What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

[Spence]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I like the general world to be "normal" will little or no magic.

 

The PC's should be epic and unique taking on epic threats.

 

One thing I absolutely hated about the D&D style worlds. Even the bakers and cooks were "leveled" and in some games they even had them able to defeat lower level fighters

 

Another thing I always hated was everything was a "1/2 demon, 1/2 elf 1/2 dragon eldar super thingee kin dude fighter". If everyone in the entire world is special, then what's the point?

 

The PC's should evolve into the legendary heroes of the world. If you have Magical types they should be rare...no.....extremely RARE!!!

 

Lets see, 300,000 people in the "known world" and only about 40 magical types with most having "minor" talents and 5 or 6 full blown magi, with the PC as one of them.

 

The PC's should be special, not just another peasant.

 

IMO that is why most fantasy worlds just fall flat. The heroes should be heroes, the mooks mooks and the villains should be VILLAINS.

 

 

 

I'm just saying......

 

Also why I like a lot of anime

[Captain Obvious]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I like the general world to be "normal" will little or no magic.

 

The PC's should be epic and unique taking on epic threats.

 

One thing I absolutely hated about the D&D style worlds. Even the bakers and cooks were "leveled" and in some games they even had them able to defeat lower level fighters

 

Another thing I always hated was everything was a "1/2 demon, 1/2 elf 1/2 dragon eldar super thingee kin dude fighter". If everyone in the entire world is special, then what's the point?

 

The PC's should evolve into the legendary heroes of the world. If you have Magical types they should be rare...no.....extremely RARE!!!

 

Lets see, 300,000 people in the "known world" and only about 40 magical types with most having "minor" talents and 5 or 6 full blown magi, with the PC as one of them.

 

The PC's should be special, not just another peasant.

 

IMO that is why most fantasy worlds just fall flat. The heroes should be heroes, the mooks mooks and the villains should be VILLAINS.

 

 

 

I'm just saying......

 

Also why I like a lot of anime

 

Isn't a lot of anime full of 1/2 demon, 1/2 elf 1/2 dragon eldar super thingee kin dude fighters?

[Spence]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Isn't a lot of anime full of 1/2 demon' date=' 1/2 elf 1/2 dragon eldar super thingee kin dude fighters?[/quote']

 

No, not at all. In most of the sword swinging demon fighting anime I have seen each individual tends to have a specialty and the villains tend to be either a demon or a half demon or a vampire or a {fill in your choice} but not all. But most of the anime I watch does not involve sword swinging demon hunters. Being a media format rather than a genre, anime covers a wide variety of genres. But I fully understand how someone who has mostly seen anime on American TV could have a less than positive view of it.

 

For me in my limited experience it is only in D&D where they pack 3 or 4 "1/2's" into a single PC and I have only met a "Centaur ½ elf fighter wizard pixie" in a D&D game. Plus like most stories or shows (unless it is a purposely nonsensical show), anime tends to have an internal logic which D&D hasn’t had since they went hardback (also my opinion;)).

 

But to stay on target. IMO a RPG should be showcasing the PC and their unique abilities. The standard fare fantasy RPG's have dropped the ball in this aspect. Everything is "special". Therefore nothing is.

 

If everyone ran 20+ mile marathons, then marathon runners would be treated like chumps and the Olympics wouldn't showcase any marathons.

 

In the 20's and 30's being a pilot was big news and would get you mentioned in the local paper. Now it's just a job.

 

Conan was bad assed because he was greater than life and heroic among a general population of normal people. That is what people seem to forget.

 

If you are playing an elf fighter, that is great. But in order to be special you need to be one of the only elves ever seen in these parts. Most people shouldn't have any idea of what you can really do, and what they do know is generally wrong. But if they see elves all the time, then your character is just a human with pointy ears.

 

A magic user of any description should be a mysterious and powerful figure. The 3rd level cook should not be able to say "he's out of spells because that is the third one he has cast!!" or "his MM can't do enough damage to hurt us! Take him!".

 

The whole concept of 3rd level cook is ludicrous on its own.

 

But I'll shut up now [/rant]

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

For me in my limited experience

 

QFT.

[Netzilla]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I think the main risky/confusing thing I'm considering is a hybrid on the gear ... My thought was that normal gear (anything on the price-lists or anything I approve as "mundane" would be purchased with money, but that players could still have the option of point-building unique or enchanted items. I'm not sure what hidden land-mines may lay in that direction.

 

As an aside, you might want to take a look at the Resource Pool rules in Dark Champions for some other ideas on balancing equipment.

 

In the Fantasy Hero Campaign I'll Probably Never Get To Run, my plan is to start everyone off with a 40 point Equipment pool and a 0 point Magic pool. During character creation, players could trade in equipment for magic on a one for one basis. That way you don't run into the problem of warriors over-powering wizards due to free "combat powers".

