across their forhead . So I am starting the characters with 25+75. So they have all their disads and have plenty of points for background, racial abilities, nifty skills while still giving them plenty of room to grow. Then I plan on increasing the xp given per adventure by a about a small amount to increase their rate of growth. I am finding the characters the players build very usable without being to big as starting fantasy heroes.

 

Sterling

 

In a similar vein I usually start games at 50+50, or 25+75, or (rarely) 50+75. I'm interested in a character taking disads that work for him/her, not someone who enjoys the excessive free points. Like Sterling, I also enjoy rewarding characters for good RPing, and I have always thought that a character built on 125 starting points (with disads) and spending 25 xp is infinitely better than a character built with 150 pts. I like my characters to grow.

 

By the same token, I've been known to give extra points to those with good background. Someone who wows me with an exceptional background might get anywhere from 5-15 bonus pts to start with.

 

Lastly, there's nothing that says everyone has to start at the same level. For example (and this campaign was YEARS ago), I had four players submit their PCs: a commoner, a soldier, an apprentice wizard, and a "worldly" priest (and former warrior). They were given, respectively, 75pts, 100pts, 100pts, and 125pts to work with. I enforce a certain amount toward skills (for example, the warrior-turned-priest had to spend some for both warrior and priestly skills/talents), and it actually worked out fairly well. Everyone did a really good job, and the commoner-turned-adventurer ended up being the leader purely by right of excellent RPing.

 

Just my "too sense" on the subject...

[AnotherSkip]

hmmm mostly i would be going with 75+75 and few limits.

 

i have huge lists of "suggestions" for Packages from a racial, social and organizational level mostly to help players get in the mood. just to give people an idea of what would be happening.

[Eodin]

Many years ago a friend of mine started a campaign in a way I'd like to try one of these days. Our characters started out as 25+25 point characters, had their first adventure -- which threw them forcefully into being adventurers. At the conclusion of the first adventure, he made the characters 75+50 starting the second adventure. They had points to spend fairly quickly over the next few adventures, to bring them up to "heroic adventurer" level. Since he watched over the expenditures like a hawk, it made for an interesting way to start a campaign...

[Chris Goodwin]

Back in the day, when FH was a standalone game in first edition, the suggested point totals were 75+25. Disads were typically half the value they are now, so that was what would now be about 50 points worth of disads. My group quickly moved to 100 base plus whatever you could scrape out in disadvantages, which in my case meant an occasional 100+100 mage.

 

Caveat: As you increase the points available in NCM games, you'll have characters tending to higher DEX and SPD.

[bloomann]

the campaign that I'm working on is pretty clear cut about fighters who use magic: they can't, (unless it's a magical item) In my campaign magicians are more like a race, like elves or dwarves. Elves and halflings can only use certain spells, while men and dwarves don't use any. It goes back I guess to the way I interpret Tolkien's characters, Gandalf and the other mages are not human, buty like a group of guardian angels. They are biengs of intense light who ca

[bloomann]

the campaign that I'm working on is pretty clear cut about fighters who use magic: they can't, (unless it's a magical item) In my campaign magicians are more like a race, like elves or dwarves. Elves and halflings can only use certain spells, while men and dwarves don't use any. It goes back I guess to the way I interpret Tolkien's characters, Gandalf and the other mages are not human, but like a group of guardian angels. They are biengs of intense light/power who take the form of old wisened men on the earthly plane. Elves have some magic because of there hieghtened awareness of the nature, as are halfings, halflings also have some serious ego defense especially against mind control, probably because they are so modest humble and just not interested with gaining ultimate power. These are my quick interpretations on the races, I think it divides things pretty evenly. otherwise I'll be starting with 100+75 (only because the heroes of my campaign ar "the" most brave and noble champians of their cities...)

[mr_nau]

For Hero games I like to have a set base of 40 and a floating base of +10D6. By using the +10D6 the heroes all have slightly different stats but are still within a fair distance of each other, and it is very rare (a 1.654 e -8 percent chance) to get a maximum roll (or a minimum roll) and even in those cases the characters are between 50 and 100 points. This works well because it gives a sense of "natural" birth randomness to the game, but keeps it so that no one is significantly better or worse than anyone else. The 40+10D6 creates heroes around the 75 point mark (40 + 10*3.5). Anyway, I hope you find that useful.

 

mn

[Sterling]

Originally posted by Shaddakim

Hmmm, I see your point. Even taking into account 20-30 points of starting spells and 10-15 points on a fighting style, they would still have something like 21-36 points to spend on starting skills, a little light for my tastes, but do-able.

 

My players tend to favor a heavier set of skills (possibly because I give them in game incentive to by limiting their ability to do things they have no skill in). Looking at the current characters (who range between 150 and 170 in points), I see a spectrum of points in characteristics from 49 at the low end (a thief/mage) to 93 at the high end (a dwarven tank).

 

I think the thing that would keep a character from doing this is the GM, either by saying "nice try, but no" or setting limits like you are.

 

The characters are nowhere near twitchy as far as I am concerned. One of my favorite things about the Hero system is the disadvantage system. I feel it rewards good roleplay, and well rounded concepts. In many cases, it is the disadvantages that distinguish a character, not the advantages.

 

As for specific disads, most have at least one nasty hunted. Most are playing special races so have distinctive features, possible minor social limitations. Most have a single nasty susceptibility or vulnerability as part of their race. One or two non-debilitating Psychological disads and you are done. Generally speaking the disads are tied into racial concepts and backgrounds and with well thought out characters I haven't had any issues.