[Curufea]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

As an aside, you might want to take a look at the Resource Pool rules in Dark Champions for some other ideas on balancing equipment.

 

In the Fantasy Hero Campaign I'll Probably Never Get To Run, my plan is to start everyone off with a 40 point Equipment pool and a 0 point Magic pool. During character creation, players could trade in equipment for magic on a one for one basis. That way you don't run into the problem of warriors over-powering wizards due to free "combat powers".

 

I also think that the superskill rules in Dark Champions are quite an interesting idea to incorporate into high fantasy games. Especially Wu Shu/Mythic Chinese type games.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I like classic High Medieval - Early Renaissance Fantasy Settings and Worlds.

 

I like Oriental Sub-Genres - Rokugan, Sengoku, Bushido, Tibet, etc...

 

I like an even mix of Action-Adventure vs Detective-Intrigue.

 

I like Social Interaction with NPCs and Role Playing vs Roll Playing.

 

I like Epic Adventures mixed with Simple Heroics.

 

 

I love Gaming

 

 

QM

[runescience]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I like a game run like heroic fiction. Style:The game starts light, then the characters hit a point of no return. A game where there are multiple plot conflicts per session/situation. I like a game run with a week to week episodic feel, and an over all story arc, like in a good Television show. Then as we advance in story line I like mid power.

 

I like it the game a bit gritty. I like the players to stay in character, and act HEROICALLY aka High road role playing. You can have highroad style game and gritty, if you have balence. Grittiness makes the players look even more heroic when they do something GOOD. We enough @#$&% heads in our real lives. I like to see things in black & white for the sake of saving the world. Earth like definitely.

 

Is that too much to ask for??? Apparently so. I haven't had a good GM/DM in about 15 years. Players think they are having a good time if they torture a prisoner. Last game I ran, Heralds from opposing sides met to discuss rules of engagement. The road back and forth twice. The last time the opposing herald road to drop a red kerchief on the field... and the players shot him in the back when he turned around. I have a good dm now, only problem is that he runs DND. Cant have everything.

[Markdoc]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

In the Fantasy Hero Campaign I'll Probably Never Get To Run' date=' my plan is to start everyone off with a 40 point Equipment pool and a 0 point Magic pool. During character creation, players could trade in equipment for magic on a one for one basis. That way you don't run into the problem of warriors over-powering wizards due to free "combat powers".[/quote']

 

I'd recommend strongly against this. The problem in any FH game is nor "warriors over-powering wizards due to free "combat powers" (which I've never seen happen) but warriors getting totally owned by wizards with cool "magic powers" (which I have seen happen all too often).

 

All the "pool balance" does is give the warrior access to a limited number of powers and the mage access a much more diverse range of powers at the same level.

 

The MOST important thing in GM'ing FH is getting magic right. Too many starting GMs remove the admittedly arbitrary restrictions on magic use you see in D&D and then (too late) realise those restrictions were the only thing stopping magic users from dominating every aspect of the game.

 

The GM needs to design a magic style he likes - but unless the goal is a game of magic-users and their sidekicks, he also needs to build in restrictions so that mages cannot use lots of magic, all the time.

 

cheers, Mark

[Netzilla]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I'd recommend strongly against this. The problem in any FH game is nor "warriors over-powering wizards due to free "combat powers" (which I've never seen happen) but warriors getting totally owned by wizards with cool "magic powers" (which I have seen happen all too often).

 

Millage obviously varies because I've seen exactly the problem you haven't (in more than one campaign). In the past, we've had the warrior characters dominate combat scenes to the point where the magic-reliant were superfluous. It was bad enough the first time it happened that we had to completely scrap the campaign. It was either that or re-design the characters from the ground up paying points for everything (back in 4th ed days) and by then the situation had left everyone with a bad taste anyway (which gets into player dynamics as well).

 

It gets even worse when you start getting into modern fantasy with guns vs magic because many of the things magic is used for in medieval fantasy can also be accomplished with modern tech. But it still can (and has) happened in medieval fantasy.

 

All the "pool balance" does is give the warrior access to a limited number of powers and the mage access a much more diverse range of powers at the same level.

 

That depends entirely upon how open your magic system is and what character points level you're talking about. The more restrictive the magic system or the lower the points value, the less chance there is for the mage to run hog wild and the more likely it is for the warriors to be over-efficient. Our group tends to favor tighter constraints on magic (though even with a completely open magic system we've had the problem of the over-powered warrior due to free equipment).

 

One of the most important rules is that weapons and magic can't over-balance each other. So, if you've got an auto-fire or area effect spell but no such equivalent in weapons, then those spells can't do as much damage as the weapon does. The same goes for magic vs normal armor.

 

The MOST important thing in GM'ing FH is getting magic right. Too many starting GMs remove the admittedly arbitrary restrictions on magic use you see in D&D and then (too late) realise those restrictions were the only thing stopping magic users from dominating every aspect of the game.

 

The GM needs to design a magic style he likes - but unless the goal is a game of magic-users and their sidekicks, he also needs to build in restrictions so that mages cannot use lots of magic, all the time.

 

Indeed, but as I mentioned above, I've seen warriors become overly dominant even with relatively open magic system, but that was also relatively low point-based characters (50-50 IIRC).

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

The GM needs to design a magic style he likes - but unless the goal is a game of magic-users and their sidekicks, he also needs to build in restrictions so that mages cannot use lots of magic, all the time.

 

cheers, Mark

 

What I have done to combat this problem - Magic isn't cheap (not exactly expensive either) multipower based. To be a solid mage takes about 40 to 50 pts.

I run a higher starting point levels.

Then I encourage the fighter types to take combat special builds - the area effect or autofire stuff from UMA/Ninja hero or follow through attack, that sort of thing. I encourage skill based to do superskills and non powered powers.

 

Mages end up with versatility, but they don't overpower the other types.

[Spence]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

 

1)

 

Millage obviously varies because I've seen exactly the problem you haven't (in more than one campaign). In the past, we've had the warrior characters dominate combat scenes to the point where the magic-reliant were superfluous.

 

--snip--

 

2)

 

It gets even worse when you start getting into modern fantasy with guns vs magic because many of the things magic is used for in medieval fantasy can also be accomplished with modern tech. But it still can (and has) happened in medieval fantasy.

 

--snip--

3)

Indeed, but as I mentioned above, I've seen warriors become overly dominant even with relatively open magic system, but that was also relatively low point-based characters (50-50 IIRC).

 

Snips and numbers mine….

 

I've seen this too, but look at it in a different way. Remember all this is opinion and YMMV .

 

1) Warrior PC's dominating combat. This is what they are supposed to do. If the magical types are a primary combat unit in the game then the campaign needs to go back to the drawing board. Magical types are there for the non-combat aspects of the game and to counter magical threats that a straight stick warrior cannot.

 

2) No real change here. Yes many of the item that used to be done with magic have tech alternates, but in the end the meat and potatoes of a magical type are not really different. Countering a magical or mystical threat that cannot be influenced by mundane means is still countering a magical or mystical threat that cannot be influenced by mundane means whether the warriors run around with swords or colt 45's.

 

3) This one I have only seen happen in a game where the magical types are not actual magical types, but just a backdoor way of eventually having a heavy weapons support team. Like many people here we have all read a lot of fantasy books that portray wizards of various types.

 

In my mind they are basically two types, great ones in literature and tales where they use wisdom and skill as well as their magic to overcome things and the D&D style “I’m just a thinly veiled substitute for a fully armed heavy weapons team circa 2000 with rockets, mines and machine guns”. If you are going the way of the munchkin, just eliminate the artificial “classes” and let everyone be a “Battle-mage” snapping off barrages of magic missiles and fireballs as they wade through the corpses, cutting down the enemy in windrows with their enchanted Sword of Doom. D&D all the way baby…..

 

 

For me the wizard is the most difficult PC to be played. They aren’t really designed to stand toe to toe against a hardened warrior, but given preparation they can take one out, or a large group. But against a wraith or a ghost or a enchanted creature they are the best bet. But remember the wizard rarely took on the dragon. Instead he enchanted the weapons of the warrior so the warrior could kill the dragon. At least that is how I look at it .

[Netzilla]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Snips and numbers mine….

 

I've seen this too, but look at it in a different way. Remember all this is opinion and YMMV .

 

noted

 

1) Warrior PC's dominating combat. This is what they are supposed to do. If the magical types are a primary combat unit in the game then the campaign needs to go back to the drawing board. Magical types are there for the non-combat aspects of the game and to counter magical threats that a straight stick warrior cannot.

 

For our group, it was more than just dominating. It was to the point of the mages being superfluous in combat. Basically, anything designed to be a descent fight for the warriors made the mages into spectators. Anything weak enough to be a fair fight for the mages the warriors walked through before the mages could do their thing. There's a big difference between working in a support role and having no impact on the outcome of battle. That's the kind of thing we ran into when equipment was free. The only time we didn't was when everyone paid points for everything.

 

2) No real change here. Yes many of the item that used to be done with magic have tech alternates, but in the end the meat and potatoes of a magical type are not really different. Countering a magical or mystical threat that cannot be influenced by mundane means is still countering a magical or mystical threat that cannot be influenced by mundane means whether the warriors run around with swords or colt 45's.

 

My experience is that it's very different with modern equipment. The areas where magic is special becomes much narrower because most things magic can do, tech does for free (long distance communication, high speed travel, enhanced & inhuman senses, autofire, area effect, etc).

 

The suggestion above would seem to cause things to run pretty much hot & cold where either the mages sit out the combat or the warriors do. That's fine on occasion, but not as a regular occurrence for either side. It also does nothing to balance out the fact that magic is also reduced in 'uniqueness' out of combat as well.

 

3) This one I have only seen happen in a game where the magical types are not actual magical types, but just a backdoor way of eventually having a heavy weapons support team. Like many people here we have all read a lot of fantasy books that portray wizards of various types.

 

Actually, none of our group plays the "magical artillery" style mage. They tend to prefer the 'sage with spells' archetype. However, when you've got a mage who's spent 25 out of 100 of his points on combat spells (plus various other non-combat spells) while the warrior has 25 points worth of combat gear for free (broadsword [11], medium bow [6], chainmail [5], shield [4]), the warrior effective points difference can make the mage a spectator in those combats not involving targets vulnerable only to magic. Also, out of combat, the warrior can spend those 25 points on social and investigative skills, giving said warrior an edge up there as well.

 

In my mind they are basically two types, great ones in literature and tales where they use wisdom and skill as well as their magic to overcome things and the D&D style “I’m just a thinly veiled substitute for a fully armed heavy weapons team circa 2000 with rockets, mines and machine guns”. If you are going the way of the munchkin, just eliminate the artificial “classes” and let everyone be a “Battle-mage” snapping off barrages of magic missiles and fireballs as they wade through the corpses, cutting down the enemy in windrows with their enchanted Sword of Doom. D&D all the way baby…..

 

I'd say you're missing a good deal of middle ground there.

 

Our group generally has at least one combat 3 out of every 4 game sessions. It really sucks when 1/3 to 1/2 the group is sitting out either because they're completely ineffective (more likely if they're not playing the artillery type mage) or have been one-shotted out of the fight. I've seen both situations equally often in our group. We generally get in about 4-6 hours of game time. If a combat takes up one or two of those hours, that's a good bit of sitting around.

 

For me the wizard is the most difficult PC to be played. They aren’t really designed to stand toe to toe against a hardened warrior, but given preparation they can take one out, or a large group. But against a wraith or a ghost or a enchanted creature they are the best bet.

 

Until the other characters start picking up magical gear of their own. Depends on the commonality of magical weapons and other gear.

 

But remember the wizard rarely took on the dragon. Instead he enchanted the weapons of the warrior so the warrior could kill the dragon. At least that is how I look at it .

 

In my experience, this works better in literature than it does in an RPG. In literature, you don't have to worry about 2 or 3 people sitting around looking bored for an hour or so. With our group it works best if all of the characters have some direct role in the fight with the dragon rather than having half the group just playing cheerleader after having cast spells to beef up the warriors.

 

Now, I realize that many groups have their own ways of preventing this potential game imbalance and whatever works for one group may not work for another. That's the main reason I responded to MarkDoc's 'strongly recommending against' my suggestion. His experience leads him to believe that magic will dominate unless gear is free. However, it's not my experience, it's come up on these boards & the old champions mailing list semi-regularly and the various FH supplements all contain ways of making magic cheaper rather than more expensive. All this suggests that his experience is no more universal than mine. So, I just wanted to explain the reasoning behind my ideas, not start any arguments.

 

My suggestion might not work for his group, and that's fine. Might not work for SJR's either, but it doesn't hurt to make him aware of it. With my group, the fact that we've achieved the best balance when everyone pays points for everything suggests that doing so can be a valid tactic. Resource Pools is simply an alternative way of allocating those points who's structure is both greater (limits on how much you can "carry") and lesser (no limits on how much you can own) than paying straight character points for everything.

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

That's the kind of thing we ran into when equipment was free. The only time we didn't was when everyone paid points for everything.

 

Scared newbie here Questions:

 

(A) When you say "free?" do you mean "free-free" (as in, any schmoe fighter could own a top-notch sword, barded warhorse and a heavy suit of armor right from session one and still have spending money left over) or "no points" free?

( What kind of groovy free things (either kind of free) were available to the mages?

 

The campaign world I'm adapting isn't a "magic is a special snowflake," kind of world, it's a "really awesome magic is a special snowflake" kind of world, with "ordinary workaday magic is available off the rack," which may help to balance things a bit ... Mages won't be able to purchase the Dread Staff of Badassitude on the blue-ticket rack at the thrift shop (or anything like it), but they'll be able to purchase energy-boosting gems and other non-fancy but useful tools that - on balance - will be as enhancing to them as good armor and steel is to a warrior (and approximately as expensive) ... the rule would be that normal stuff can be bought with cash, and that "normal stuff" includes some fundamental magical tools, not just mundane metal and leather. I'll be adapting the world right off the page, and the price-list is already well-stocked with low-key minor magics.

 

My suggestion might not work for his group, and that's fine. Might not work for SJR's either, but it doesn't hurt to make him aware of it.

 

Indeed, and I appreciate the differing viewpoints presented here ... It does little to quell my fears in the short term, but it gives me more to work with in the long

[Netzilla]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Scared newbie here Questions:

 

Bah, we've all been that. You're nothing special. ;-)

 

(A) When you say "free?" do you mean "free-free" (as in, any schmoe fighter could own a top-notch sword, barded warhorse and a heavy suit of armor right from session one and still have spending money left over) or "no points" free?

 

I meant points-free. However, watch out for the Wealth perk. Five character points in the weath perk gives the character the equvalent of around a $500,000 per year income. You can buy a lot gear on that. That works fine in games where you pay points for all gear, but you may want to adjust how much you get from wealth in campaigns wear equipment is money only.

 

( What kind of groovy free things (either kind of free) were available to the mages?

 

Do be honest, not much. Basically it was a campaign where nothing magical counted as mundane, therefore any magic-enhancing gear would have needed to cost points.

 

The campaign world I'm adapting isn't a "magic is a special snowflake," kind of world, it's a "really awesome magic is a special snowflake" kind of world, with "ordinary workaday magic is available off the rack," which may help to balance things a bit ... Mages won't be able to purchase the Dread Staff of Badassitude on the blue-ticket rack at the thrift shop (or anything like it), but they'll be able to purchase energy-boosting gems and other non-fancy but useful tools that - on balance - will be as enhancing to them as good armor and steel is to a warrior (and approximately as expensive) ... the rule would be that normal stuff can be bought with cash, and that "normal stuff" includes some fundamental magical tools, not just mundane metal and leather. I'll be adapting the world right off the page, and the price-list is already well-stocked with low-key minor magics.

 

Could work so long as the warrior types can't get as much mileage out of the minor magics as the mages can. Just like the mages can't get as much mileage out of a broadsword as a warrior does.

 

Indeed, and I appreciate the differing viewpoints presented here ... It does little to quell my fears in the short term, but it gives me more to work with in the long

 

Eh, pitfalls happen to everyone, but most everyone finds a way to make it work for their group, even if it's not the same way as other groups. You're credentialed enough in the RPG industry that I'm willing to bet you'll make things work as well. Heck, being a new to the system, a hard-core rules-based solution might not be the best fit for you anyway, and you'll get more effect out of asking your players to be reasonable and expect slight balance adjustments here and there until you're more solid on the rules.

[Markdoc]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Millage obviously varies because I've seen exactly the problem you haven't (in more than one campaign). In the past' date=' we've had the warrior characters dominate combat scenes to the point where the magic-reliant were superfluous. It was bad enough the first time it happened that we had to completely scrap the campaign. [/quote']

 

I'm curious. How did this happen? Why weren't magic-enhanced characters with free weaponry and armour able to decimate their "muscles-only" opponents?

 

Did you make in-game rules preventing magic-users from being able to benefit from weapons and armour?

 

cheers, Mark

[Netzilla]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I'm curious. How did this happen? Why weren't magic-enhanced characters with free weaponry and armour able to decimate their "muscles-only" opponents?

 

Did you make in-game rules preventing magic-users from being able to benefit from weapons and armour?

 

cheers, Mark

 

No rules prevented magic-users from using weapons & armor. However, most folks' image of a wizard doesn't involve him running around in chailmail while swinging a sword and shield. Yes, Gandalf did use a sword, but I don't recall him much relying on armor, nor was he much of a sword swinger during the Hobbit. Likewise, I don't recall much swordplay out of Merlin, Morgan Le Fay, most of the sorcerers from the Conan stories or a host of other archetypal spell casters. Regardless of that, however, the wizard just plain doesn't get as much mileage out of a sword as a warrior does.

 

To give you some numbers as an example, I'll go off the example warrior I gave earlier who had roughly 25 points worth of combat gear for free (sword, bow, chainmail & shield) as I don't have any old character sheets in front of me. In order to stay roughly on-par combat-wise, the wizard sinks about 25 points into combat spells (burning hand, fire bolt, mage armor & blink).

 

Worst-case, the warrior could invest those 25 points into combat-enhancing abilities: +6 DEX (12 pts), +1 SPD (4 pts after DEX), +5 STR (5 pts) & +2 CON [4 pts]. The warrior is now +2 DCV, +2 OCV, +1 action per turn, +1 Damage Class, +1 PD, possibly +1 ED (depending on the break point), +1 or 2 Recovery, +4 Endurance and +4 Stun. The warrior acts more often, hits harder & a greater percentage of the time, is harder to hurt and doesn't get hit as often. That's a pretty major set of combat advantages. The wizard is throughly out-classed in a fight. That doesn't even get into the wizard having to invest in more Endurance as the warrior is far more END-efficient than the wizard due to swords and armor not costing endurance while spells do.

 

Now, yes the wizard should be relying on range to defend himself while the warrior's in the thick of it. However if the enemy's brought any ranged weapons (spears & daggers, never mind having an archer or two in the group), that shield wall doesn't do the wizard much good. The warrior can also take advantage of range by using his bow and will be better at it due to the +2 OCV. Plus, who do you think becomes target #1 after the first spell is cast? If the wizard tries to make use of Area Effect, Armor Piercing, Autofire or other such advantages, his attack abilities either become much more expensive (thus widening the gap beyond 25 points) or comparatively weaker (that 1d6+1 [broadsword equivalent] attack drops to about a 1/2d6 with any of the listed advantages and can't even penetrate heavy leather (3 DEF).

 

On the other hand, the warrior could take those 25 points and invest them in non-combat skills. That's roughly 8 more social, investigative or esoteric-knowledge skills than the wizard can have, thus giving the warrior a wider wider skill-set than the wizard while maintaining the same combat effectiveness.

 

On the modern-fantasy front, we had a more extreme example in our Dark Champions/Low-Powered supers Monster Hunting campaign a while back. The Punisher clone was at the campaign limit on all combat abilities because while other characters invested about 50-60 points (out of 150) in magic & powers, he'd invested none. So, while the characters were on a par with Damage Classes & Defenses, the Punisher clone had a 3-4 CV advantage, with more autofire & area effect attacks due to his favorite weapons being an H&K MP5, CAWS and frag grenades. The combat prowess difference there was seriously ugly. Then add in the fact that he had equipment like night-vision goggles, a high-performance motercycle, climbing gear, restraints, cameras & microphones and so on, and the group super-mage was completely unable to stand out even with his VPP-based spell pool. The same was true of the cyborg (paid points for all her attacks & defenses), cold-based mutant (paid points for all his attacks, defense & movement) and martial-artist (didn't rely equipment). Like I said, though, this is an extreme example that crosses several genres and even more clearly should have used the Champions standard of paying points for everything.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Maybe its a creativity issue about magic for GMs and players. I've always seen the mages overpowering the opposition more often than not. It took me years to get a good balance. The thing is HERO is so flexible neither way has to be the norm. Wizard's advantages should be that they have assess to abilities others don't. Your spell set ( can players design their own? ) sounds like it needs some missile protection spells in any event.

I always felt a warrior of equal value should win in a straight up fight anyway. Versatility, flexibility, subtly and illusion are a wizard's friend. In my game the wizards often control and manipulate the flow of battle and allow the warriors to face fewer opponents at a time ,for example.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

N

 

On the modern-fantasy front, we had a more extreme example in our Dark Champions/Low-Powered supers Monster Hunting campaign a while back. The Punisher clone was at the campaign limit on all combat abilities because while other characters invested about 50-60 points (out of 150) in magic & powers, he'd invested none. So, while the characters were on a par with Damage Classes & Defenses, the Punisher clone had a 3-4 CV advantage, with more autofire & area effect attacks due to his favorite weapons being an H&K MP5, CAWS and frag grenades. The combat prowess difference there was seriously ugly. Then add in the fact that he had equipment like night-vision goggles, a high-performance motercycle, climbing gear, restraints, cameras & microphones and so on, and the group super-mage was completely unable to stand out even with his VPP-based spell pool. The same was true of the cyborg (paid points for all her attacks & defenses), cold-based mutant (paid points for all his attacks, defense & movement) and martial-artist (didn't rely equipment). Like I said, though, this is an extreme example that crosses several genres and even more clearly should have used the Champions standard of paying points for everything.

 

I can't imagine a VVP can't stand out. I guarantee with a reasonable GM my players could more than equal out with him.What does the punisher do when the demons come calling who largely ignore normal weapons or require mage sight to see or does nothing like that ever happen. I guess Just shows how differently peoples play experiences and problems are group to group I suppose. Sounds like your group definitely needs some gear control whereas we needed magic control. Strangely enough, switching to HERO pretty much fixed all my magic problems because you can clearly define the effects so well.

[Netzilla]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Maybe its a creativity issue about magic for GMs and players. I've always seen the mages overpowering the opposition more often than not. It took me years to get a good balance. The thing is HERO is so flexible neither way has to be the norm. Wizard's advantages should be that they have assess to abilities others don't. Your spell set ( can players design their own? ) sounds like it needs some missile protection spells in any event.

 

The spells I listed in my previous post were purely an off-the-cuff equivalent to sword, bow, chainmail and shield. Don't read too much into it.

 

In our past FH campaigns, players were allowed to create their own spells. Regardless, how many points should a wizard have to spend to get the spell-equivalent of chailmail protection (possibly even more since the wizard typically has lower Stun & Body) vs missiles and should he be SOL in melee? Missile Deflection can get just as expensive and be less reliable than Force Field or Armor. Most magic systems I've seen require the use of END or Charges on all spells (as was the case in all our old FH campaigns), so make sure to add in the cost of enough Endurance to keep those spells running for the whole combat while still moving and maintaining an offence. Add in the action(s) taken to cast the spell(s) (unless you're allowing instant-casting). Finally, watch out for surprise attacks that happen before you've cast your defensive spells.

 

Most of the players in my group, myself included, have been playing Hero System for over 20 years each with even more experience with RPGs in general. We're all a fairly imaginative bunch with eclectic reading lists. I really doubt was a matter of creativity. The problem could just as easily be your group's lack of warrior or GM tactical creativity (making use of terrain, the sweep maneuver, shield walls, supporting bowmen and the like) or points creativity (extra DEX, SPD, STR, combat levels, martial arts, etc rather than spells). Could also be that you allowed a more wide-open magic system without giving comparative flexibility options to the warriors. Maybe your group was using a magic system that offered a cost break for magic (like the 1/3 in the Turakian Age or the skill-based system in Tuala Morn). Maybe your group was working with a higher points base then mine so 25 points worth of equipment was comparatively small.

 

I really don't understand this need for folks here to suggest that the problems my group faced weren't actually problems or that the solution we came up with (paying points for everything) was somehow wrong. Alternatives exist, yes, but to suggest that we were somehow not creative because we chose a different solution than you did servs no useful purpose.

 

I always felt a warrior of equal value should win in a straight up fight anyway.

 

No argument there. Remember, I'm talking about wizard's being made superfluous by the discrepancy, not just being weaker. Also, this says nothing to the problem that arises out of combat when the warrior invests the points he saved on equipment in non-combat abilities. On a 100-point character, 25 more points for skills is a major advantage be they combat or non-.

 

Versatility, flexibility, subtly and illusion are a wizard's friend. In my game the wizards often control and manipulate the flow of battle and allow the warriors to face fewer opponents at a time ,for example.

 

Can you provide me an example 25-point spell list that will do all the things you suggest while keeping the Active Cost/DC within a range similar to that of most starting-character's FH weapons (30-40AP, 6-8 DC)? Area Effect & Autofire drive up active costs pretty quick. Don't forget to take into account the END hit and the time it takes to cast those spells.

 

Also, what are your campaign's warriors investing those same 25 points in?

 

Finally, why do you suppose it is that all the FH products I've seen (FH Grimois, Valdorian Age, Turakian Age, Tuala Morn, FH itself) all suggest ways of making magic cheaper if it's so much more effective all the time?

[Netzilla]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I can't imagine a VVP can't stand out. I guarantee with a reasonable GM my players could more than equal out with him.

 

Perhaps I spoke too strongly when I said "completely unable". However, the majority of the time he was seriously out-shined in combat and frequently out of combat because of the extra 60 points punisher-clone had in combat and non-combat skills, contacts, perks and the like.

 

What does the punisher do when the demons come calling who largely ignore normal weapons or require mage sight to see or does nothing like that ever happen.

 

What does the mage do when the ninjas, terrorists, werewolves (or can the gun wielder not find silver bullets), cultists and the like attack or do all combats involve foes immune to normal weapons? Just how often should be mage be made superfluous in order to get that one shot at the bullet immune demon? Also, if the demon is immune to the Punisher, then it will go after the mage first and foremost (as he's the only one who can hurt/see it) and the rest of the group is left sitting on the sidelines ineffective. This goes back to the mage's competence running hot & cold that I mentioned when someone brought this idea up yesterday.

 

I guess Just shows how differently peoples play experiences and problems are group to group I suppose. Sounds like your group definitely needs some gear control whereas we needed magic control. Strangely enough, switching to HERO pretty much fixed all my magic problems because you can clearly define the effects so well.

 

Like I mentioned before, different groups will have more or less success with different solutions. Paying points for everything is what's worked best for my group. Might not be the case for yours or someone else's. I really don't think it's a matter of creativity, system knowledge or anything of the like as there are too many other variables to nail it down to any one solution for all issues. Different campaigns have different character points limits, active points limits, DC limits, inherent restrictions on magic, types of foes as well as different players. Solutions need to be tailored to the group & campaign in question and having a variety of solutions discussed can give new players more ideas on what might work for their particular situation.

[S. John Ross]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

Could work so long as the warrior types can't get as much mileage out of the minor magics as the mages can. Just like the mages can't get as much mileage out of a broadsword as a warrior does.

 

A warrior won't have any use at all for the magic-use tools (the energy gems, the scrolls and so on). And then there are low-key magics anyone can use equally (healing potions, for example, or a pot of magic super-glue). But the price-list, in this case, was already designed from the ground up to do exactly what we're talking about ... insure that any ten randomly-chosen PCs of any type (wizard, warrior, or other), suddenly showered with ridiculous wealth, would benefit from that wealth more-or-less equally, in adventure-mojo terms. I'm a very careful fellow with my price-lists

 

You're credentialed enough in the RPG industry that I'm willing to bet you'll make things work as well.

 

I'm a good GM, but never let the industry cred fool you Sadly, a huge number of well-credentialed RPG writers don't (and don't even care to) game regularly anymore ... Hero gamers are fortunate to have a certain Steven S. Long, who is a for-real gamer in addition to being a sinister robot writing machine from Planet Wordcount.

 

Heck, being a new to the system, a hard-core rules-based solution might not be the best fit for you anyway, and you'll get more effect out of asking your players to be reasonable and expect slight balance adjustments here and there until you're more solid on the rules.

 

That's definitely the way I'll be proceeding once I'm behind the screen ... but the end-goal is an article for Blue Lamp Road, so I want to make sure it's mechanicaly sound as well, at least by the time I'm finished with it. There are lots of stages before that, though: first, I'll be a player in a local FH campaign, to get a feel for it from that side. Only once I'm comfy with the system as a player will I step up to the plate to GM, and then so on from there.

 

This is a small project in terms of the scope/audience for the article, but it's a big project for me, personally, since I'm way, way overdue for logging some flight-hours as a Hero System GM.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

 

 

What does the mage do when the ninjas, terrorists, werewolves (or can the gun wielder not find silver bullets), cultists and the like attack or do all combats involve foes immune to normal weapons? Just how often should be mage be made superfluous in order to get that one shot at the bullet immune demon? Also, if the demon is immune to the Punisher, then it will go after the mage first and foremost (as he's the only one who can hurt/see it) and the rest of the group is left sitting on the sidelines ineffective. This goes back to the mage's competence running hot & cold that I mentioned when someone brought this idea up yesterday.

 

 

 

L

 

Perhaps i spoke badly my point was the GM should give everyone their bits and tailor encounters a little for everyone to shine. If the mage can't use his pool that's another issue. A mage with a VVP and a decent imagination really should be the star of the show not gunbunnyman unless magic is pretty darn limited.

As to our demon, imagine the other players fighting a hopeless battle to keep the demon of the mage or their last hope is gone! I just did this a couple of weeks ago and it was a really exciting run. One of the best in a long time.

As to what the mage could do.Imagine cultists with one of my favorite powers unnoticabilty ( take that night goggles) that the mage must use his magic to make visible to others.The mage could mindscan for those nasty ninjas. maybe the mage could use magic to anticipate or track the werewolf. Terrorists should probably be more the gunman's zone though. But if the player can't put out none of these things can happen:D

Good luck with the campaign and use whatever works for you guys.

[pinecone]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

What sort of fantasy campaigns do you enjoy the most (and why)?

 

High powered, almost superheroic? Low powered, gritty and deadly? Epic stories? Stories of a band of people just making it in a big city? Almost Earth-like settings? Weird settings? Long, world-spanning quests? Political court intrigue?

 

Obviously we can all love many different types of campaigns, but what are your favorites? What have you enjoyed? What would you love to play (or run) but have never had the opportunity?

 

Ones I don't have to run...I'd dearly like to play someday...

[Curufea]

Re: What kind of fantasy campaigns do you love?

 

I meant points-free. However, watch out for the Wealth perk. Five character points in the weath perk gives the character the equvalent of around a $500,000 per year income. You can buy a lot gear on that. That works fine in games where you pay points for all gear, but you may want to adjust how much you get from wealth in campaigns wear equipment is money only.

 

I don't normally allow the wealth perk. It's a level of abstraction that is out of genre for most fantasy hero games, unless you wanted a pulpy high adventure feel with little attention to detail. But in most genres of Fantasy Hero - you care about what you eat, how much money you have, how you travel, what the weather is like and so onl.